Amicable Separation?

Matt, thanks for taking this on. And thanks for this sentence, in particular: “The problem is that the longer we remain institutionally ‘conjoined’ the more vitriolic and debased we will become.”

I thnk any honest blog jockey has to admit that we run the risk of debasement almost every time we arch our fingers over the keyborad.

My hope is that parishes would be able to switch provincial identity without having to give up their property.  If we arrive at a situation where we have a number of dioceses who form a new institutional entity in full communion with Canterbury there will be many parishes within those dioceses which would prefer to be in TEC (eg the parish currently in dispute with +Beckwith in Springfield).  I pray that all sides will agree on an arrangement in which parishes in ‘Old TEC’ can move painlessly into the ‘New Province’, and parishes in ‘New Province’ can go in the other direction, without money or property changing hands.  This must be the ideal scenario.

I’m afraid that, while I would prefer to be a part of a new Province, that choice would actually not “cool things down” because the real argument, as people on both sides know, has been and is what the Anglican Communion shall be made up of.

In other words, were there to be a new province in the USA, the fights would continue and intensify, because the issue is and has been: “who represents Anglican Communion identity—the “reappraisers” or “reasserters”.

All of the property/legal issues are but side issues to that one question.

So yes, I would like to be a part of another province.  But that province would need to be either 1) out of the Anglican Communion along with all the rest of the reasserting provinces in a new communion, or 2) in the Anglican Communion, while ECUSA went out and started another “communion” with their various reappraising provinces.

1. What is the most constructive way to handle the property issues?
I agree with that it makes sense to have a sale, or at the parish’s option, a lease, at a price set below market (based on current use.) The theory behind a purchase requirement is that prior generations have contributed to the construction of the facilities with the understanding it would be held in TEC indefinately. (Obviously, the two sides differ on that underlying issue but would need to put that disagreement aside for purposes of a settlement—it is not productive to debate it here).  Credit should be given for capital contributions made by the parish in recent history, say seven years, under the theory that those were clearly made by the parishioners who want to leave and they should not have to “pay twice”. An extended payment schedule, say ten years, should be agreed upon.
2. The new entity should be an ember of another province.

Sarah, I believe that once you addressed the financial side (who gets the assets, concerns about credit for non-vested time in the Church Fund, Priests concerns about be inhibited, etc.) other things would work out over time.

100% with Sarah on this one.  Until we clearly identify who and what worldwide Anglicinism is about, local disputes about property are a band-aid.  Regrettably, two churches in one house (here in N. America) is really just a subset of two worldwide churches in one house (AC) internationally. 

Sure it would settle some things for those parishes and priests under Bishops they disagree with (and that is a good thing) temporarily but if the “Province” they run to ends up changing allegiances with ABC or simply continues sliding toward the “other” direction, musical chairs starts all over agin.

As it appears that we are on the cusp of a more far reaching solution (covenant, new province with TEC becoming “associate”, or even a worldwide realignment) now may not be the right time to rearrange the deck chairs.

Although, getting negotiations going has value if we can get to a formula that all will commit to that allows Parishes to excersize this over, say, the next 3 years.  As a member of the Vestry where we just approved moving forward with an expansion that will include additional long-term debt, after several months of serious debate and considerable soul searching, it would have been great to know exactly what our “worst-case” was if we are forced to make a move.

“I agree with that it makes sense to have a sale, or at the parish’s option, a lease, at a price set below market (based on current use.)”

Well, yes, I do think after the Communion declares that those who sign on to Lambeth 98, the Windsor Report, and the new Covenant represent the presence of Anglicanism in North America, the reappraisers should be allowed to purchase their property on the way out. :0

1. There needs to be a settlement of the property issues while both sides have something to lose. Otherwise, it will never occur. Here, an element of uncertaintly about the future actually helps.  If a settlement opportunity arises (and I am not optimistic) you should take it. There will be no perfect time, and every decision involves risk. Don’t demand a pound of flesh.
2.  Local property disputes may be considered by some a “band aid” but fears over loss of assets, financial futures, etc. are a driver in the current US debate on both sides.  It shouldnt be that way, but it is.  Until you provide a structure for resolving that, these financial concerns will distort the other issues. 
3.  Whenever an influential person like Mr. Naughton comes to the table to engage in a discussion about an amicable seperation, regardless of how informal, you should do everything possible to pursue the idea as swiftly as possible.  His inquiry may very well be the work of the Holy Spirit in our midst.
4.  The idea of a property settlement option should be a one-time deal, with congregations getting title to their property (no “Dennis Canon” upon departure). In light of that, a congregation that aligns with one entity (say, a GS province in the interim) can move to a new Province or structure when it is final or if they determine they have made a mistake. They can alway move back to TEC.

Mr. Witt beat me to the keyboard on this one.  My problems are various.  1)  I want to stay an Anglican in the true sense of the word.  2) I do not wish to pay twice for property that my pledges and those of my relatives paid for over the years.  3)  Considering that ECUSA’s “new thing” is a relatively new innovation (last 40 years or so) it is safe to assume that the vast stronghold of wealth (endowments) held by ECUSA belong to reasserters, it seems a little uppity of the reappraisers to just assume that the reasserters should “buy their way out.”  I know my relatives would be rolling over in their graves repeatedly at the thought of what their money supports today. 
Amicable divorce?  I agree it is time.  But like the Lutherans, the split must go all the way to the core so that there is no doubt who is Anglican and who is not.

I think that if the separate province were created first, it would keep things from boiling over, and allow the question of what the Anglican Communion is to be worked out thoughtfully over time.

On the property question, Mr. Naughton refers to “below-market” sales.  I would try to clarify it further by saying that it should be the value of the church as a church, and not for its development potential as something else.  I would then suggest that value be further adjusted depending upon what local law says about who owns the property.  Thus, in California, the parish should probably pay next to nothing if the diocese is not on the title.  In another state that has clear case law that applies the diocesan canon trust concept, there should probably be little adjustment.

A separate question is how to determine if a parish can realign to the new diocese and province.  I’d suggest an overwhelming majority of the clergy, vestry and a clean parish vote be required.  Frankly, I think that a parish that is 50-50 probably should stay in ECUSA.  Finally, allowing the decision as one-time, and having to be made during a “window” period also seems reasonable.  The PCA-PCUSA division operated in such a manner (yes, under different historical facts, but they did work out a set of rules for amicable separation opportunity that seems to have worked out fine).

A few thoughts about an amicable divorce.

1. We can’t solve all the problems overnight.  The wider Anglican relalignment will be much easier if ECUSA goes through an amicable divorce - it would make it much easier on Rowan Williams and I believe that an amicable divorce in ECUSA would hasten the departure of “liberal ECUSA” from worldwide Anglicanism.  So I think that we could live with some messiness at the macro-Anglican level for a few years while the divorce happens.  There is no immediate need to declare one side or the other “non-Anglican”.  It will inevitably be decided on.

2. We need the leadership of ECUSA to embrace, rather then deny reality.  This is the biggest obstacle to the divorce.

3. The first step would be to agree that a divorce needs to happen and proceed from there to establish the identity of the two jurisdictions.  We should NOT look on this as the Network seceeding from ECUSA.  Rather, we should look on this as the chance for orthodox/Windsor/Communion dioceses to form one jurisdiction and, on the other hand, for progressive dioceses to form another jurisdiction.  Both can legitimately claim to be true inheritors of old ECUSA.  The need for the divorce must happen BEFORE the sides are concretely defined.  We don’t want the extremists to define the jurisdictions, nor do we want more then 2 options.

4. To begin with, both resultant jurisdictions would jointly inherit old ECUSA’s Anglican franchise.  These jurisdictions would then each be subject ON THEIR OWN to any Anglican Communion discipline that may be exercised against them.  That is to say, that if the Primates decided the very next day that “liberal ECUSA” should be excluded from the Anglican Communion, then so be it.

5. Because both jurisdictions would inherit ECUSA’s claims, parishes would need to choose which jurisdiction to align with and their property would transfer with them.  Once the jurisdictions divided, then each jurisdiction would decide how future departures would be handled.  If “liberal ECUSA” retained the Dennis Canon, then so be it.  If “Windsor ECUSA” permitted parishes to depart with property, so be it.

In my parish, there is no overwhelming majority.  Both sides have deep emotional attachments to the property, and each other.  Memories of marriages and baptisms, and family ashes spread on the grounds no less, make this a difficult call.  In this case, I hope that the prevailing side could lease time to the other side for services, in the way that churches of other denominations have used the buildings and grounds.  This could be a way to share ongoing upkeep expenses without suddenly cutting the support by nearly half.

Timothy wrote:

The theory behind a purchase requirement is that prior generations have contributed to the construction of the facilities with the understanding it would be held in TEC indefinately.

I don’t think so.  This is certainly not the assumption of the law in California.  The assumption is that contributions go to the parish, with only a very small percentage going to the national or even diocesan level.

Purchase may make sense in some cases, and may not make sense in other cases.  I am certain that it does not make sense in all cases.

It’s easy to see, all, how “Communion” has been, and will be defined—as Dr. Witt says, note Lambeth ‘98 and the Windsor Report, and I’ll add to that the Virginia Report of 1996, which can also be downloaded off the AC website.  “Communion’s” definition will continue to evolve through subsequent Primates Meetings and Lambeth Conferences, as well it should through the 4 Instruments of Unity. 

The inherent problem with this, though, is that many DEFINE “Communion” but no one “enforces” it—not surprising as Anglicanism has always tried, somewhat to its detriment, to avoid being like any sort of dictatorial Papacy.  But, you create serious problems when you don’t discipline or enforce, as we are all finding out. 

If I remember correctly, the Windsor Report calls for the formation of some sort of discipline—TEC has forced this hand, with its apostate theologies of the last 40 years and its recent violations of *how* we are all supposed to behave “in community”. 

I would look to the Primates’ meeting 2/07 and Lambeth ‘08 to shed some light on these issues.  I think the issue of geographical boundaries will eventually go away, but issues of “discipline”, if they even come to pass, will be ongoing.  I see this as an evolutionary process and not one that will ever be absolute or etched in stone.  But, in my view it will still evolve for the better. 

When the “boundaries” issue is addressed on the World Stage, the law/property questions/answers can also be clarified.

California law makes the assumption that one independently incorporated non-profit can’t use the courts to just take over another independently incorporated non-profit just because they share the same identity and internal rules (canons). If a congregation bought, built, maintains, and operates its facility on its own, it belongs to the congregation. “Aided” missions would, of course, lose out in this case.

There’s a lot to chew on in these responses. Would anyone be interested in zeroing in on the forming a new province v. joining an existing province issue? To my way of thinking, it makes more sense for Episcopal parishes that don’t want to belong to the Episcopal Church to join an existing province than to create a new one. It just seems cleaner. But either way it would set a complicated precedent.

If these churches formed a new province, the Communion would have set a precedent for establishing multiple entities within an existing province. (This assumes the Episcopal Church isn’t thrown out immediately, of course.) If the departing churches joined an existing province, then the Communion would have given a green light, in principle at least, to ministering on each other’s turf—competing, if you will. I gather from some of his writings that the Archbishop of Canterbury is particuarly wary of the second of these options, but to me it is accomplishes the same thing in a more straightforward way.

Several of you have mentioned that the resolution of the issues we are discussing depends in some degree on the issue of whether the Episcopal Church will be in the Communion X number of months from now, and on whether there will be one Anglican Communion or two. I am not sure that this is the case. As I understand it, whether the EC is in or out of the AC won’t make much difference in U. S. courts. So the question of how best to separate would remain. Also, while I don’t have any particular insight on this matter, I think it is entirely possible that any province that pledges itself to the covenant-drafting process will retain its membership in the Communion at least until a decision is required on signing the covenant. That may take a while. And when that while is over, there is at least the possibility that the covenant will be of the kind that Archbishop Morgan has discussed, in which case it is possible that the Episcopal Church could sign it. I mention this not to suggest that I think one side is going to outnamenuver the other (although this may happen) but to point out that there are a number of factors beyond any of our control and that there may be some value in attempting to work out some of the issues of ownership and alignment in an arena in which we call more of the shots.

Muller and Sr. Priest, I said that it was the “theory” behind requiring a payment.  I realize that the case law varies from state to state, and the there are factual distinctions (depending on the date and wording of your deed, etc.).  However, as I recall the California successions are still in litigation and the legal rights are disputed as they are in other states.  Any settlement framework would represent a compromise of disputed positions.  It is a non-starter to demand that a settlement reflect one sides view of the law or facts.  The value of a peaceful resolution of property and asset disputes would be huge. 

John316, I feel your pain. Notwithstanding this thread, I think most would agree that the chances of a national negotiated property settlement framework are very low, and the idea is anathema to many Bishops. Obviously, you don’t want to raise money to construct or improve a facility unless it is going to continue to be used by the congregation; and the only assumption you can make at this point is that the facility will remain a TEC church indefinately.

Matt,

Besides loving the people and valuing our long associations, there are two substantive reasons many of us are hanging on in disputed parishes in revisionist dioceses:

1.  We’re unwilling to leave the less solid folks at the mercy of false teaching—a clear failure of charity, unless it’s absolutely unavoidable.

2.  We don’t want to leave the building as what the civil code describes as an ‘attractive nuisance’, like an unfenced swimming pool.  You see, they look so much like churches.  We’ve been entrusted with them, and it isn’t right to let others use them to entice people to their destruction.  (That isn’t our Worthy Opponents’ motive, at all—some of my best friends, etc.—but it is liable to be the result all the same.)

The life of the Church is all about Jesus setting people free from their sins—transforming them into the image and likeness of Christ, not celebrating their messes, whatever those may be.  Transformation still happens at this particular Little Stone Bridge, and I’m not giving up—but it’s definitely a rear guard action at this point.

The clearer the separation, the easier it’ll be for us to make the distinction clear to the waverers, so I’d prefer a separate Anglican entity, with some sort of get-out-of-jail-free card for everybody, expiring in a year, say. 

As far as the building goes, it’s a beautiful place, and I love it—but if the Gospel isn’t going to be preached there, I’d rather it got turned into a parking lot.

Cheers,

Phil H

Timothy,
It’s tough stuff, especially to consider after hearing Mark 10 as the Gospel reading Sunday.  A friend, some would call a “worthy opponent”, but I call him a friend, struggles with what to make of a son who is gay and in love, and who loves the Lord as well.  Really tough!

One problem that could possibly be worked out is the issue of “Fair Value” for a Parish Property, relative to the degree of financial contributions made by the Diocese vs. the Parish itself.  There are some Parishes that were totally financed by their Diocese, then later subsidized until the Parish got on its feet.  Some parishes have Diocesan loans that were granted at extremely low rates.
Other Parishes were very well off, some even before before the Diocese was created, never borrowed or received a dime from the Diocese, and therefore have no Diocesan “interest” in their assets.  Perhaps a neutral Auditor or Assessor or Arbiter, satisfactory to both parties, i.e. Diocese and Parish, could be appointed and the degree of Parish vs Diocesan Investment determined.  Parishes could then pay off the Diocesan-Contribution portion and then depart the Diocese.  The Diocese would get its investment back.  The Parish would not be forced to “double pay”.  This could be done in all Dioceses for any Parish wishing to transfer to another Diocese or Anglican Jurisdiction, no matter which “direction” in the Great Divide the particular parish wished to go.  The nice thing here for Dioceses is that they would receive liquid cash instead of empty buildings, with which the Dioceses could reinvest that cash in the remaining parishes more tuned to the Diocese and larger Anglican Jurisdiction.
Just a thought .... *S*

To me it all seems relatively simple: those who are proclaiming that they are doing “a new thing” (to use their own words) have already confessed that they are no longer in the Anglican tradition.  They are creating a new church and religion of their own.  They are therefore the ones who should be out buying new property, building new churches, coming up with a new name for themselves—starting over, in other words.  What they practice is by their own admission not Anglicanism.  In the case of Spong, Matthew Fox and their ilk, it is not even strictly speaking Christianity.

So, reappraisers, leave the Anglican churches to the Anglicans.  You don’t even like Gothic architecture, do you? It smacks of that hierarchical oppressive heritage you’re so eager to leave behind.  Build new, progressive buildings in styles that pay tribute to your ideals (ie egalitarian circular temples without sanctuaries) to worship your Mother God in.  Leave us the churches—and the Faith—we love.

I’m not joking or snarking.  I mean it.  Like Martin Luther, have the full courage of your convictions and split off from the church you’ve repudiated.  Don’t hang on to what you’ve already rejected.  Begin anew.  And leave us be.

Mere Christian is right that equitable financial results must be reached all around. It is hard to say what will work in all cases, because the circumstances of each parish is different. Similar equitable results must also be reached for clergy pensions. If an ECUSA priest joins a new province, he should not forfeit his pension. None of this should be a show stopper if people on both sides want a settlement.

The special problems created by closely divided parishes, as posited by Jim Naughton, may not exist very often. Since 2003 ordinary people have been voting with their feet. My (reappraising) parish has lost a steady stream of reasserters to a reasserter parish across town. Other people have left for other denominations. My family will likely join the exodus soon. The point is that, as a practical matter, many parishes will end up being overwhelmingly reasserter or reappraiser without any action by the authorities.

One of the things I love about this thread is it says (to me), “Okay, venom aside . . . what do we really want to see happen and how can we get there from here?” 

I think the very first step is to define what the reasserter institution is clearly so that each individual can pray about it and determine where the Holy Spirit tells them they belong.  The ACN has a Core Purpose, Vision, and Values - but we need something deeper than that.  Something that clearly, but without prejudice and name-calling, makes the case for a new institution and what that new institution entails. 

The second key factor is to determine how split are we?  Is what is happening in TEC/ECUSA merely advanced notice of what is going to happen to most of the Anglican churches in the Western world?  Are there two communions - and if so, what are our options?  Should there be two communions clearly separated from each other or can there be one communion with two sub-communions?  And how important is communion when weighed upon fidelity to God’s Word? 

Once we have a clear definition of the problem, solutions can emerge.  There will not be a one-solution-fits-all to the property situation.  This will require a series of solutions tailored to various situations.  But this is all do-able if we can get to the point where we agree to the split and work to make it as amiable as possible.  This means some are going to have to do things that are distasteful, such as pay for a church property they’ve already paid for - but if it benefits the greater good of the institutional split, it’s worth praying about and possibly doing what you think is not fair to you. 

While I am anxious for the split, I see that we (reasserters) haven’t entirely done our homework.  Perhaps we need our own convention (can we have an online convention via Stand Firm???):) to flesh out what our new organization would be before we can ask for it to be given to us.

This is kind of off topic but I think whatever form the new “orthodox” Anglican “communion” takes- it needs to completely lose any hint of “Episcopal” in it name.  As much as Bishop Duncan insists the ACN remains the Episcopal Church it is interesting that the Diocese of Pittsburgh’s latest church plant doesn’t include Episcopal in its name.
http://www.graceslipperyrock.com/

Jim, I very much appreciate this dialogue. The current environment is corrosive to those on both sides of the debate, and needs to end. Matthew 5:9 to ya.
St. Anonymous, your post seems out of place in a discussion speculating about the outlines of a negotiated settlement.  Many of us may agree with your sentiments, but your stand is a prescription for delay, litigation and losing a lot of court cases, resulting in the exact opposite of what you seek.
Tami, I dont see how you can’t wait on fleshing out a new organization because it may not be known for a long time (and will likely be continually evolving), just as TEC’s resting place in global Anglicanism may not be known for a good while. There is nothing that would prevent a seperated church from aligning with whatever cojoined entity is produced by Lambeth or elsewhere.  If you are a closely divided parish on the seperation issue, as a practical matter your parish will end up staying in TEC (as it probally should).  If you have a parish that wants overwhelmingly to leave TEC, then you can’t wait long because your members will continue to drift away and your decision making (capital campaigns, Diocisian pledge committments, etc. is frozen due to the uncertainty).
Publius, you can’t make it too complicated. You can’t ascribe motives to people that gave to a church capital fund 50 years ago.  For a settlement to occur, the cloud on title created by the Dennis Canon has to be given value and the arguments of the other side factored in. My proposal, to give a purchase credit for any capital donations or debt retirement by the parish that occurred during the last ten years against a “current use” purchase price, assumes that most those donations were made by those who, by for example a 2/3 vote, have expressed a desire to leave TEC. You could do a sliding scale. You could provide for an arbitration procedure in exceptional cases. But when faced with two alternative solutions, one simple and one complex, always take the simpler one.
In regard to details, the parties could agree on a arbitrator (Carey++?) and designate representatives with authority (approved in in accordance with the Constitution or bylaws of the groups involved.) I assume the ACN would represent the interests of those that wish to seperate.  The Pension Fund issue could be resolved with the aid of some experts in the field.  Endowments would follow any express instructions associated with the Trust Account and if none exist could be apportioned in some fashion perhaps along the lines of the property settlement. The remaining issues should be as narrow as possible. The Enemy would try to expand any such negotiations to make them impossible to accomplish.
Friends, we are only talking about a relatively small percentage of TEC parishes that would ultimately seperate under any settlement.  It thus could be done, but only if people on both sides really want this disfunctional relationship to end.

John316, I been in your shoes. On reflection, I was wrong to to imply that it was inapprpriate for your parish to have a capital campaign.  It is fine as long as potential contributors be given an honest disclosure. Our human side (including consultants in the business) have a tendancy to engage in spin in order to generate the largest possible donations.  Don’t mislead your “revisionist” parishioners into believing that they are donating to a parish that will likely remain TEC if that is not your realistic hope and expectation; and don’t mislead your reasserter contributors into believing that your parish will likely leave TEC (or that if it does it will keep the facilities) if that is not realistic.

A wonderfully American thread: how to preserve our materialism while sounding high-minded.  But folks, go back and look at the practicality of what you propose.  Hard as it might look today to change TEC—in tooth and claw—changing TEC would be child’s play compared to de novo denomination building.  Sure it would require overthrowing General Convention, 815, Diocesan politics, and Seminaries, and would take a generation.  How long and how hard would anyone estimate the work of just getting into courts and appeals, or onto the radar screens of the necessary Anglican allies?  Why is the true Gospel preached outside TEC more efficacious than when preached within, in a powerful way?  Ahh—it is that powerful way which is the root of the problem: the orthodox message is not being heard within TEC not because of our stars but because of ourselves, dear ones.  Yes it is offensive to be forced into association with some of these Episcopalians; starting over will not be clean or tidy.

terebinth - Do you really think that there will be a next generation to carry on this fight if we abandon our little stone bridges? 

How naive.

I applaud Jim Naughton’s appeal for all parties to find a way to have an “amicable” divorce. I think he has faced the issues within ECUSA/TEC squarely and has arrived at the same conclusion as the ACN has: we have two irreconcilable “churches” within the same structure. My hat is off to you, Mr. Naughton, despite our disagreements in the past!  You have shown yourself to be a gentleman with a charitable spirit!  I think you may be under a misapprehension that TEC will have a part in crafting the Anglican Covenant. I suspect that one oaf the consequences of the pitiful response to Windsor/Dromantine made by GC 2006 is that TEC will not be allowed to have any input whatsoever as to what is in the Covenant-to-be.  This is speculation on my part, but is based on how I comprehend and read the Kigali Communiqué. despite the attemtpts by Archbishop Ndugane and Canon Colin Slee to deny that the Kigali statemnt has any real meaning. I think both gentlemen are in for an unpleasant surprise on that score.

Sarah Hey says:

I’m afraid that, while I would prefer to be a part of a new Province, that choice would actually not “cool things down” because the real argument, as people on both sides know, has been and is what the Anglican Communion shall be made up of.

Sarah, I think you realize (given your comments about the 6 groupings around the Camp Allen meeting) that the Covenant process will take a while to play out. It is that process which ultimately will determine just what it means to be part of the Anglican Communion. Mr. Naughton’s suggestion is similar to what +Bob Duncan is talking about when he asks for “some space” to work without fear of retribution or retaliation while the Communion sorts itself out. The proposed “peaceful” separation is merely temporary and would not (or should not) be considered a “final solution.”  At least, I do not view it as such.

Something definitely worth thinking about and considering!

“St. Anonymous, your post seems out of place in a discussion speculating about the outlines of a negotiated settlement.  Many of us may agree with your sentiments, but your stand is a prescription for delay, litigation and losing a lot of court cases, resulting in the exact opposite of what you seek.”

You’re right, Timothy.  I know that in the short term my position will do no good.  But sometimes you can’t help screaming into the wind.  My post was a last-ditch appeal to any reappraisers who may read it to do what they want to do.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard reappraising Anglican clergy and academics jeer at their own church; deride traditional architecture, the liturgy… everything.  One sneered in my hearing that the font is a “holy birdbath” and suggested it would be better to have full immersion in an indoor pool.  The same person snidely referred to the procession of choir & clergy as a “parade.”

These people hate the traditional church with a passion.  They want new hymns, new liturgical language, new rituals, new architecture.  That being the case, why not start over from the beginning, and leave the old buildings and properties behind?  This schism is their perfect opportunity to start with a blank slate, redefining everything as they wish.  Why not take it?

Jackie: yes I do have reason to expect more generations: we have four strong Christian children reared in TEC, and they are fully armed w/babies on the way.  It is not a little stone bridge, “it” is the Body of Christ.  Have you seriously considered what underlies the word “our” when you speak of that bridge?  I realize it is “not done” to challenge the precepts of SFIF, but Jesus challenges your personal attitudes: church building, anyone?  Or do we just want to have life our way and avoid the refuse?

Re:  Buildings and property

I can only tell you want we did in regards to our property.  We, too, had an old beautiful building built by relatives in our community and contributed to by all of us.  In addition to its beauty, the building has great history.  We also had a columbarium which many had already bought for themselves or their family.  As well as a recently refurbished Youth Room.

We wrestled with the issue of what to do with our building because while the majority of us wanted to leave ECUSA, there were about 20% of the community who wanted to remain with them.  While we might not agree with them, they were our brothers and sisters in Christ and we wanted to respect them.

So, we finally decided that the most honorable thing to do was to say if there were a few who wanted to keep the building, then they and the building should go together.  We decided to leave everything - even things we had given or bought.  We did that.  It was hard to do, but I cannot say I regret it. 

Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also… we’ve worshipped now in some weird places - but we’ve also finally gotten to worship freely.  Currently we worship in a school gym… but when the altar is laid, and we are praising Christ, I find it as beautiful as the place we left; more so, actually as I don’t have to worship with a continuing conflict permeating every corner of the building. 

In addition, we’ve been spared any claim from those who would try to destroy us with gossip/slander that we have ‘taken’ anything from them.  That is worth a great deal. 

God can restore a building.  What He can’t restore is headship if that headship chooses to be unrepentant.

Re:  American Anglican Province or Other Provinces

I think it is not wise to suggest that the thousands of orthodox American Anglicans just ‘go to other provinces’ and not create a body here which reflects their values.  I think that would be a dis-service to the Anglican Community here as a whole and not real helpful to the provinces which have to absorb them.

Our parish is currently under the Ugandan bishop, for which we are very thankful, but it is only a temporary measure until we formalize an Anglican Communion here in America.  Personally, and coming recently from a parish under a revisionist bishop, I would like to think that SOMEDAY I could be under a primate and bishop from America with whom I could be proud to be associated.  Thanks be to God for the kindness of the African primates and their willingness to take us under their wing!

Since we do have Godly bishops here, it is silly to state that because of ECUSA’s apostasy we should never get to utilize our own leadership to guide our own branch of the Communion.  Should we forever be held hostage by those who’ve abandoned the Faith for other gods?  That is unfair to both orthodox laity and leadership of the United States who want to remain faithful to the teachings of Christ.

Parishes having to buy their own property is problematic - if that isn’t a justice issue, what is?  As pointed out by several folks, under the law in many states the diocese has no claim to the property - why should the diocese be paid for what it does not own? 
But practically, the cost of a below-market buy-out might be much more reasonable and more certain than the cost and roller coaster ride of litigation.  If our goal is amicable separation, then it might be the right for parishes to waive their just claims and for dioceses to waive their potential property or resale gains.

Terebinth, who is being material?  I assume you would prefer a conflicted, disfunctional denomination that is appealing (according to the latest numbers) to fewer and fewer people of both liberal and conservative persuasions, a non-solution that allows the denomination to stay in perpetual conflict and relieves you of having your own internal church meeting to decide whether you stay or leave.  A meeting that would require you to move from the one who critiques others to one who takes a position.
This is not de novo denomination building. The largest Episcopal churches are already in relationships with Global South partners, there is a common liturgy and other connecting forces.  The ACN is already in existance with an organizational structure that includes both insiders and outsiders. This is more comparable to the PCUSA-PCA split, which started in the early 70s with about 40,000 members and is now 320,000 and rising fast.  That is not a misprint. I am sure glad you neighbor Briarwood PCA Church didn’t seek your advice when it decided to leave the PCUSA rather than continue warring over core doctrinal differences. Briarwood is now larger than almost all of the Episcopal churches in your Diocese combined, with a ASA of over 3,700. 
But please, do your best to throw cold water on one of the most constructive dialogues in a long time.  Be sure not to add anything constructive to this thread, which is focused on the mechanics of a seperation.  As you say, its the American thing to do!

Eclipse, I respect what you did.  I don’t believe that a church should “fight” for property unless it is supported by an overwhelming number of parishioners. It is divisive and ultimately destructive, even if done with the best motives. I suspect you have found that your selfless acts have opened your hearts to new teachings and a deeper relationship with the Savior. It was also a wonderful witness to those who did not join you.  Someone should create a club for “folding chair” Anglicans!

We often quote Paul’s admonition against lawsuits among Christians (I Corinthians 6), but this thread led me to his painful questions: “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?”  If we are to separate, we will need mutual sacrifice - the willingness to pass on otherwise just claims, canonical entitlements and the like.
What we are trying to preserve, I think, is freedom for the two irreconcilable movements to witness to the Gospel as they are hearing it.  Everything else must be secondary to that.  This doesn’t make the practical matters irrelevant - as Matt points out, lack of attention to them will force people into acrimony.  But the goal of the discussion must be freedom, and this will require sacrificial actions by both movements.

Timothy thanks so much for that.  Briarwood is a wonderful place.  Lots of good folks there, love ‘em.  Without arguing w/you about the pertinence of the PCUSA, or turning down the temp of the water here, most (if not all) of TEC’s members did not grow up in and do not choose a congregational type of church.  Big issue.  TEC is stressed by its bounds.  Some have snapped.  If you must know, I think that shows weakness.  Weakness of the bound, hupuertes that we are.  The binders are a great problem.  It can be solved without dissolving the ties that bind.  Love you Tim

For my part, I would be inclined to be very conciliatory.  As far as possible clergy pensions should be protected but if TEC really wants the real estate, they can have it.  And considering what it would mean, I would not hold on to the Canterbury connection too tightly.  This thing has been put off for too long to argue all that much over what will, in the end, fade away.  Let’s get on with it.

CJ:

Excellent summation!  We seem to be rearranging deck chairs (real estate and ABC ties) while the ship (souls and the Truth) is sinking ...

Well Terebinth, you froze me with that one. I have no clue what a “hupuertes” is.  Sounds like something you would treat with an antibiotic cream. But as others have pointed out to <i>stay <i> in TEC under the current circumstances actually requires a form of “congregational” approach, a view that it doesnt matter what happens with the denomination because the Word is being proclaimed at our parish.  Some on the other side, offended by the GC2006 final resolution, feel the same way. 
Suggestion-our skirmish ends; we let this thread be about its intended purpose.

Tim: St Paul called himself hupuertes: these were the 3rd down-level slaves on the Roman triremes.  At water level(at best), chained to oars, these valiant men drove for the victory.  This was pointed out to me in a Bible study 25 years ago, one member is now @ Briarwood.  Navigators.  Love you.

Terebinth,
The presbyterian church is not congregational, it is presbyterian.  Ie. run by a presbytery (a council) rather than a bishop.  It is like a diocese run by the standing committee and the diocesan council - not independent parishes.

What incentive does the 815, the executive council, and the general convention have to negotiate an amicable divorce?

They have possession of the churches money and power.
They have the superior legal position to the orthodox.
They disdain the “fundamentalist” episcopalians.
They have lots of time to work the Anglican Communion into a more favorable position.
Their diocese/parish has plenty of support.
Every day they wait, the orthodox in the TEC get weaker by attrition and division.
The AC has no legal standing to force anything.
They are not concerned about Biblical mandates regarding lawsuits, they are using other peoples money to fight the suits, the suits are tearing down a patriarchal church that they oppose anyway.

In their mind, They are winning on all fronts and have nothing to gain by negotiation.  They are a lot like the Romans who decided to eliminate the early jewish sect.  What they don’t see is that our Lord has a habit of setting up a nearly hopeless situation for his people so that the victory cannot be attributed to anyone else.

Even so, come quickly Lord.

Well, Tim & others: I leave for a while here. I will be visiting my very old parents, who Bite Anglican.  The truth is we (that would be me and my parents) don’t much care for numbers, we don’t much care about outrageous pronouncements from the presiding bishop. I am working on them about Resurrection; they are working on me on Life.  When I ran into a retired ECUSA bishop naked in the gym the other day and asked him: “So, Bishop: if this all boils down to we join the Anglican Church, do I call you ‘My Lord Bishop?’” he answered, “you can call me that now.”  Love, T.

BillK, you may be right. I certainly don’t speak for any group in thee conversations. But I have a vague sense that some people who are supportive of 815 believe that the health of the Church is being compromised by our ongoing struggle. Though we might not like to admit it in blog arguments, we recognize that our denomination is shrinking (although we probably wouldn’t agree with you on the principal reasons for the decline—so can we agree to bracket that for the moment?) and that the longer the narrative of potential schism (or ouster) remains in the news, the weaker and less attractice we look to the people whom we should be evangelizing. I think there is also some doubt among liberals as to the value of “winning” the current argument if the price of victory is a soul-sapping ruthlessness. If there were a solution that offered both parties to this dispute freedom of conscience and continued identification with the Communion, I think it would have (forgive me) a prayer.

Jim N:

While I tend agree with Bll K (howdy, pardner), do you have a relationship with anyone at ACN or AAC?  How does this idea square with the failure of the NY meeting?  Wasn’t a proposal like this offered to ++Griswold and ++Schori and didn’t they dismiss it “offhand”?

Who would be the likely party representing the “revisionist” camp?  Sorry if “revisionist” is the wrong word…

Re: “If there were a solution that offered both parties to this dispute freedom of conscience and continued identification with the Communion . . . “

As I indicated at the beginning of this thread—that is the “price” of a negotiated settlement, friends.

If the national church manages to offer some sort of settlement [remember the New York meeting] to the “reasserters”, allowing a “peaceful separation” . . . both sides will be allowed “continued identification with the Communion” by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

So here’s my question.

If the above were to be actually proven true—would the reasserting commenters on this blog accept the terms?

In exchange for a negotiated settlement with the *current* “dissidents” who identify themselves, both sides maintain their “continued identification with the Communion” in two separate but equal provinces.

I would be most interested to hear whether this would be acceptable to traditional and current members of ECUSA.

What st. anonymous said.

Jim N.

You make some very cogent points that should be considered by your fellows.  If I place myself in your position, I would have the same thoughts.  However, it appears that to some zealous people on either side of a political or religious divide have the idea that the struggle is the solution.  To fight against Bush, Racism, Sexism, or on the other hand Liberalism, Heresy, etc. the more vitriolic the fight, the more pub you get and the more followers your get.  They certainly don’t see their zealousness as ruthlessness.  And in any case, there is plenty of justification for a ruthless response to prior ruthlessness (end justifies means).

Secondly, given the reality of the shrinking church, it is more important (for 815) to keep by any means as many parishes donating as possible and if not, sell their property and take their endowments.  This money can be used fund the lawsuits and to get the message out.  Most importantly, the platform of a church with so much history and respectibility is highly coveted both in an effort to combat the idea that this is some kind of new sect and to obtain precious air time whenever the primate of the Episcopal Church makes an announcement condemning or praising some leader or legislation.  (I believe this is why the top echelon still covet the connection with the AC).  Ultimately, they want to be a part of something larger and older.

Certainly, there are many are trying to make decisions in true progressive christian fashion that see things differently as you do.  However, the people in the office, the exec, and the ENS talk as ideological zealots that seek to crush orthodoxy as much as promote their ideology.
I think that if the church was made of BillKs and Jim Ns, it is highly likely that we would not be discussing this split at all.  If they were to believe in the liberatarian live and let live credo (freedom of conscience as you call it) , then certainly an amicable divorce is the best thing, unfortunately I’m not sure they are truly liberal or tolerant in that sense. 

Then as Gamaliel proposed in Acts 5

38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.”

In answer to Sarah, I , for one, am willing to have to separate provinces presently in communion and then let the chips fall where they may refer to my previous quotation of Acts 5 for a reason.

Sarah, dual relationships with the AOC would not bother me if they did not, when compared to other viable alternatives, impair the mission of the new Province.  How might it impair it? First, from a marketing standpoint if TEC and the new entity shared a common brand, this would perpetuate the current confusion and make evangelism and growth difficult.  The new Anglican enitity would have to create a distinctive public identity. (TEC keeps the Episcopal brand, which would be good for both sides. ) Second, it would not be a good if a common relationship with the AOC resulted in a watered down “covenant”.  I would rather have no covanant than one tailored to the lowest common denominator.
As a practical matter, there would remain some type of special relationship between the new Province and those that share its theology, primarilly in the Global South. Those relationships will grow and mature over time. I would not be worried. 
On matters of doctrine, there should be no compromise. But on matters of property, secular power, structure and our personal preferences, the “perfect is the enemy of the good.” 
BillK, I can’t speak for the folks on Bill N’s side of the fence, but it is a fact that both sides are losing members. It is difficult for either side to focus on its “target” market.  Neither side can tell prospective members for sure what their relationship will be in the Anglican Communion and churches on both sides are having to repudiate GC2006 because it sends the wrong message to those they seek to serve. Both sides have their own idea what is needed to renew the church but neither side can implement a plan because of they are engaged in this sumo wrestling contest.  Meanwhile, millions of dollars that could be used to feed the poor, minister to the sick and spread the Good News is being diverted to an internal fight that is increasingly irrelevent to the rest of the nation.

If we are going to reach unchurched people (not just pass around disgruntled in-house folks), the name brand will matter very little.  Most folks think very personally and locally when checking out a church…and most come for the first time because of the credibility of a friend who invites them.
Most folks (except immigrants) don’t have any formed idea of “Anglican”.  Most folks can’t even pronounce “Episcopal”, although you get some people turned off by all the conflict in the news or by reaction (pro or con) to whatever narrow agenda grabs a headline.
I think that an amicable separation will have its main initial impact on those of us already involved in TEC and/or the AC.  Once our acrimony and fretting can be set aside, our two movements can find out if we have anything of Gospel value to share with the world.
I worry that there are significant numbers of current folks who are invested in arguing with one another over in-house stuff or having the theological last word. That is going to make amicable separation difficult.  But it also keeps us on our current trend: aging and dying way more than we replicate or evangelize.

I have read both Sarah’s and Matt’s recent articles.  First, while I do not disagree with Sarah’s piece I find it quite depressing.  Second, in regards to Matt’s, it really doesn’t matter what we want, an amicable separate will never happen.

Why?  Because the Leadership of the ECUSA believes it is right and is all about Power.  We have the Power.  The State laws support us.  Thus, we do not have to do anything, and should not because we are right.

Those who are in control and have the power are not likely to relinquish it.  While it would be an incredible witness to the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.  It is simply beyond them to let go in this way.

With respect to Matt, I have no confidence in the ABC.  I agree with Sarah that he will continue to use delaying tactics in the hope that some miraculous answer is provided that will hold it all together.

I do not expect the leaders of the Global South to come to our rescue if we are not willing to do what is necessary.  But that is the question before us.  Will we do what is necessary?  Are we willing to let go of all we have and be willing to give it away so that we can follow Christ?

Episcopalians have an attachment to that which they have built.  The Churches the columbariums..our family heritage and so on.  It is hard to let go of these things.  They matter.  But what are we willing to do for the sake of the Gospel?  That is the real question.

Yes, many have left for other Christian Denominations but they are no better.  When this happens one is jumping out of the frying pan and into a new, but no different fire. 

This is not the answer.  The answer is something new.

How it will come about is beyond me, because our past haunts us for we have not shown that we can be gracious with each other and work together for the sake of the Gospel in spite of our theological differences. 

If there is to be a new Church to rise from the ashes of the old dead one, some things must be left to die.  The bitterness of the past must be nailed to the door of the old dead church as Luther nailed his theses many years ago.

We must be willing to do what is necessary in a way we never have done in the past.  We must be willing to forsake all that is dear to us to embrace the new reformation that is at hand.

What holds us back?  We do! 

What are we willing to do for Christ’s sake?  That is the question before us.  We can not depend on the ABC.  There is no telling what he will do.  Honestly, he is in a no win situation no matter what he does.  Nor should we place this burden upon the Global south.

If we are not willing to do what we must, then the judgment is upon us.

Guys,

I know I’m not Episcopalian, and I struggle if I should even be posting here. But, I am part of the ELCA, and our churches are in full communion. I guess I just feel compelled to speak out in protest.

How can two priests come here, and calmly discuss how to facilitate schism in the church of Jesus Christ? Does our Lord’s sacrifice on the cross, and His prayer for us to be one mean nothing?

Fr. Matt, of course you can not have spiritual unity with your Jewish friend because he does not know the Lord. This is not the same as the difference between Christian people who may disagree concerning this sexuality issue.

If there is contempt and disdain on both sides of the divide, the solution is to seek the help of God’s spirit to correct our attitudes toward one another, not to just seperate, or throw our brothers and sisters overboard!!

God have mercy!

Also, I just want to encourage everyone here to go over to the “heretic” Father Jakes’s blog, and see the awesome post he has shared relating to the grace of God, and an interview with Bono written in “Christianity Today.”

Grace,

The sexuality disagreement is the tip of the iceberg. We are two different faiths, not one. That is the problem. Truth comes before unity. Biblical unity, in fact, is predicated upon it. When essential truth is denied in the NT you see the apostles calling not for cooperation, compromise, and fellowship, but for separation.

This thread has clarified matters to me very much—I had not realized that it really was all about property for so many traditional Anglicans.

For me, it is not.  The continuing influence, money, and blatant promotion of heresy within the Anglican Communion—thanks to ECUSA’s presence—will *kill* the Anglican Communion.  Kill it dead.

So for me, if given the choice between negotiated property settlements but two provinces within the US—both inside of the Anglican Communion—I would choose loss of my property and a disciplined, boundaried, healthy Anglican Communion.

The presence of ECUSA inside the AC is equivalent to the presence of Swing, Spong, and Pike in the ECUSA 30 years ago—it was a hideous, corrupting, heretical influence and the lack of discipline of those bishops [along with numerous others] is what led to where ECUSA is today.

The lack of discipline of ECUSA will lead the Anglican Communion to where ECUSA is today—and it will do it in most of our lifetimes.

And for that, many commenters will accept their property and a two-province Communion structure.

I am deeply saddened to learn this.  I see now why people left the Anglican Communion—they really didn’t care about it.  Just like those currently within the Anglican Communion through ECUSA—they’d just like their property and the Anglican Communion can continue to hold within it the poison that will kill it.

I keep thinking of last Sunday’s Gospel reading as I follow this thread:
“Jesus, looking at him, loved him and said, “You lack one thing; go, sell what you own, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” When he heard this, he was shocked and went away grieving, for he had many possessions.”

and this:
“‘Truly I tell you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields, for my sake and for the sake of the good news, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this age—houses, brothers and sisters, mothers and children, and fields with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last will be first.’”

Sarah,

I’m not sure I follow you. I would gladly give up property etc. I was and am fully prepared to do so and only recently realised it may not be necessary. I think the dichotomy you seem to suggest (your property or a disciplined ECUSA) is a strange and unnecessary one. Why not have both?

Working out an amicable settlment will not in any way preserve TEC from discipline.

The Hebrews left Egypt with material treasure the and the Egyptians were still drowned in the Red Sea.

RE: “Working out an amicable settlment will not in any way preserve TEC from discipline.”

Matt, did you miss what Jim Naughton said?  “If there were a solution that offered both parties to this dispute freedom of conscience and continued identification with the Communion . . . “

That is what is wanted by ECUSA—a negotiated settlement that allows the Wicked Reasserters to leave, and both sides to have “continued identification with the Communion . . . “

Here is what I wrote above in response:

As I indicated at the beginning of this thread—that is the “price” of a negotiated settlement, friends.

If the national church manages to offer some sort of settlement [remember the New York meeting] to the “reasserters”, allowing a “peaceful separation” . . . both sides will be allowed “continued identification with the Communion” by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

So here’s my question.

If the above were to be actually proven true—would the reasserting commenters on this blog accept the terms?

In exchange for a negotiated settlement with the *current* “dissidents” who identify themselves, both sides maintain their “continued identification with the Communion” in two separate but equal provinces.

I would be most interested to hear whether this would be acceptable to traditional and current members of ECUSA.

So far—everyone would accept those terms.  Would you, Matt?

ECUSA could be reduced to two portions associated with the AC (i.e., dual relationship to the AC) until the development of the covenant.  At that point, covenant membership would then determine constituent membership.

Until both or a single portion of ECUSA agrees to the covenant, I would suggest consideration of a firewall around ECUSA - that neither portion of ECUSA participate fully in communion activities or development of the covenant - given history (breached “bonds of affection” and all that).

I am wondering what kind of solution people think would look best in the eyes of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his closest advisors. I don’t think they’d be nuts about an amicable separation because of the precedent that either a) creating two provinces were there was one; or b) allowing the existing provinces to cross into each other’s territories as a matter of stand practice would set. For this reason, I think amicable separation would have to have broad grass roots support on the left and right—and bring in its train an actual cessation of hostilities—to have any hope of succeeding. Once the separation occurred, we’d need to stop beating up on each other, or else neither side has sufficient motive to make the necessary concessions.

Sarah,

Discipline is something for the primates and the ABC to work out. We can influence that by what we do, but little more. We do have control over how we deal with one another. Amicable separation is something we can and should effect. Discipline is something I think will happen because the primates and the ABC said as much at Dromantine. I don’t see the connection between our decision to deal with one another gracefully and the ABC’s decision to discipline.

I’m afraid I must at least partially agree with Sarah. (Why that makes me afraid, I don’t know. Agreeing with Sarah usually means that I’m right.) A dual province solution, unless strictly limited in duration, simply moves “the problem” to a larger arena; there to be finally dealt with (hence the strict time frame) or accommodated.
If a dual province solution is accommodated, then we have exactly the same “solution” in the AC as we have had in ECUSA these past 30 years.
That solution is a passageway. It cannot be a dwelling place.

-Eric S.

RE: “Discipline is something for the primates and the ABC to work out. We can influence that by what we do, but little more.”

Well if that’s the case, then why were you so upset by the Camp Allen statement?  It seemed to me that you were saying that there were certainly things that would influence the primates and the ABC.  I didn’t think that the CA statement provided such influence.  But I *certainly* think that a negotiated settlement whereby 815 leaders offer property and settlement to the “dissidents” in exchange for recognition by Canterbury would influence Canterbury.

RE: “I don’t see the connection between our decision to deal with one another gracefully and the ABC’s decision to discipline.”

Jim Naughton does.  He said: ““If there were a solution that offered both parties to this dispute freedom of conscience and continued identification with the Communion . . . “

What did you think the New York meeting was all about?  It was “please, people, I beg you to settle your differences so I won’t have to”.

I am certain that negotiations on “discipline of ECUSA by the AC” are burning up the wires between Lambeth and 815, Matt.  And there will be a number of “offers” made by 815 . . . and one of those offers will be “how about if we negotiate a settlement with the dissidents, Mr. ABC—then can all of this go away?”

Sorry—but I asked a question.  If the ABC himself came down from Lambeth and said to Matt Kennedy: “Matt—if a negotiated settlement occurs between the ‘dissidents’ and those lovely people at 815, I will keep both sides in the Communion”—which one would you choose?

It appears to me that certain commenters have loudly chosen “negotiated settlement, please, and we’ll all remain one big happy family in the Communion—just like we have in ECUSA for the past 35 years.”

I agree with Sarah on her poison analogy. The question has never been, “May we be allowed to set up a separate structure alongside ECUSA, in communion with each other, and both part of the Anglican Communion?”

Just as Matt points out that discipline will be something for the wider communion to answer and implement, the question before the communion now is: “Will it continue to tolerate blatant heresy in its body, even in its wealthiest part?”

For me and for many, if the answer is “Yes,” it’s irrelevant whether it will do so by setting up a parallel structure or not; the fact that it will continue to tolerate this nonsense is all the answer I need. If that’s the case, then I’m gone.

This appeal by revisionists for a negotiated settlement is a ploy, folks. THey see it as a way to deal with the facts-on-the-ground schism that’s been accelerating since 2003, and keep their constituent status. It reeks of desperation, and it’s a recipe, as Sarah points out, for the eventual death of the communion.

There is nothing about the theology OR the ecclesiology of the Anglican Communion that insulates it against the dangers of tolerating heresy. Ours is not a special case. It cannot be that tolerating heresy is a danger to every church except the Anglican one. It is a danger to all churches, and it will kill ours just as surely as it would kill any others. We don’t have to rely on theory here - just look at ECUSA attendance over the past 30 years.

The notion that we might solve the root problem of a heretical province in our midst by continuing to be in communion with it, in whatever form, is folly, pure and simple.

Sarah wrote:
Sorry—but I asked a question.  If the ABC himself came down from Lambeth and said to Matt Kennedy: “Matt—if a negotiated settlement occurs between the ‘dissidents’ and those lovely people at 815, I will keep both sides in the Communion”—which one would you choose?
Is this an accurate representation of what is proposed?  Won’t the proposed Anglican Covenant call on provinces to opt in or out?  At that point, the orthodox who align with constituent provinces will be in formal separation from TEC or any elements that do not sign on.

Reading up, I see that Eric Sawyer also sees the problem: Again, the issue is not that we have 38 provinces, one of which is heretical, and what we really need is 39 provinces, one of which is still heretical. What we should be going for is zero heretical provinces.

Any settlement that creates a “shelter” province for orthodox Americans, but leaves heretical ECUSA in full communion, does nothing more than add yet another province to the group now led by the Global South. And “add” is not exactly an accurate description, since it doesn’t increase the number of people on that side of the debate. On paper it may have the effect of solidifying or enlarging the orthodox provincial majority, but let’s be honest - we’ve already got that now, and what good has it done?

I cannot follow Sarah’s logic.  Those that have left didn’t care about the communion and those that have stayed just like their property? 
“So for me, if given the choice between negotiated property settlements but two provinces within the US—both inside of the Anglican Communion—I would choose loss of my property and a disciplined, boundaried, healthy Anglican Communion.” – Sarah
My reply:
1.Even if ECUSA were suddenly and completely removed from the AC (which will not happen) the AC would not become a disciplined boundaried and healthy because it is at its core against discipline.  There are many people like Spong outside of ECUSA in the AC as inside.  The transformation of the AC will take decades, but it will happen.
2.Maybe I misunderstood your initial question since I didn’t pick up the implication that ECUSA would be exempted from further discipline.  I believe that if the Network is given provincial status and there is a means for dividing the dioceses and parishes between the two entities, the AC can continue to discipline ECUSA in its snail paced way and eventually through the covenant process ECUSA will be so marginalized that it will in effect not be a part of the AC.  Conversely, if the Network is given freedom from this conflict, its attention will go to spreading the gospel and it will flourish.  If an orthodox Anglican presence can be preserved as a viable entity this is the way it will happen.  If this deal is made, it cannot be made at the expense of orthodox parishes in revision oriented dioceses.
3.Another possibility is that we stand firm and fight it out within the structure of the ECUSA and the orthodox in the ECUSA will leave one family and one parish at time each one to a different place: Evangelical Covenant, AMiA, Non-denominational, etc.  Maybe these will come back one day when the discipline of ECUSA is complete, maybe they won’t.
4.The last possibility is that the AC is replaced by a discipline boundaried healthy communion that is not centered on the ABC.  Then everyone can walk away from their property and join up.
I think that those that love the AC, prefer 2, but will settle for 4.  Those without close ties to the AC prefer 4 and don’t understand why anyone would consider the others.  Those who can’t leave the ECUSA, believe that ECUSA can be changed from within, or are very much opposed to schism for any reason will prefer 3.  The challenge of the Network is to settle on a plan that is palatable for the majority and not hold back trying to please the minority (that prefer 3) in the orthodox camp.  Personally, I think we need to give Option 2 a short chance of developing (Through next spring maybe) and then move on with 4 if it doesn’t come to pass.

“Well if that’s the case, then why were you so upset by the Camp Allen statement?”

I said: “We can influence that by what we do…”

In other words not asking for a separate province was a mistake because we essentially gave the ABC an out if he was looking for one.

This had nothing to do with discipline.

The point we are discussing now (It thought) was whether establishing a separate province would keep the ABC from acting. Which, as I said, makes absolutely no sense.

In other words, the separate structure question is one that I am not seeing to be necessarily tied to the discipline question. Not asking for a separate structure gave the ABC warrant not to provide one.

But I’ve always thought he’d still discipline.

Re: “Maybe I misunderstood your initial question since I didn’t pick up the implication that ECUSA would be exempted from further discipline.  I believe that if the Network is given provincial status and there is a means for dividing the dioceses and parishes between the two entities, the AC can continue to discipline ECUSA in its snail paced way and eventually through the covenant process ECUSA will be so marginalized that it will in effect not be a part of the AC.”

BillK . . . good comments.

However, we shouldn’t doubt that this whole “negotiated settlement” vision will be used in the negotiations that 815 is having with Lambeth.  To think otherwise would be naive . . . furthermore, the “covenant process” is not set in stone—what’s to prevent 815 from saying “yeh, yeh, let’s deal with all of this at covenant signing time”—which of course they can drag out for literally a decade or more—and then assure the game begins for making the covenant a milquetoast one which they can sign.

People are acting as if the covenant thing is a “settled” and sure thing.  It’s not.

I don’t accept a “we’ll transform ECUSA” option, nor will I enter a “fragmented new communion” if that occurs.  So my only option is 1) a disciplined ordered boundaried Anglican Communion—beginning with ECUSA, but certainly not limited to that ultimately.

Also—I agree utterly with Greg Griffith’s comments—thanks for saying that, Greg!

I may be missing something, but it seems to me that no matter how the issues of discipline and membership shake out—whether there is one communion or two, 38 provinces or 39, the question of how to resolve the internal difference of what is now the Episcopal Church will still be with us, and that the legal field on which these differences could be adjudicated, if it comes to that, will remain more or less unchanged. That is why I think this conversation remains potentially fruitful, no matter how the larger jurisdictional issues are resolved.

the question of how to resolve the internal difference of what is now the Episcopal Church will still be with us

A proper solution - one that excises ECUSA - solves that question. Orthodox Americans will then have no reason to be concerned about what goes on inside ECUSA, because they will be outside of it, and it will be outside of the communion. What then becomes of ECUSA would be your problem, not ours.

I don’t think the principal purpose of a negotiated separation on the part of revisionists in ECUSA who are amenable to the idea is remaining part of the Anglican Communion.  I think their principal purpose is to stop fighting.  I may be wrong, but I think the main thing is not to have more GC ‘06s.  As in a business with troubled subsidiaries, sometimes you just have to spin off the distracting pieces so you can focus on what you want to focus on; they are not going to go away by themselves.  (I think that is consistent with what Mr. Naughton just posted, but he could clarify if I misread him.)  I’m sure many folks in ECUSA would be happy to remain in the Anglican Communion at the same time, too, but I don’t think it is a main driver.  And, as others have pointed out, we in the US don’t control that.  Some may believe that the orthodox are secretly running the communion, but the fact is that a majority of the primates are simply pretty unhappy with ECUSA on theological grounds and will act to discipline it whether it compromises or tries the scorched earth route with the orthodox.  A negotiated separation without coercion in the US may well relieve some immediacy of the primates’ need to act, but not, in my view, change the likelihood the primates will act.  I could envision that it might also affect the tone and to a small degree the severity of the discipline, or at least I will suspect some may argue that it should.  If, however, ECUSA staying in the communion in full capacity is a prerequisite to any separation in the US, then it is a non-starter.  The orthdox cannot promise that, and it doesn’t seem likely to happen.  The capacity suggested by Williams in his reflections, of making ECUSA like the Methodists, is probably the best that ECUSA can achieve.  I might not object to that, but it is not certain the primates would, the way things are going.

I am not a lawyer so maybe people like Brad Drell can weigh in on this - but as I understand it, (at least in the State of Louisiana) fidiciary duty is the highest degree of responsibility a person or entity can have.  For instance, in a partnership, a partner has a fidiciary duty to the partnership.  So much so that s/he must act in the best interest of the partnership - even when it is not in his/her best interest to do so.  That being said - I believe the national church has breached its fidiciary duty to the membership - especially those from whom they accepted endowments.  Part of being Episcopalian is being Anglican.  The national church has totally abandoned (with malice and forethought) their position in the Communion.  It seems to me that this is a huge class action suit just waiting for a cannonical lawyer to take it on.  Of course, we all know that the only winners in lawsuits are the lawyers.  Just one more reason to resolve this amicably.  I think an excellent first step for 815 would be to step up to the plate in NY and work out a deal to give back the buildling the Diocese just took away from a faithful flock and work out a real settlement.  After all, isn’t our purpose as an organization to facilitate the worship of Christ?  I didn’t think real estate development was one of our goals.

Greg, I probably could have been clearer in what I wrote. If I understand the issue correctly, whether the Episcopal Church is in or out of the Communion has no bearing on American law. So to the extent that there were still competing claims on property, the claimants would still need to work these out.

There seems to be confusion about specific problems and their respective solutions in this thread. Sarah Hey is surely right that TEC’s leadership will seek to use their property settlement with conservatives in TEC as leverage in their negotiations with the ABC to mitigate what discipline, if any, the Communion imposes on TEC. Sarah is also right that the Communion should not accept a result that leaves the heretical poison flowing from TEC into the Communion.

Yet Mr. Naughton is also right that, whatever the Communion, the ABC, the GS, etc. do (if anything) to discipline TEC, that action will not solve the property disputes within TEC. Those disputes will be resolved by lawsuits or by negotiated settlements. I understood Mr. Naughton to be suggesting that we explore settlement. What’s wrong with that?

Re:  Denomination/Affiliation doesn’t matter if we are just spreading the gospel

But as others have pointed out to stay in TEC under the current circumstances actually requires a form of “congregational” approach, a view that it doesnt matter what happens with the denomination because the Word is being proclaimed at our parish.

Sorry, Guys, been there, done that… and it no longer works under the new paradigm in which we find ourselves.

I just spent the last 7 years in a faithful, orthodox Episcopal church.  We spread the gospel, we brought light into darkness, we grew in our Faith.  Then we lost our faithful priest and then, the next month GC 2003 happened.  However, many of us decided we could just ignore what had happened on the national level and just go on ‘doing the good work’ in an apostate diocese in which we were the minority.  We would just ‘wait and see’ for GC 2006 and we’d be OK.

The results of this attitude were dissolution of our church body, reduction/destruction of ministries, and a slow underminding of the peace/unity of our membership.  By 2006 we’d gotten a ‘bishop approved’ orthodox priest - who, not suprisingly, turned out to be more devoted to ECUSA than the Word of God.  We’d lost many of our brothers and sisters by then and our ministry to the community had been seriously compromised.

In short, ‘It was not a good choice’... and I don’t reccomend it.  Before 2003 and the blantant abandonment of ECUSA of Scripture, we could co-exist.  In 2003 the national church made it dangerous to continue with them, in 2006 they made it impossible.

The Scripture is starkly clear on what to do when you have someone unrepentant and apostate in your community.  You try to lead them lovingly back to the truth by speaking words of truth.  If they will not repent (like ECUSA) then they need to be cast out.  Hopefully, the Anglican Communion will provide that for ECUSA.  We just need to separate from them until they decide to return to the Faith.

Re:  Buildings or the Lack Thereof

Timothy:

Sorry it’s taken so long to respond to this:  1.  This thread is so extensive, its hard to take it all in.  2.  I have children and a full time job, so I am not on computer too much.

I’d really love to take credit for making the choice to leave the buildings and possessions, but truth is that I was one among a very Godly parish council who made that choice with a great deal of prayer, suffering, and Godly advice.  They really are wonderful people - and I’m very thankful to be still worshipping with the majority of them today.

Like many have said since, it’s a tough choice to make when you have so many associations with a place.  However, it came down to offending our brothers/sisters OR keeping a building.  Fighting over a building would not have helped them understand the issues regarding the Ep. church.  If our intent IS to help our brothers/sisters to see - then we need to be willing to sacrifice in order to get the point across. 

Sarah - you are absolutely right, by the by, I never realized until that juncture how much of this dispute of leaving/staying DOES regard the possessions.  So many people would say, “Well, I understand how apostate the Episcopal church has become, but I cannot leave my place in the columbarium, or I was married here, or my children grew up here.”  It’s a curiously defining thing… and says some unflattering things about our spirituality.

I could not help but reflect at our curious inability to leave a mere building behind and compare it with our African brothers/sisters who have so little and are willing to give even THAT up for the sake of following Christ (funding from ECUSA) ... or the Christians who risked everything to help their brothers/sisters who were being killed by the Nazis.

Makes us look just a little pathetic.  No wonder our denomination is on the brink of apostasy.

If I understand the issue correctly, whether the Episcopal Church is in or out of the Communion has no bearing on American law. So to the extent that there were still competing claims on property, the claimants would still need to work these out.

I would think an “amicable separation” would, by definition, not involve terribly significant competing claims on property.

The AC may be heading toward a covenant model, possibly in which constituent members agree to a covenant and associate members do not. 

I agree with Tim F.  A separation in ECUSA does not necessarily mean simply adding another province.  Although much is undefined, one portion of ECUSA might agree to the covenant and the other not.  This might be replicated in a few other provinces.  Because associate and constituent members presumably would have different roles and relationships in the communion, an associate member might not have the ability to influence the AC in the same way that it once could.

Of course, this model does not directly pertain the topic of a settlement within ECUSA - although *if* the ABC desired - the eligibility for associate membership could be subject to, among other things, a fair settlement between the parties.

Nothing on Earth is a settled and sure thing, especially anything that has to do with the Anglican Communion. 

I believe it rather pointless to speculate and blog about this forever; it will have to unfold in its own time.  Interesting future highlights: 

1) Schori’s “Enthronement”—-Well, National Cathedral has already seen gay “weddings”, gay “consecrations”, and terrorists/murderers giving speeches—“be patient with us and build bridges”, right?  It survived Griswold’s service, during which he compared himself to St. Francis of Assisi—that should have been our “red flag” right there—sort of like Spong comparing himself to Martin Luther—“Here I Stand”.  Egomaniac + microphone = dangerous combination.  I guess the stained glass won’t all blow out in DC, but it will be interesting and sickly amusing to see who attends this farce and who doesn’t. 

2) Primates’ Meeting February ‘07—TEC may just get its “lunch”. 

3) Lambeth ‘08—Again, who’s invited and who’s not, and who attends and who does not.

I’ll leave it to someone else, with more expertise than me, to explain legalities/property rights when a separate denomination is formed or declared.  It’s not hard to figure out where the future is going—all one needs to do is read Williams’s “Challenge and Hope” and the statement from Kigali.  Williams, rightfully, will be the intellectual mouthpiece behind all of it, and the Global South will be the honest, faithful muscle that holds his feet to the fire. 

Greg had it right about two weeks ago—don’t let all of this rent too much space in your head, and go outside in the sun and check out the crisp, beautiful Fall weather.  The above will unfold in its own time, nationally probably with more missionary bishops and DEPO. A lot of smart people are working on this, thus I’m not worried and am just an interested spectator.  Give me the Daily Office, the Lectionary, and a Bible and I can find lots more satisfying, godly things to meditate on. 

The triune God is driving this bus and even when it seems like nothing but complete chaos, He’s not too hard to find.  Be careful what else you get bogged down in ...

Why is there conversation about a covenant that is many years down the road?  What we need right now is some clarity regarding the place of ecusa inside or outside the AC, and the place of the ACN dioceses and parishes, especially those in liberal dioceses.

This dialogue is helpful for a variety of reasons. 
The odds of a settlement are so remote, and the window will be so narrow, that is pains me to see folks closing the door at a suggestion from an Episcopal leader, even an informal one.  Any solution that allows for a seperate denomination, with an amicable property solution for those concerned about that, would be a good one for the reasons stated above.
Sarah, it appears from your comments, in this thread and others, that you would not settle for any resolution short of TEC’s expulsion from the AC (since we agree internal reform is not possible), and the expulsion or reform of other like minded Provinces from the AC.  You would sacrifice the an amicable settlement, and agreed upon establishment of a seperate ecclesistical body, for that goal.  You seem equally determined to maintain an AC under the leadership of the AOC, and oppose calls by renegades such as me for direct action in conjunction with Global South allies.  Yet at the same time, you are not optimistic about the AOC’s willingness to act and have no solutions to the liberal drift of the COE.  When I lump all of this together, I see just a long, protracted fight with no end in sight.  I can’t speak for others, but I doubt very many of your allies is up for that type of fight. Certainly not those with young children.
A seperate ecclesiastical structure, with seperate seminaries, policies and disciplines, and with negotiated settlements that would allow those reluctant parishes to cross the line, would give the orthodox a fighting chance.  It also recognizes a growing reality, big parishes have already left, others are leaving.

A few principles I’ve learned:

When someone raises their hand and wants to negotiate—it means that they are increasingly concerned that their position is weak.

Part of the reason why the Primates/Canterbury know that they need to take action regarding ECUSA [whether they will or not], is the increasing and sustained chaos within ECUSA.  A “negotiated settlement” takes away one impetus for the outside international body to take appropriate action.

This is nothing more than a “trial balloon” for a parallel province:  the price for us reasserting Episcopalians to have our buildings is 1) we pay them money—[again, I might add] and 2) two provinces, both within the Anglican Communion.  That price—for me—is too much because it poisons the communion.

I guess I’m confused—if people want their buildings, why not 1) announce departure from ECUSA, 2) use money defending resulting lawsuit or 1) negotiate with bishop directly, perhaps with a grouping of other parishes who want their buildings.  2) Then leave ECUSA. 

That way, you get building and don’t have to pay again for the building.  Even if the bishop sues you for your building—a lawsuit, I might add, that is far from having a certain outcome—you still have to pay either way!!! 

As it is, the only reason why 815 would ever desire a negotiated settlement is if they get something more than “money” out of it.  What they need is 1) decreased publicity, 2) lowered intensity and pressure on international figures to take action, 3) us to all go away, 4) retained Communion status. 

Frankly, there’s little doubt that 815 is burning up the wires negotiating for just that very package . . .  and if they gained that, the Anglican Communion is finished.

To me, this whole discussion of how to release parishes/dioceses from the battle for the Anglican Communion and shuttling us into a parallel province with all of us in merry communion together is all about selling our birthright for a mess of potage.

Until Mr. Naughton says otherwise, I’m proceeding from the assumption that in his proposed settlement, ECUSA is not disciplined a bit, and loses not one inch of its full communion status.

Let’s look at what happens if there is widespread support among the orthodox for this “settlement”:

- ECUSA is not disciplined; therefore all Anglican provinces, including the new orthodox American one, are STILL in communion with a heretical province. This is not progress.

- Orthodox Americans are out huge sums of cash, as they essentially pay AGAIN for property they’ve already paid for.

- ECUSA gets a huge infusion of cash to help prop up places like Newark, which is collapsing; and to promote their heretical agenda even longer.

- ECUSA is spared the terrible PR battle that would ensue if they have to litigate, parish-by-parish, property issues related to the split. For all their bluster, don’t think for a moment that they’re looking forward to being in the newspapers and on TV (not to mention in the blogs) day after day after day for the next 5 years, getting portrayed as the pro-sodomy “church” that wants to punish little parishes in places like Virginia, Texas, and Mississippi for wanting to do nothing other than proclaim the Gospel as Christians have known it for two millennia.

- ECUSA is relieved of the financial burden and risk of litigating for property. I remind everyone that the ownership question is anything BUT settled: Even Los Angeles has probably lost this battle, as we have seen in the cases of the three breakaway churches. From what we have seen so far in the courts, parishes have the upper hand, not dioceses. Naughton is proceeding from the assumption that ECUSA and its revisionist dioceses hold the upper hand, when in fact there is little evidence to support that, and plenty of evidence to refute it. For him to come here and offer us a settlement at this point in the crisis is like Lee, sometime in late 1864, offering Grant a settlement whereby the Union calls it a draw, pays the South a lot of money, and goes home.

If you’re an orthodox American Anglican, and you want to remain in communion with a heretical province, you can do that without paying one extra penny. Just continue to attend and support your ECUSA parish.

If you want to remain in communion with a heretical province AND be out huge sums of cash that only ensures the continued infuence of that heretical province, then buy into Naughton’s “settlement.”

Remember Reykjavik, folks: We haven’t been offered anything in return for agreeing to a “settlement” like this. Something tells me that if Mr. Naughton came clean about exactly what he thinks our side should get, all enthusiasm for this bone-headed scheme would evaporate.

Sarah’s most recent post raises an important point: is Mr. Naughton’s suggestion conditioned on TEC remaining in the Communion? In other words, if the Communion expels TEC, is the settlement offer regarding the property void? Mr. Naughton?

<blockquote>“In short, ‘It was not a good choice’... and I don’t reccomend it.  Before 2003 and the blantant abandonment of ECUSA of scripture, we could co-exist.  In 2003 the national church made it dangerous to continue with them, in 2006 they made it impossible. “<blockquote>
Ecclipse, I reached the same conclusion which is why I am in the exact ecclesiastical position you are in now.  I don’t believe things can wait, and the preserve a fighting force folks have to pull out of TEC before they are depleted further.  I have supported the idea of a negotiated settlement because I know from this site and others that there are numerous orthodox Episcopal lay people, Priests and a few Bishops that are constrained from doing what they would like to do because of asset, pension and job security issues.  A negotiated settlement would handle that for many, even though it would do nothing for you and I.

RE: “You would sacrifice the an amicable settlement, and agreed upon establishment of a seperate ecclesistical body, for that goal.”

For the goal of a disciplined global catholic universal Anglican Communion body?  You betcha! 

But as I said at the beginning of this thread, Timothy, you and others have already left the Anglican Communion.  I understand your not being concerned about that sacrifice of a disciplined global catholic universal Anglican Communion body—you’ve already deemed that goal less important than leaving ECUSA [back to that hiearchy of values idea I talked about earlier]. 

But I am Very Interested in the goal of a disciplined global catholic universal Anglican Communion body—and I’ve been crystal clear about that for years now, never wavering in it.  I have no interest in a fragmented new Anglican body, nor have I an interest in an Anglican Communion with a poisonous heretical province in it.  From the beginning, three years ago, it was clear that this was a battle for the identity and nature of the Anglican Communion.  And those traditional ECUSAns who have remained in ECUSA have understood that clearly.

Re: “. . . you are not optimistic about the AOC’s willingness to act . . . “

Yes—but as I have also said before, I am willing to play out that process until such time as Canterbury makes clear that he intends no discipline.  We shall see.

RE: “I can’t speak for others, but I doubt very many of your allies is up for that type of fight.”

No, you really can’t speak for others, Timothy—you have a different web of values that drives your actions. 

I’m sure that more will leave ECUSA.  And I’m sure—certain, in fact—that many will stay.  Those that stay will be “up for that type of fight” as I am and have been for a long time.

If I understand the issue correctly, whether the Episcopal Church is in or out of the Communion has no bearing on American law. So to the extent that there were still competing claims on property, the claimants would still need to work these out.

Jim, in Virginia, it may matter a great deal whether TEC is in or out.  We have a statute that provides for different results depending on whether the split is local (that is, the parish wants out) or if it is national (that is, the entire denomination experiences a split).  It is reasonable to assume that TEC getting kicked out of the Communion might be viewed by a local judge as a national level split, especially if another body is recognized here in the US as part of the Communion.  In that event, a simple majority of parishioners in each parish would decide where the property goes.

Yes, Widening Gyre, and the isssue of ECUSA in or out of communion with the AC also matters with regards to the 10 Network dioceses, who are making the claim that they are ECUSA.  They are ECUSA, as they are according to their constitution in communion with the the see of Canterbury.

I still have a hard time seeing how working out an amicable agreement with your diocesan has anything whatsoever to do with the ABC’s discipline or lack thereof.

To repeat a point from my earlier post, I think it is reasonable to expect that ECUSA may be placed in some reduced status for some time (until development of the covenant?), likely with reduced or no vote within the AC instruments of unity.

The covenant then becomes the vehicle for returning to communion.

If, in the interim, ECUSA were to undergo morphogenesis (settlement) to produce ECUSA(1-reappraiser) and ECUSA(2-reasserter), then both could be in this reduced status until the covenant is developed.

The question then is not how to deal with ECUSA(1) if it is unable to sign the covenant, but how to deal with any province that is unable to sign the covenant.  Meanwhile, presumably ECUSA(2) may be able to sign the covenant and become a constituent member.

Sarah and others:

I think that we need to be very clear that any amicable divorce within ECUSA will have no effect on the larger Anglican Communion.  Consider that any divorce in which the ABC promises to keep “liberal ECUSA” in communion with him, is a divorce agreement that would necessarily be on the Communion-wide level.  That is precisely what Rowan Williams does NOT want to deal with.

I think what Naughton and Kennedy are suggesting is an amicable divorce at the ECUSA level - and NO HIGHER.  I would agree with you Sarah, that any divorce in which the ABC promises that ECUSA will remain in the Communion should be rejected out of hand.  But I don’t see that that is on the table here.

Rather, what needs to be done is for ECUSA to get together, agree that a divorce needs to happen, define the new jurisdictions, agree that each parish can choose its jurisdiction along with all of its property.  There is no reason why some things such as the church pension fund need to be divided.  I don’t see this sort of arrangement as about property Sarah, but rather as an honest realization that ECUSA itself is badly divided and in need of seperation.  Then, when the two jurisdictions have been established, the ABC and the wider Communion can recognize whom they wish to recognize - and I think that it would be inevitable (did I say INEVITABLE) that within a year or two, “liberal ECUSA” would be at best an “associate” status Province, while the “Windsor ECUSA” would be the full Anglican Province in the AC.

Now what are the motivations to negotiate?  For the liberals there is the following: 1) they realize that ECUSA is in deep trouble and it is experiencing continued bad publicity.  They still think that a liberal gospel can grow the church if left to itself.  Reasserters may think this is the height of delusion, but that’s not the issue.  2) they believe that the reasserters have been winning the war in the Anglican Communion, and that continuing as is, is likely to see ECUSA expelled.  Cutting loose the orthodox (they believe) will result in the pacification of the orthodox, thus no pressure on the AC to act, thus securing ECUSA’s place in the AC, and they further believe that they would only loose a few orthodox parishes.  Again I think they are dead wrong in their analysis, but that isn’t the issue.

What should the orthodox motivation be?  1) a peaceful, amicable seperation of ECUSA into two BROADLY BASED jurisdictions - one being a Windsor jurisdiction, the other being a progressive jurisdiction.  2) trust that the Anglican Communion will exercise discipline (this means that no agreement must be made that would preclude discipline against “liberal ECUSA”).

Sarah - remember that the liberals and conservatives do not agree on many things besides theology.  This will affect their negotiating strategies.  They may think that they are negotiating a parallel province, but so long as this remains an inter-ECUSA agreement, the AC’s and ABC’s hands are not tied.

I think there are two misconceptions now afoot, and if I’ve contribued to them, I apologize.

The first misconception is that I am proposing terms of a settlement. I am proposing that we explore the possibility of a settlement: is such an idea worth examinig? Might it be the best way forward?  To help start that conversation, I posed a few questions about what contibutors to the conversation would like to see in a settlement. There aren’t any terms on the table, and I’m not prepared to offer any. I can discuss what elements of a deal seem most attractive to me, sure, but my own notions of what would work best are unformed, to say the least. I am just feeling my way along and trying to get a sense of people’s opinions. 

The second misconception is that I am engaged in some sort of coordinated response to our current controversy. Believe me, if that were the case I would have arranged for a few ideological sympathizers to join me in this little foray. Liberals in the Episcopal Church are probably less organized than you suppose. This is really just one guy who is heartily sick of fighting this fight every day and is interested in exploring ways to put it behind us. I hope you will believe me when I say that.

All that said, I think this conversation at some recent point became threatening to some prominent members of this online community. I don’t especially like people calling my ideas “boneheaded,” but I suppose that was bound to happen eventually. When you suggest I need to “come clean,” howver, a line has been crossed. I assume your good faith. If you can’t reciprocate, it doesn’t do me much good to continue speaking.

I really want to thank Matt for initiating this conversation, and to thank the numerous authors whose comments I continue to consider. It’s been a pleasure to talk to you rather than about you, and I’ve learned a lot.

Jamesw, yes, precisely.

Jim, I have just started going in more detail through this thread and I have not seen the comments of which you speak.

Meaning, when I see them I’ll see what I can do. This is supposed to be a somewhat moderated thread.

RE: “I think that we need to be very clear that any amicable divorce within ECUSA will have no effect on the larger Anglican Communion.”

But I’m afraid, Jamesw, that we don’t have control over whether such a divorce will “have no effect on the larger Anglican Communion”.  There is nothing to prevent Griswold and company, once such a settlement is negotiated, from introducing that settlement into the negotiation that they themselves are engaged in with Lambeth regarding their communion status!!! 

And if Lambeth were not interested in that, then why have the New York meeting when precisely the “amicable settlement” idea was on the table.

Matt+: Unfortunately, Greg made the comments Mr. Naughton is referring to about 13 or so comments up. Perhaps an apology is in order?

the snarkster

Thanks.  By the way, Mr. Naughton is not the first person to broach the idea of settling to get rid of the orthodox.  I have heard it from a number of fairly senior types in New York who cross over into the business world for years.  It has just never seemed to be the majority thinking up at 815, and not appropriate to raise in public.  But I suspect that more institutionalists are wondering if they should just try to get past this fighting.

Also, I think Mr. Naughton is right that, by and large, ECUSA has the stronger hand on the property legal question.  But it is determined jurisdiction by jurisdiction, and in some pretty important jurisdictions (California for one, and Virginia may be another), they may not hold the upper hand.

However, it is inaccurate of Mr. Naughton to say that “If I understand the issue correctly, whether the Episcopal Church is in or out of the Communion has no bearing on American law.”  The issue is that the preamble to the constitution essentially states that ECUSA is a part of the Anglican Communion.  That raises a two-part question.  First, what is ECUSA if that is true for only part of ECUSA?  Second, can a court even decide such matters, and if not, what happens to the Denis canon?  Can it be enforced if a court has to interject itself into such questions?  In other words, is it just meaningless, nonbinding language, or is it a definition?  It can be argued both ways.  I do not know the answer, and do not bother looking for the legal decision to tell you which way is correct, that does not exist - yet.  But certainly another significant arrow is added to the legal quiver of the orthodox if ECUSA ceases to be part of the Communion.  All the more reason to settle, in my view.

I think there are three distinct issues

1.Communion discipline
2. the covenant process
3. the question of whether Canterbury will recognize a new, replacement, or parallel structure
4. the decisions of individual parishes with relation to their bishops within dioceses.

I certainly see how things Network/Windsor bishops do and say can help or hinder 3 and how 3 has some relation (though not as much as some may assume) to 1. That is why I was so negative on CA.

I do not think that 4 has so much bearing on 3 (and none on 1) unless there is such a widespread movement for amicable separation and this movement leads to collective action in so many dioceses at one time that it essentially creates two distinct entities. If that happens then, the issue of 3 will be effectively forced by both sides.

Sorry, I’m not getting sucked in by seemingly sincere and amiable inquiries from the “other” side of these issues.  The only thing that will make them negotiate in good faith (pardon the expression) is recognizing they don’t have enough money in their coffers to smash the orthodox parishes in court.  Negotiating with them would have about as much effect as the Jews trying to negotiate with Islamo-fascists over land.  The option I like best is to have orthodox parishes walk away from their properties and leave the Episcopal heretics with empty buildings, no assessment revenue, and big mortgages to pay off.  What money TEC gains will be frittered away in a few years as the Episcopal church dies a slow and well-deserved death.

Why would the “liberal” wing want to negotiate with the “orthodox” wing?  We can’t give them anything they (a) want and (b)  don’t already have (control of the Church).

How about an amicable separation based on the following three principles:

#1—(a) LET ANY PARISH LEAVE WITH ITS PROPERTY. Thus reappraising congregations could leave orthodox dioceses and orthodox congregations could leave reappraising dioceses. This principle is straightforward, but we’d still need to define what constitutes the congregation’s “property” and what procedures the congregation must follow in deciding whether to leave.

Parishes would remain responsible for all their liabilities, including any outstanding loans made to the parish by the diocese. If in recent years the diocese has given the parish money to buy or improve parish buildings, the parish would need to repay at some of that money. (I’d suggest a sliding scale under which the departing parish would have to repay 100% of a diocesan grant made during the past year, 90% of a grant made one year ago, 80% of a grant made two years ago, 70% of a grant made three years ago, and so forth.)

#2—- LET ANY DIOCESE LEAVE WITH ITS PROPERTY. Thus dioceses could choose between remaining in ECUSA and joining a new orthodox church (presumably one that would grow out of the Network).

#3—- PROVIDE EQUITABLY FOR CLERGY PENSIONS AND RELATED BENEFITS. Clergy who departed for the new orthodox church would remain vested in the Church Pension Fund and they and their employers would remain responsible for making the same contributions as ECUSA clergy. This arrangement could work in the long-run as well as the short run. But if problems did arise, they would be settled by arbitration under equitable principles that would be spelled out at the time of separation.

I believe that these principles are straightforward and fair—- and that they could form the basis for an amicable separation that would benefit both sides. I’d be interested in what others think.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

PS: I heartily commend Jim Naughton for raising the idea of an amicable settlement. And I apologize if (in my haste to offer my thoughts before I must leave for a meeting) I repeat ideas that earlier commenters have already set forth or dissected. I look forward to reading earlier comments later today.

Correction to my previous comment:
The second sentence of the second paragraph should read, “If in recent years the diocese has given the parish money to buy or improve parish buildings, the parish would need to repay at LEAST some of that money.”

Jim,

I apologize if I called your proposal of a settlement itself “boneheaded.” You had, in fact, proposed a settlement term, which was that orthodox parishioners “buy” their churches from ECUSA at a “sub-market value.” What I meant to call “boneheaded” was any suggestion that orthodox Americans agree to that term before learning what we got in exchange for that cash.

If I’ve offended, I apologize. I hope you’ll continue to discuss this settlement idea, as I’m very curious as to the other terms you had in mind.

Notice that under the 3 principles just suggested, we could achieve an amicable separation without having to:
—- appraise property (except, e.g., where a mission congregation meeting in property owned by the diocese sought to acquire that property);
—- resolve theological issues; or
—- decide who is more authentically Anglican.

Congregations and dioceses would have a one-time opportunity to vote with their feet. That’s about as straightforward as any settlement could be under the circumstances.

One last thought before consigning myself to a meeting that will surely be less interesting than this thread.

I’ve now skimmed earlier comments. At a nuts-and-bolts level, an amicable separation need not be as difficult as some commenters seem to think. We in the United States do not control how overseas Anglican churches will regard ECUSA and a new Network-based Anglican church. We cannot make deals about that. But we can resolve our own property and personnel issues if we have the will to do so.

Matt and Jim generated this thread because several people asked for it (or at least thought the idea worth exploring) on another thread at this site.  I think it came from Jim asking Matt’s opinion on the dissenting Springfield parish.  Nobody came in with a conspiracy - Matt and Jim were not talking about broader “separation” until several of us brought it up.  They seem to have corresponded off-line for several days, framed some key questions and opened this thread.
Accusations of a plot and the hyperbolic comparisons between our current denominatinal mess with the Civil War, the Cold War, Middle-East conflict and other chapters from the history books are really getting stale.  Reasserters ought to know better, having been assailed with overheated junk like “oppressor”, “genocidal” and even the silly “phobic” over the years.
We can’t agree on language to describe what God is doing - our main purpose - and that’s why we are effectively “two churches” or “walking apart.”  Talking about some kind of separation is a sane and possibly penitential, God-honoring response to that reality.
Can we do without some of the melodrama?

OK, I’ll raise my hand and take sole blame for the melodrama.

Jim, my apology has been offered. I hope you accept it and continue with the conversation.

I do, however, note that you’ve actually proposed two terms for the settlement, not just the one I noted earlier:

1. That orthodox parishioners purchase their property by paying their dioceses a “sub-market value.”

2. ECUSA retains its full-communion status.

Can you explain how this is a better deal for the orthodox than taking our chances in American courts, with the Primates, at Lambeth, and with the ABC? Are there terms that have been offered I’ve missed? Do you have terms you might suggest that make this a more attractive deal?

Greg, thanks. It does seem, though that my withdrawing would be the most constructive thing for the course of the conversation. Again, I appreciate the opportunity you folks gave me, especially as—perhaps tellingly—I’ve been unable to generate much conversation on this issue over on my side of town.  At some point, if I come up with some sort of “What I hope the Episcopal Church gets of amicable serparation” I will post it. But I haven’t gotten my mind around it yet.

The issues under discussion were tentatively addressed at the Pasadena Meeting of the (ECUSA) National Reconcilation Conference:
“We began a pivotal conversation about parishes leaving ECUSA.
If, for some, reconciliation cannot be achieved by holding together within a single ecclesial structure, the process of defining new relationships must be guided by intentional mutuality and dignified mediation.

Mutual Christian love can be exhibited by leave-taking with grace. This process can never be without cost to everyone involved including the whole church, yet must be without blaming or shaming. All members of the Church can continue to be effective ministers of the unity of the church of Jesus Christ even in a new situation which might allow for two units of the Anglican Communion in the United States. We must maintain communication with the recognition of sufficient things in common to warrant continuing fellowship, and leave the door open for possible reunion.
The following points reflect our discussion on this difficult topic and were agreed upon, although not unanimously. We recommend them to the church for future discussion.
LEADERSHIP AND PASTORAL CARE: In such cases, the national church should offer: (1) leadership of the separation process, (2) pastoral care to all with emphasis on living into empowerment for all and effective ministration to those left behind.
PROPERTY AND ASSETS: Relationship issues should be addressed before property issues, that litigation should be avoided, and there should be an equitable and generous division of tangible and financial assets.
FREEDOM OF AFFILIATION: Understanding Christ’s command to love one another, all lay people, clergy, congregations and dioceses should have freedom of affiliation with no prejudice to their ecclesiastical status or pension rights.”

Some of the more noteable signatories were: Jon Bruno, David Anderson, Elizabeth Kaeton, Richard Kew, Bill Thompson, Brian Cox, Ted Mollegen, and so forth.
The complete text can be found here: http://members.aol.com/newcmndment/Pasadena.htm

I prefer the Report’s term, “leave-taking with grace” to the less theological “amicable separation”.

1. I agree with Timothy F. and others that reasserters on this blog should stop the conspiracy theories.  Jim Naughton obviously does not have the authority to offer settlement terms, nor is there any rational reason for thinking he is some liberal trickster.  I think Jim is doing exactly what he SAYS he is doing - exploring a potential solution to our current difficulties.  Thanks Jim for your part in this discussion.

2. Sarah - if ECUSA divorces amicably and the result is a broad-based “Windsor ECUSA” jurisdiction on the one hand and a “liberal ECUSA” on the other, and Griswold & Co. are with the “liberal ECUSA”, then I can tell you right now that neither the ABC nor the vast majority of the primates would care in the least what Griswold & Co. have to say.  Right now Griswold & Co. only matter because they represent official ECUSA.  But if official ECUSA were to voluntarily split into “Windsor ECUSA” (made up of Communion friendly folk) and “liberal ECUSA” (made up of people who want their own way but still crave Anglican recognition) then Griswold & Co. would have lost virtually all of the clout they currently have.  That’s why I say that an amicable divorce must NOT be allowing Network parishes to simply hive off, but rather must be an intentional and well-thought out division of ECUSA.

ASP, how about separation with grace?  Neither side appears willing to admit that they are leaving.  We say that ecusa is walking apart and the Griz and others label churches that leave ecusa for another AC province as walking apart.

Other than “orthodox parishioners” get to re-buy their own property . . . what more do the “orthodox parishioners” get out of a settlement?

And why not simply re-buy their own property by dealing directly with bishop rather than some national deal?

I guess I’m dense . . . I don’t see what orthodox parishioners get out of “let’s re-buy our property” other than re-bought property, which as we all know, parishes have done in the past three years just fine on their own [except, of course, when certain bishops-who-shall-not-be-named decide to bring the police and break into a parish and rifle through their computer files and change the locks on their doors and have a 24-hour armed guard and depose the rector and fire the vestry—but *that’s* “Episcopal pastoral care”].  And the latter such case needs to be litigated in civil courts in my opinion.

Mr.Naughton: I do wish you wouldn’t bow out. As my father always said, “Don’t ever start anything you don’t intend to finish.” I apologize for the tone the thread got off on. I always hate it when I am vilified on some revisionist blog so I do know how you feel. We don’t get many revisionistas over here that are willing to carry on an actual dialogue.

Correct me if I’m wrong. This thread was supposed to go as follows:
1. This reappraiser/reasserter dialogue is simply not working.
2. It is obvious that we are two different religions so far apart that unity is impossible.
3. What are we going to do about it?
4. Does anyone have any ideas how we could split amicably, especially regarding property issues?
5. Here are a couple of suggestions or scenarios to start with. What do you think?
6. If you don’t like mine, tell me yours.

I sincerely believe that the only dialogue left to have is the one we are having now. The split is coming. The only question is can we do it amicably or will it be all out war?

the snarkster

When the Diocese of San Joaquin passes their canonical (or is it constitutional?) change requiring that that any canon of the ECUSA must be in agreement with their own diocesan canons to be enforceable in the diocese, the Episcopal Church will officially no longer be hierarchical. That is the opinion of Mathes, Bruno, Swing, and Lamb and, obviously, their lawyers.
If the Episcopal Church is not hierarchical the obnoxious Dennis canon no longer can stand, and parishes and diocese, if they are willing to try it on in court, can do a UDI (unilateral declaration of independence).

“Let any diocese or parish leave with its property”.  Leave to go where?  A new orthodox province (?) is certainly an option but at this point doesn’t exist.  Even if it did the issue of being in communion with a heretical TEC is not appealing.  It would seem that property settlements may have to await the establishment of a orthodox Anglican presence in the U.S., probably an outgrowth of the Network.  If the ABC allows an heretical TEC the same communion status as the rest of the communion provinces, the AC is, as has been noted before, dead.

Edwin -

Just because the province is not in place, faithful parishes could align with an orthodox primate.

Sarah, you are not dense, but I submit simply wrong on this point. Parishes haven"t done fine negotiating on their own. By my count, only two parishes, Plano and Overland Park, reached an amicable property settlement. Only Overland Park was in a non-Network Diocese.  Other discussions have reportedly occurred but so far have been spectacularly unsuccesful.
It is a brave parish that even starts such *negotiations*. In many Dioceses such a request invites puts the Priests on the road to discipline and creates havoc.  A settlement would allow a parish to make an choice and proceed with an understanding they are not on a kamikaze mission.  I have been in that place, and one of the reasons I would not supported a fight for property was the fact that it would have resulted in a long term court battle and uncertain future.  If a parish knew that it could leave if a supermajority of the parish elected to do so, and knew the perameters of the resulting property settlement, it would make a HUGE difference, IMO.  It would also provide a means for parishioners to get a good read on where there parish is headed, and plan accordingly.
A seperate Province and a framework for a resolution of asset and pension issues—it would be a tragedy to let that pass.

Ireneus raises an important point - whatever goes for an orthodox parish in a revisionist diocese goes for a revisionist parish in an orthodox diocese.  Treat others as you would have them treat you.  If diocese want to do some trading of parishes, that is fine, too.

Someone else raised the point of whole diocese wanting to leave, which I had neglected, not being in such a diocese.  However, ECUSA is on very thin ground moving against the property of a diocese.  In fact, the Denis canon states that property is held in trust for both the diocese and the national church.  Parse that one in Fort Worth.  Moreover, all the property cases are parish against diocese.  What control the national church has over a diocese has never been determined.  Not to say it can’t be argued, but it is a whole exciting new ballgame.  I believe it is also why the Via Media plan was/is to try to take over the diocese so they could/can argue the diocese is them.  Too clever by half as a legal strategy, I think.

I, too, am sorry to see Mr. Naughton leave the conversation, but I’d be very interested to hear what his hopes for ECUSA would be an amicable separation.  I assume he would say one thing is that he thinks ECUSA would thrive without the orthodox.  Like Gamaliel, I’m willing to test that.

I am wondering which lawsuit will require the national church to prove the Denis Canon was passed properly.

Hi Timothy,

I understand that a number of parishes have attained their property privately.  These are not usually publicized—unless the negotiations “go south” and hit the news.  ; < (  And usually, the successful stories are kept in confidence. 

The AAC is most helpful to parishes who need this sort of advice.  They are experienced and wise.  I personally can’t comprehend why a parish would not join the AAC, solely to gain their counsel on various matters like this . . .

And of course, I understand that a part of the reason [other than California law] why the parishes in California were successful even in the lawsuits against them was the interesting legal matters they had worked out *prior* to ever deciding to leave ECUSA.  They really had thought through matters long beforehand.

If a parish has been wise—attained experienced legal counsel with knowledge of canon law, joined the AAC, etc, etc—I see no reason why it should not fight for its property.  Why offer those who teach another gospel the opportunity to counterfeit the appearance of a Christian church through the use of a building that Christians have, with good stewardship, bought and used for the glory of God?

The #1 reason why a non-churched person will “try church” is because he or she is going through a terrible crisis—health, job, divorce, etc.  And the primary reason for a switch in churches is in a geographic move.  In both instances a person often “flips through their mental rolodex” and picks a church to visit based on something random like “I pass that nice church on the corner every time I go to work” or “I’ve used their daycare facilities in the past—maybe they’ll be as nice on Sunday mornings”.

It breaks my heart to think of a non-Christian getting to use a Christian church [no matter the denomination] aping Christianity while at the same time, evacuating it of the Truth of the gospel.

ECUSA currently encompasses TWO INCOMPATIBLE CHURCHES HELD TOGETHER BY UNCERTAINTY ABOUT SECULAR LAW. This sounds jarring but it’s nonetheless true.

To understand why, consider how everyone’s incentives would change if we all knew with certainty how the courts would resolve property disputes. No one would have any legitimate reason to keep fighting. More specifically, the side that would lose in court would have no legitimate reason to waste money on attorneys’ fees.
—- Congregations that would lose property disputes could decide now whether to leave the property behind, attempt to buy it from their current diocese, or remain in that diocese.
—- Dioceses that would lose property disputes could decide now to avoid the rancor and expense of playing out a losing legal hand.
—- The only reason for anyone to keep fighting would be to spite the other side or attempt to gain negotiating leverage on some other issue.

Only legal uncertainty prevents those who really want to leave from leaving now. Congregations don’t want to leave behind property they could win in court. ECUSA dioceses don’t want to relinquish property claims that could prevail in court.

By reaching agreement on how to resolve property disputes, we let every congregation and diocese vote with its feet. No longer will the two incompatible churches within ECUSA be unwillingly yoked together. NO YOKE, NO DOMESTIC QUARREL. We sort out our households, work to heal others’ wounds, and get on with our lives and missions.

We can do that even without a global Anglican solution. If we have the will, we can do it now.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Jim Naughton: I join Michael Ware in urging you to continue participating on this thread. I believe that would be by far “the most constructive thing for the course of the conversation.”

Good points, Irenaeus, but it would once and forever remove the issue of minority or majority.

please change the “but” to “and” in the comment above.

Sorry :>(

Wait - where did Jim Naughton go?  Isn’t David Beers one of the major speakers at the Episcopal Majority get-together next month?

From: “Episcopal Majority”

David Booth Beers to lead Episcopal Majority Session Will Address Legal Issues

David Booth Beers, Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, will lead the “Legal Issues Confronting Parishes and Dioceses” workshop at the meeting of The Episcopal Majority on November 3 in Washington, D.C. Mr. Beers is a partner in the law firm of Goodwin-Proctor in Washington, D.C. As Chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, he has an extensive non-profit practice that is both national and international in scope.

###

So Jim Naughton of the Diocese of Washington just happens to start this, collect information, and then disappear?  What’s up with that?

bb

Jim Naughton,

Thank you for your participation on this topic.  Your points and interest in dialogue are appreciated by many of us in the orthodox camp.  I too often wonder if there is any value to posting ideas which challenge those of us in the orthodox camp.  Often, one feels one is fighting a loosing battle against the rantings of those who just want to be hear rather than have dialogue.  Know that there are many more who value you thoughts and desire to engage in dialogue than meets the eye.  For every poster here, there are hundreds who read the postings and ponder the ruminations the brave post here.  I join in welcoming you back to the dialogue on this and other issues.  Lets thrash out the issues with all their subtle nuiances until we get to the essence of the issue in debate.

Re: “Only legal uncertainty prevents those who really want to leave from leaving now.”

I am sorry, but I do not agree.  I do not want to leave ECUSA until the Anglican Communion disciplines ECUSA and offers another in-Communion option for the orthodox.  Many many others have the same beliefs.

Furthermore, I think that those who desire to leave ECUSA will do so, regardless of legal certainties.  They either work to re-acquire their property or pack up and go buy a new building.  I know people in parishes in both categories.

Sarah: If your parish wants to leave ECUSA, you already have “another in-Communion option for the orthodox”: affiliating with a vibrant, eminently orthodox overseas diocese. Through the Network you can also maintain ties with orthodox Anglican congregations throughout the United States.

Your other point baffles me. You, Sarah Hey—- who so clearly recognize and so engagingly articulate the apostasy of ECUSA’s leaders—- will INSIST on belonging to ECUSA until the Anglican Communion disciplines ECUSA. By that logic, North Koreans who could flee to South Korea should stay put until someone disciplines the North Korean government.

Perhaps you feel called to remain in ECUSA for some special reason such as your leadership position in the American Anglican Council. But most of us don’t have reasons like that. Our remaining in ECUSA does not increase the probability that the Anglican Communion will discipline ECUSA. Nor would our departure reduce the likelihood of such discipline.

RE: “If your parish wants to leave ECUSA, you already have “another in-Communion option for the orthodox”: affiliating with a vibrant, eminently orthodox overseas diocese.”

Incorrect.  Another province has not been established within the US that is in communion with the see of Canterbury—that is, in fact, the battle right now.

RE: “You, Sarah Hey—- who so clearly recognize and so engagingly articulate the apostasy of ECUSA’s leaders—- will INSIST on belonging to ECUSA until the Anglican Communion disciplines ECUSA.”

As will many many others, Irenaeus. 

We wish to be a part of the Anglican Communion.  Period. 

ECUSA is the only recognized entity in the US in communion with the see of Canterbury.

I can’t imagine why my point would baffle you, since the point has been repeatedly and lengthily explained in numerous articles.

RE: “Perhaps you feel called to remain in ECUSA for some special reason such as your leadership position in the American Anglican Council.”

All of my reasons have been lengthily explained over the months and years.  None of those reasons have the slightest thing to do with the AAC—though it’s a great organization.  Board members make up a variety of affiliations.

RE: “Our remaining in ECUSA does not increase the probability that the Anglican Communion will discipline ECUSA. Nor would our departure reduce the likelihood of such discipline.”

Very true.  Those traditional Anglicans who stay within ECUSA wish to belong to a disciplined, ordered Anglican Communion until such time as they recognize that a disciplined, ordered Anglican Communion will not occur.  Those who leave have a priority of being outside of ECUSA.

Your stance, Irenaeus, is that “property” is what really matters to the orthodox.  Well, that’s the claim of reappraisers about us as well.  But for many of us, it is not true.  Property is not the issue—a disciplined, whole, healthy, ordered Anglican Communion is.  It may not be for you, but it is for me.

All of your points have been thoroughly and completely covered in this article and in ensuing comments:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1270/

Your other point baffles me. You, Sarah Hey—- who so clearly recognize and so engagingly articulate the apostasy of ECUSA’s leaders—- will INSIST on belonging to ECUSA until the Anglican Communion disciplines ECUSA. ….
Perhaps you feel called to remain in ECUSA for some special reason such as your leadership position in the American Anglican Council. But most of us don’t have reasons like that. Our remaining in ECUSA does not increase the probability that the Anglican Communion will discipline ECUSA. Nor would our departure reduce the likelihood of such discipline.

Sarah will no doubt have her own reasons for her position, you have suggested one very reasonable possibility. Like most people staying or leaving I’ve ruminated on my own path for quite a while. This is something of what I have come to in my own reason for staying.

ECUSA during it’s transformation to TEC has (in the words of the “Articles”) ceased to be a place “in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance…” In fact, by these articles, we have done that which is not lawful. TEC is not part of “The visible Church of Christ.” And yet I, so believing, am still a part of it. In fact, I am reluctant to leave without a word from God so direct that I cannot hide its meaning. It is right to ask “Why?”
 
  Partly, it is because it is by the teaching of the Anglican Communion, in the very articles I quote, that I can authoritatively recognize the false. I understand my faith through a lens of teaching, looking to Holy Scripture as the foundation.
 
  Secondly, I believe that we as Christians are called to be together: as the Trinity is One in Three persons, life which reflects God back to Him will of necessity be corporate. Not just a bunch of individuals in one room, a convention of lone rangers- but a real, organic unity. I think this is “of the essence” but we don’t achieve it.
 
  Thirdly, since we do not achieve it and are in fact in a state of broken relationship, we have a rather trustworthy, although sad, model. In all the multitude of divisions in the church, good reasons may be found.  “But from the beginning it was not so” We were made to be one (and by the grace of God, will be). But because of the hardness of our hearts, a way of divorce was made. Don’t scoff at the marital image: To show the world the character of the triune God, marriage is the first great image, the church is the second. The fact that we as humans have often failed in both does not mean that divorce, matrimonial or ecclesial, is to be done quickly, or without great reluctance and shame. 
Our church has “Serial unity” the way some practice “serial monogamy” and for the same reason: schism begets schism. Whether done rightly or wrongly; whether Rome or Constantinople started it, whether The Pope or the Reformers were the true schismatic, one of the fruits of division is more and continuing division. We see that in this church, along with some hints that God may yet bring healing. Division is thus rightly eschewed, hated right up to the moment God calls one through the bottle-neck.
  ——-
  There are doubtless deeper, more technical, more structural and institutional reasons. There are also more psychologically problematic reasons in me. But these are the main points by which I understand my on reasons to continue.
 
  -Eric S.

“As it is, the only reason why 815 would ever desire a negotiated settlement is if they get something more than “money” out of it.  What they need is 1) decreased publicity, 2) lowered intensity and pressure on international figures to take action, 3) us to all go away, 4) retained Communion status.
Frankly, there’s little doubt that 815 is burning up the wires negotiating for just that very package . . .  and if they gained that, the Anglican Communion is finished.”

I’ve been struggling with 815’s motivation in all this.  Sarah lists a number of reasons why 815 would want a negotiated settlement.  Lumping those together presumes a growing acceptance on their part that things are truly not going their way.  There have been tons of comments on many posts that the revisionists are simply in denial and the the orthodox problem would simply evaporate and/or that the orthodox would come to see the ‘new thing’ God has shown us.  But despite a few positive signs here and there and also folk like Jim Naughton who are fed up with the destructive and obscuring nature of relationships between most revisionists and reasserters, I still can’t get past thinking that 815 still looks to delaying tactics to further their cause. 
Maybe I’m wrong but the past 30 years or so has not only seen the the shifts within ECUSA but have also widened the polarization in many other churches around the world (the CofE, CofC, the Scottish and Irish Churches to name only the ones in the British Isles.  This polarization must give 815 a good deal of encouragement to stay their course.  In addition, there is enough vacillation coming from the ABC to give them hope (despite the strong statements he has made in favour of the orthodox).  Perhaps enough encouraging signs around the world that lead 815 to conclude, while acknowledging the rifts in ECUSA as irreconcilable, that they can still hang on to the structure in ECUSA and hope that things will eventually fall their way.  I think that they still expect that they will not be removed from the AC or at least shifted to a dead bough to gradually drop off.  But I also think that their announcement at GC this year that the name was changing to TEC and that TEC includes a goodly number of other national churches is their ace card.  They might lose the AC but there is always TEC as insurance.  I wonder if they don’t see the expanded TEC as the nucleus through which the revisionist agenda can be promulgated.  I have seen one or two comments (or postings ... I don’t remember which) on revisionist sites to the effect that they need to develop sympathetic revisionist groups in target countries (I read Nigeria ... where there was already the nucleus of one such group) ... and those convert/overthrow the orthodox in those countries or at least develop a significant “We are here” presence. 
I agree with Sarah that their main hope is to retain AC membership.  I agree with her that if that occurs the AC is finished as a credible voice of global Anglicanism.
Just some musings…......!

Sarah:  I think that the idea of the orthodox buying back their parishes was just an idea that Naughton raised.  It’s certainly not something that I would agree with, and not an essential part of the seperation.

As I see it Rowan Williams has all but begged ECUSA to sort its problems out internally.  And that’s what I would see this amicable divorce/graceful leavetaking to be about.  ECUSA sorts out ITS ecclesiastical, canonical and legal structures on its own via a graceful leave-taking.  No more bully-boy tactics like those tried by Smith, Bruno, Mathes, Swing, Lamb, Dixon, Bennison, etc., etc., but rather with all sides demonstrating a love of justice and respect for each other.

The context for the seperation would be that “ECUSA-whole” remains part of the worldwide AC.  “ECUSA-whole” would become “ECUSA-Windsor” and “ECUSA-Progressive”.  Following the division, the AC must then decide whether to recognize BOTH jurisdictions, “ECUSA-Windsor”, “ECUSA-Progressive” or neither.  Such a graceful leavetaking would be orderly and both sides would be subject to Anglican discipline.

What do the progressives get out of this?  They are rid of the orthodox causing them all their bad press.  They are free to do what they want (AND take the consequences for their “prophetic” actions).  They are free to use the precedent of ECUSA’s graceful seperation as a model to gather progressive clergy and parishes from other Western nations - “ECUSA-Progressive” could perhaps even add a few more national flags to its General Convention dais.  The progressives believe (and I think they believe wrongly) that (1) conservatives make up an extremely small group within ECUSA; (2) that if the conservatives get a parallel province that the Anglican Communion will no longer be motivated to discipline ECUSA; and (3) that a progressive ECUSA, unhindered by the need to placate the Anglican Communion, would grow by leaps and bounds.  If they actually believe this, then a graceful leavetaking makes great sense.  My belief is that those liberals that do believe this are delusional, and that most liberals know that they can’t survive without leaching off orthodox parishes and that is why most liberals refuse to even consider a graceful leavetaking. 

What do the orthodox get out of this?  They are rid of the progressives causing them bad press and dragging down their churches.  This would make the issue of Anglican discipline of “ECUSA-Progressive” much, MUCH easier for Rowan Williams and the primates.  Right now, Williams doesn’t want to cut of ECUSA because there is still some healthy flesh on the dead body.  A graceful seperation (done right) would seperate the healthy flesh from the dead flesh.  Much easier to cut away the dead flesh then.  With a graceful seperation, the orthodox could keep their properties (just as liberal parishes could).  A graceful seperation would lay the groundwork for the more extreme progressive elements elsewhere in the Anglican Communion to join “ECUSA-Progressive”.

Net result Sarah?  A strengthened Anglican Communion much more ready to discipline on the one hand, and a group of ex-Anglican progressive clergy and dying parishes on the other desperately wondering why they are continuing to die even after ridding themselves of those pesky conservatives.

“Your stance, Irenaeus, is that ‘property’ is what really matters to the orthodox.  Well, that’s the claim of reappraisers about us as well.  But for many of us, it is not true.  Property is not the issue—a disciplined, whole, healthy, ordered Anglican Communion is.  It may not be for you, but it is for me.”

You have my position EXACTLY WRONG. Property-related concerns are the main thing keeping many orthodox congregations in ECUSA. Neither they nor I see much to stay for in ECUSA. I want the orthodox to be free to leave. And if we can reduce the potential for property concerns to become a stumbling block to their departure, so much the better.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

You write: “We wish to be a part of the Anglican Communion.  Period.  ECUSA is the only recognized entity in the US in communion with the see of Canterbury.”

This statement seems to imply that a U.S. Anglican congregation can remain in communion with Canterbury only by belonging to a U.S. Anglican province.

Does that mean that the many U.S. Anglican congregations that have joined overseas Anglican provinces (e.g., Central Africa, Nigeria, Rwanda, Singapore, Southern Cone, and Uganda) are no longer in communion with Canterbury?

Dumb Ox: Never underestimate the power of denial as a justification to do nothing, when the alternative is radical change.  In ECUSA, but also in other organizations I am involved with, I am always amazed at how some people can deny a problem exists to justify their non-action in resolving said problem.

It usually begins when the leadership commits to a certain course of action.  When that course of action is seen to be problematic, then anyone saying so is targeted as having a “bad attitude”.  As more and more evidence of a fiasco mounts, the leadership sees its credibility linked to maintaining that it was right in deciding the course of action.  The leadership becomes more autocratic in its attitudes, all the while losing the confidence of the followers.  Desperate leadership will not admit the truth and nothing will change until the system collapses under the weight of its problems or if outside forces remove the leadership.  There are lots of books out there that describe how humans can respond to important crises in remarkably harmful ways.

I believe that this paradigm is happening in ECUSA right now.  ECUSA is not close to collapse yet and the ABC has up to now only made rumblings of action.  Nothing near big enough to pierce the veil of denial yet.

That is why I believe that the biggest obstacle to any graceful leavetaking is the denial of reality by ECUSA’s leadership.

St. Ox: I agree that 815 dearly wants some deal that would allow ECUSA to remain in the Anglican Communion. To achieve that, 815 would probably be willing to trade property for continued recognition. But Anglican Churches of the Global South would rightly regard such a deal as a betrayal of principle. They cannot, in good faith, be in communion with ECUSA. They accept expedients like declaring “impaired communion” only as transitional devices. If Canterbury were to remain in communion with an unrepentant ECUSA, it would invite the break-up of the Anglican Communion.

That’s why orthodox Anglicans in the United States should not—- in seeking an amicable separation from ECUSA—- attempt to deal with ECUSA’s status in the Anglican Communion. We have no power to resolve that issue. And we should not ask Global South Anglican leaders to go against the dictates of conscience.

Meanwhile back to reality in Connecticut.  Bishop Smith once again demonstrates the futility of much of the high hopes for negotiated settlements on this thread.
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4867

I’d like to be the first to predict the inevitable post on a revisionist blog, pointing to this thread in which a man with no authority to negotiate on behalf of 815, offers us nothing in exchange for our something, then ducks out when the tough questions start to fly, as proof that the orthodox just aren’t interested in dialogue and negotiation.

I would be perfectly happy to do a deal with the ECUSA which would allow for two lanes on the Anglican highway in America. Eventually, of course, those lanes will inevitably diverge, going in different directions, but for now, I’m willing to be generous. Why not? It’s a small price to pay for mutual freedom from this ridiculous morass of mutually assured destruction.

Re: “Much easier to cut away the dead flesh then.”

Hi JamesW, I’m afraid it would simply then be easier for Rowan to say [as he gazes at two provinces within the US, both recognized by the see of Canterbury], “see, this isn’t so bad! Isn’t it great that both the dead flesh province and the live flesh province can all be together in mission and ministry in the Anglican Communion!!  Why go through the divisive pain of further discipline, when we are all doing so well.”

RE: “You have my position EXACTLY WRONG. Property-related concerns are the main thing keeping many orthodox congregations in ECUSA.”

Irenaeus, how did I get it wrong when I said: ““Your stance, Irenaeus, is that ‘property’ is what really matters to the orthodox.”

Is it that I didn’t use the words “congregations” and “in ECUSA”?  Because that is what I meant.

How about I rephrase it like this: ““Your stance, Irenaeus, is that ‘property’ [related concerns] [are] what really matters to the orthodox [congregations in ECUSA].”

Re: “This statement seems to imply that a U.S. Anglican congregation can remain in communion with Canterbury only by belonging to a U.S. Anglican province.”

That is the way the Communion is set up, yes.

That is why the Kigali statement was so important for the orthodox—they desire a province in the US to be set up that is recognized by the see of Canterbury. 

This comment thread covers much of this subject in grinding detail:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1270/

And George Carey’s letters from 2000 and 2001 about the AMiA consecrations speak some about this whole “one province, one geographic region” principle [although actually there are some notable exceptions to that rule], which is based on Lambeth resolutions from 1988 and 1998, which in turn were based on much earlier “assumptions”.

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/carey/releases/000217.htm
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/carey/releases/010619.htm

Sarah: People often have multiple reasons for acting or refraining from action. Just because one of those factors tips the balance for a time does not mean that factor is “what really matters” and all else is secondary.

Until the fall of Ft. Sumter, President Lincoln refrained from taking military action against the Confederacy lest he alienate moderate pro-slavery folk in places like Virginia, North Carolina, and the Border States. That doesn’t mean the opinions of moderate pro-slavery folk were “what really mattered” to Lincoln.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

You’re quite mistaken to assert that a U.S. Anglican congregation can remain in communion with Canterbury only by belonging to a U.S. Anglican province.

Consider the orthodox clergy (and their congregations) who have left the Diocese of Florida and affiliated with orthodox overseas provinces—- clergy like:
-x- Eric Dudley, Neal Lebhar, Jim McCaslin, Jim Needham, and David Sandifer (Uganda);
-x- Mark Eldredge, Sam Pascoe, and Rob Sanders (Rwanda); and
-x- Travis Boline, Rob Coon, and Alex Farmer (Kenya).
http://www.anglicanalliancenf.org/congregations.htm (apologies to those not mentioned by name)

These faithful clergy and their congregations are just as much in communion with Canterbury—- and just as much part of the Anglican Communion—- as you and Bp. Howard. To assert otherwise is crabbed and preposterous.

Do you seriously contend that if Martyn Minns left ECUSA and continued his U.S. ministry under the province of Nigeria, he would cease to be in communion with Canterbury?

If I might point out something that I think is being missed here…why would the Episcopal Church be interested in a divorce?

Very few Episcopalians would even consider the idea, except maybe in a moment of frustration while reading blogs.

Is the benefit to TEC that it would stop the bad press?  Or let us keep the label “Anglican?”  Or let our bishops have tea with Dr. Williams?  Weak justifications for divorce, it seems to me, and I would imagine for most Episcopalians.

If a divorce is what you want,  then there needs to be more justification for such a drastic action.

But, I don’t think that’s what you want at all.  It appears what you really want is TEC punished.  Such a motivation makes the term “amicable” a rather strange choice of adjectives. 

“Amicable” would involve negotiations.  What I see here is a list of demands.  Why would anyone be interested in such a “settlement?”

Fr. Jake,

I do think we all want discipline to follow on the heals of false teaching for the sake of the Church.

But discipline is not ours to give. It can only be done on the Communion level through a series of disinvitations etc…

That is a separate question, however. The question of this thread, as I understood it, was simply the way we interact with one another domestically, leaving aside the question of whether the IU’s act.

In that sense, it is necessary and reasonable to discuss “amicable” separation and many, both revisionist and orthodox, bishops and parishes have done and are doing so amicably.

Fr. Jake,

One last thing. The desire for discipline is something shared by many on your site as well. The difference is simply who is doing the discipline. Many on the left would love nothing more than to vacate the sees of “schismatic” bishops and remove “schismatic” priests. Remember the “day after” plans of Via Media.

Maybe I am thick, but I do not see why some posit that the two province proposal necessarily requires the two provinces to be of equal status in the AC for the long run?  (i.e., simply adding a province) 

It seems reasonable that a separation could occur after some level of punishment of ECUSA.  Granted, perhaps both portions will be in an initial reduced, associate status until conclusion of the AC covenant.  But in the long run, the AC may order itself between associate and constituent members…

Fr. Jake - You said:
“‘Amicable’ would involve negotiations.  What I see here is a list of demands.  Why would anyone be interested in such a “settlement?’ “

Who on the revisionist side is willing to engage in negotiations?  I see lots of ideas here being floated by the orthodox, but where are your counter-proposals?  I gather from your post that you do not see any need for them.  Presumably, you are simply rejecting Williams’ call for separation without coercion.  ECUSA cannot be forced to accept it.  But in that case the judges will decide.  And in the meantime, ECUSA gets more of what it has been experiencing the last three years, only more so. 

It is my personal observation that calling for litigation is easy, but going through it is extremely taxing, even if you win.  And cases that look clear cut sometimes turn out not to be.  Precedent sometimes, but not always, determines the outcome.  That is why we have so many plaintiffs’ lawyers in this country.  But I guess some people have to learn the hard way.

Fr. Jake, you asked why TEC would be interested in a divorce. Let me offer this explanation.

Many “conservatives” viewed GC 2006 as TEC’s last chance to turn back from what they view as TEC’s calamatous apostacy. I hasten to note that I appreciate that reappraisers view TEC’s current course as correct and prophetic. The point here is not who is right, but that the two sides’ respective beliefs are irreconcileable. GC 2006 proved that TEC will not turn back from its course. In that sense, GC 2006 was like Hannibal burning his boats so that his troops would know that retreat was not an option. Everybody got that message loud and clear after GC 2006.

In this context, what do reappraisers and reasserters have in common any more? We truly disagree about everything theological. We truly are two faiths in one juridical entity. So why do we stay together, united only by our mutual unhappiness?

Jake+,
I don’t see that there is a call to punish TEC.  What I do believe is that TEC will face the consequences to their various actions that have ‘broken the bonds of communion’, that have taken the Episcopal Church in a direction away from the orthodox traditions and beliefs of the Anglican Communion.  Those consequences (not punishments) are very likely to include ‘banishment’ from the AC since TEC has made the decision to do its own thing.  Another consequence will probably be this: should the ABC accept that TEC is walking away from the AC and yet continue to accept them as members, the AC will break up.  There is no other outcome.  In either case why on earth would individuals, parishes, diocese who hold to the traditions and beliefs of Anglicanism continue to remain tied to TEC?  The orthodox are not leaving TEC.  Most are saying that they have a stake in US Anglicanism, TEC has moved on and away, and the orthodox may not be in the majority but they expect and plan to remain in the Anglican tradition.  Can you deny that a good portion of TEC is moving in the direction of Universal Unitarianism?

Irenaeus, you bring up many faithful men and women and their congregations and then assert that they are recognized by the see of Canterbury.  But there are many faithful men in the REC and the APA—and both of those entities are now in communion with the Province of Nigeria—and yet the REC and the APA are not in the Anglican Communion.  Faithfulness and godliness has zero to do with whether provinces are recognized by Canterbury and in the Anglican Communion. 

According to the Anglican Communion, by Lambeth resolutions and Canterbury, the way a congregation in the US remains in communion with Canterbury is through belonging to ECUSA.  Period.

That is precisely what all of this fuss is about.  If there were already two provinces recognized by Canterbury in the geography of the US—then we would not need the Kigali statement asking for a new province.  All would be well!!  We would need no changes.  No need to ask for anything, if all is already arranged.  The Network’s 7th Convocation could consecrate its own bishop and that bishop would be invited to Lambeth, fully recognized as a bishop of the Anglican Communion.

But the fact is that there is no such thing.  There is no province other than ECUSA that is recognized by the see of Canterbury and that can thus consecrate bishops and send them to Lambeth and do all the other things that churches recognized by Canterbury can do.  One may wish for it, dream of it, and pretend otherwise, but that person would be wrong.

*Your* assertion is inaccurate.  Furthermore, such assertions, because they do not say the truth, then deny the possibility of reform and change in the Anglican Communion.  It seems clear to me that Bishop Duncan would like nothing better than for the REC, APA, AMiA, and the Network’s 7th Convocation to be all recognized by a disciplined, boundaried, Anglican Communion and for each of their bishops to go to Lambeth.  But to assert that it is so, when it is not so, is simply untruthful and furthermore, like a physician that denies an existent illness, limits the possibilities for a cure that is needed.

AMiA is not in the Anglican Communion and their bishops are not recognized.  If those bishops are recognized, then they will be invited to Lambeth.

That is why, of course, ECUSA bishops wish to be invited to Lambeth—they wish to be recognized by Canterbury as bishops of the Communion.

Have you read the letters and the thread I pointed you to?  The history on this—the resolutions and the pronouncements by Canterbury AND the Primates—are crystal clear about the rules. 

People can 1) work to change the rules or 2) create a different grouping and call it a communion.  But otherwise . . .

Matt,

I see little “desire to discipline” from my perspective.  Maybe once in awhile, in the heat of the moment, but even then it is directed towards maybe a dozen bishops and a couple of archbishops. 

The difference, from reading the comments here, is that you consider the “discipline” an integral part of the choreography, and intend to include the majority of TEC, who have little or no interest in the current unpleasantness.

My point being that I think most Episcopalians would be more than happy to drop any considerations of “punishments.”  But, when such punishments are an integral element in your plans, it makes any further conversation fairly impossible, as it seems to some, perhaps erroneously, that there is simply a desire for revenge.

Was anyone surprised that the meeting in NY broke down?  What is there to talk about when one party says “Do what we want or we’ll punish you and take the whole franchise.”

If there is to be any kind of settlement, it seems to me that there needs to be some work done on the communication, from both sides.  To borrow from TA, we need to drop the parent/child interactions, and begin to speak as one adult to another.  Otherwise, there is nothing left to do except call in the attorneys.

Fr. Jake, clearly both sides are going to see the situation through their own filters.  That said, it seems to me that the party that said, “Do what we want or we’ll punish you and take the whole franchise,” was ECUSA, which, after all, is the only party capable of “taking the whole franchise.”  It’s been the revisionist side, also, that has been threatening to declare sees vacant and has been deposing priests - see the situation in Connecticut (with which I know you had some misgivings).

The reasserter side is incapable of punishing anybody.  Oh, sure, we can encourage Canterbury to reduce or eliminate ECUSA’s participation in the Communion, but, really, what punishment is that, especially for the side on which many have already said, “good riddance?”

What ECUSA is capable of doing is destroying careers, wiping out retirement savings and devastating parish finances.  That might be something to keep in mind when we think about who is more called to show charity.

Father Jake,

On your blog you say that the conservatives in the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church are abusers - tantamount to wife beaters.

On StandFirm you say:
If I might point out something that I think is being missed here…why would the Episcopal Church be interested in a divorce?

On your own blog you say:
(quoting Katie Sherrod)
  The number one thing to do is GET AWAY FROM YOUR ABUSER…

(Fr Jake speaking)
I think this diagnosis is pretty accurate. The recent temper tantrums of Bp. Beckwith are just the latest examples of abusive behavior that has been allowed to continue for much too long.

So are we an abusive spouse-beaters that you need to divorce or not Jake?  Some of the rhetoric on your blog is stunning.

DoW

Jake says:  What is there to talk about when one party says “Do what we want or we’ll punish you and take the whole franchise.”
Choke - sputter - choke - sputter - that’s me choking on my coffee.  Whoever thought they would hear Jake proclaiming for the reasserter side!

Sarah: You confuse being part of the Anglican Communion with being recognized as a separate entity within the Anglican Communion.

The Church of Uganda is part of the Anglican Communion. If my parish left ECUSA (to which it has only the most formal and tenuous ties) and joined the Church of Uganda, we would remain part of the Anglican Communion. We would want our bishop invited to Lambeth. If he were Ugandan-born, he would be. If he were born in an English-speaking country, he almost certainly still would be. Even if Canterbury wanted to exclude Martyn Minns, it could not afford to do so.

My parish remains in ECUSA because our kindly revisionist bishop respects our claims of conscience and leaves us alone, even though we haven’t paid diocesan assessments for years. We are not wealthy. If we left our property behind, the rector and vestry would have to lay off almost the entire parish staff. But if we had to choose between violating our consciences and leaving our property, we would readily leave our property.

Similarly, if we had to choose between violating our consciences and having an American-born Church of Uganda bishop who didn’t get invited to Lambeth next time around, we would opt for the latter.

When church historians look back on this period of Anglican history, they will probably conclude that Canterbury excluded AMiA bishops from some Lambeth gatherings because Canterbury was then still soft on ECUSA and because Canterbury perceived AMiA as fissiparous—- as breaking from ECUSA before it really needed to.

I believe you err in taking past pronouncements about geographic provinces at face value.

People unfamiliar with systems of customary law tend to make one of three fundamental errors: (1) to believe that those systems are not really law at all; (2) to assume that the system is immutable; or (3) to overstate the difficulty of achieving change. In that sense, you (to use the words of your spurious charge against me) underestimate “the possibility of reform and change in the Anglican Communion.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Fr. Jake: Why would ECUSA’s revisionist leaders want to negotiate an amicable separation with the orthodox?

—- ECUSA has lost important cases in secular courts; it will lose more. The more cases it loses, the more orthodox congregations will feel emboldened to leave.

—- Litigation is costly. For most healthy adults, being a party to major divorce-type litigation involves protracted misery. It’s certainly not conducive to mission.

—- Bullying revisionist bishops have largely had a free ride in the news media. They have ousted faithful clergy from their livelihoods, banned books, changed locks, and hacked into computers without getting a serious black eye. They cannot count on that continuing. Nor can they continue such tactics indefinitely without starting to alienate “moderate” members who would otherwise have stayed put.

Fr. Jake,

I respectfully submit that you are ignoring a significant number of reappraiser actions meant to punish the reasserters. One such in my diocese reported here: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1099/. Fortunately, the judge involved with this case is a wiser man than the bishop. If you think suing individual members of a vestry in a property dispute is not a desire to punish (backed up by the power to actually inflict this punishment, and not just imagine it) and frighten other reasserting parishes, I don’t know what is. And this is hardly an isolated case.

Yes, DoW, I did post that.  Did you note the responses?  Overall, the readers felt the diagnosis was over the top. 

I do think we have to get away from those who act abusively.  But that is a very small segment of our bishops.  One simple way to accomplish that is to simply not serve in those dioceses.  I recommend to others that they transfer to another diocese, if possible.  But it appears that divorce is not a consideration for most Episcopalians.

I’ve attempted, possibly not very successfully, to avoid the specific issues on which we disagree, playing in your backyard and all.  My point is that I suspect that most Episcopalians don’t see much being offered, so will not accept any proposal.  Why should they?  The “bad press” thing is a perspective, keep in mind.  Some of us welcome it, as it gets our understanding of the message of the Gospel out there to the public.  So, that won’t be a strong motivation.

The money spent on lawyers is a very real concern, although I think that is a bit overblown as well.  The reality is that in most places, TEC doesn’t have to do a thing.  There will continue to be a small handful of court cases, which most likely would have happened regardless of what was done at GC.  If not this set of issues, then another.  But I don’t think the threat of lawsuits is a very strong motivator either.

So, you see, from my perspective, there is nothing on the table from your side.  If I am mistaken, please point out some specifics.  But if not, why negotiate?

Re: “If my parish left ECUSA (to which it has only the most formal and tenuous ties) and joined the Church of Uganda, we would remain part of the Anglican Communion.”

Ah well, Irenaeus .  . . you’re welcome to be satisfied with whatever definition you deem to be “part of the Anglican Communion” that you like.  Recall that this conversation between us started when I stated that I am waiting until such time as Canterbury/Primates discipline ECUSA—because I wish to be within the Anglican Communion.

Your beef appears to be—that you would like for me to change my [and many many many others, as well as the Communion’s] definition of “being in communion” . . . and you are somehow insulted that “I would like to be in the Anglican Communion” according to the definitions of the Anglican Communion.

Again . . . if people feel comfortable with their notions of communion relationships, that’s just fine by me.  If people outside of ECUSA and in the US are satisfied with their communion relationships—great!!!!  [Of course, one wonders, then, why they are working to *change* their communion relationships, if they already have the thing which they claim to have . . . but are still vociferously working for . . . but claim to already have . . . but are still working for . .. but claim to already have . . . but are still working for . . . ]

But I’ve staked out clearly why I remain within ECUSA.  You just don’t seem to like my decision and wish that I would change my value structure and the accepted definition of “being in the communion”.  Again—that’s fine.  I just wish that you had said this at the start of our exchange, rather than forcing me to figure it out.

Jake -
Just so we are clear - am I clear in understanding that you do not place much value on remaining a part of the Anglican Communion?

He did it to you again.  Jake comes in, makes up s*?!t that never even really existed in the comments, and you guys get totally distracted from the real topic and start defending things you never said in the first place.

Read his blog, if you can stomach it.  Then you won’t be so easily fooled.

Fr. Jake.  I would ask you a question, and I don’t ask it snidely or maliciously.  If large majorities in a diocese and/or a parish want to disassociate themselves from ECUSA/TEC, but still remain tied to the Anglican Communion - why would you want to keep them?  The only answer that seems remotely plausible is that you want their money and their property.  If there is another reason, I’d love to hear it.  I’ve heard about “not breaking communion” but that seems ridiculous as we aren’t in communion.  To use a divorce analogy, we are like a couple who continues to have the title of “married” and lives in the same house, but has separate bedrooms and has no relationship beyond sniping when their paths cross.  That is not a marriage and what we have now is not communion.

OK, here’s what’s really on the table..

This morning, I came across this post in our group. Its written by a Retired ECUSA priest, I know well and can vouch for his orthodoxy.
Here indeed is why there should be a separation “amicable” or not.
******************
“As you know I still attend an Episcopal Church that has a theologically sound interim who continues a tradition of solid Biblical preaching.
This morning I attended a meeting of the local chapter of The Brotherhood of St. Andrew. As we were breaking up(and there was no time for discussion) one of the members said that he had invited a man to join us and got this reply: “I’m a Christian. I can’t go to an Episcopal Church.”
Name withheld. 
***********
He titled the post “NOT A JOKE”, and knowing him as well as I do, I’m sure it wasn’t…

Blessings,
Grannie Gloria

Sarah: Orthodox Anglican leaders in the United States rightly seek recognition as a separate entity within the Anglican Communion. But that hardly proves that if they did not get such recognition, they could remain in the Anglican Communion only by remaining in ECUSA (on whatever terms ECUSA might choose to offer).

I believe you err in declaring that orthodox clergy and congregations who have affiliated with overseas provinces such as Central Africa, Nigeria, Rwanda, Singapore, Southern Cone, and Uganda have left the Anglican Communion.

This error potentially has costs. On this point you align yourself (though for different reasons) with the likes of John Henry, Mersey Mike, and Fr. Steve. Surely you remember their taunts about how orthodox Anglicans who have left ECUSA have left the Anglican Communion. Does it give you no pause to find yourself taking the same position? You risk lending legitimacy to that position.

In writing that I “just don’t seem to like [your] decision and with that [you] would change [your] value structure,” you echo the language of PC—- as though rational argument were merely a front for trying to bend others to one’s will.

In the last sentence of my preceding comment, the second line should read “and WISH that [you] would change [your] value structure”.

Granny,  perhaps I am dense, but what is your point?

I’m making up “stuff”?  The title of this thread is “Amicable Separation.”  In the comments there was references to “divorce.”  I’ve tried to point out why some of those from my perspective find it difficult to discuss such options.  That is all.  No agenda.

Well, Fr. Jake, I think you have said a very great deal.  You said “The money spent on lawyers is a very real concern, although I think that is a bit overblown as well.  The reality is that in most places, TEC doesn’t have to do a thing.  There will continue to be a small handful of court cases, which most likely would have happened regardless of what was done at GC.  If not this set of issues, then another.  But I don’t think the threat of lawsuits is a very strong motivator either.  So, you see, from my perspective, there is nothing on the table from your side.  If I am mistaken, please point out some specifics.  But if not, why negotiate?”

Well, if one truly does not care whether ECUSA is part of the Anglican Communion, assumes the orthodox are just going to go away and not continue pushing for another province that will be part of the Anglican Communion, assumes it does not make any legal difference if one comes about, assumes that the diocese asking for alternative provincial oversight are not going to push any further, and assumes that parishes (particularly the larger evangelical parishes) which believe that in their jurisdiction the canon trust does not necessarily control who owns the property are not going to test that, then your conclusions might make sense.  The difference, Fr. Jake, is that I don’t think you are starting from correct assumptions.  It reminds me a bit of the assumption by some revisionists in 2003 that this would just be like women’s ordination and would “all blow over”.  I think it is already clear that is not the case.  And I think some who went through the pleasantness of GC ‘06, and some members of standing committees and all the rest who would be drawn to the fight if you are wrong, may have their doubts that it is worth betting the next decade on.  If most of ECUSA’s leadership thinks as you do, I suspect we will find out.

Jake
And membership in the Anglican Communion? 

Value?

No Value?

Jackie,

It comes down to the question of at what cost do we remain part of the Anglican Communion?  If the choice is between being true to the message of the power of God’s love revealed through Jesus Christ or being part of the Communion, I think for most Christians it is a no-brainer.

So, let Canterbury do what he feels he must.  The world is watching.  We cannot abandon our brothers and sisters in Christ.  That price is simply too high to pay.

Personally, I do not refer to myself as an Anglican anymore, since the passing of the unfortunate B033 resolution.  But that is clearly a minority view.  I think most Episcopalians are fond of being part of the Anglican Communion, but I don’t think it is a ditch they’re willing to die in.  Of course, I could be wrong.

I fear that some might view this line of discussion as veering from the main point, so, with that, I’ll say farewell.

I don’t think it is veering from the point at all.  It is in fact a major consideration.  You push the point that B033 abandoned our brothers and sisters in Christ.  Many believe pushing a false gospel is abandonment.  If our brothers and sisters in Christ don’t care enough about us to keep us on the path, what kind of Communion would we have.  I agree with you on being very particular about how I refer to my religious affiliation these days.  I have dropped Episcopal altogether and refer to myself solely as Anglican. 
But back to the point of the thread.  You asked what was on the table for the liberals.  Membership in the Communion.  Either we are one or we are not. And if ECUSA refuses to repent of its unbiblical stances, then she needs to make the break final and walk apart from the Communion.

Funny symmetry to Jake’s last post: I don’t refer to myself as Episcopalian anymore.  In fact, it feels strange to do so.

Dumb Ox,  gad I hate to type that name, but you chose it. LOL

The man said, “I cannot go to an Episcopal Church because I am a Christian”..

He was not speaking denominationaly, he was saying the ECUSA is no longer Christian…

Also, at the beauty shop this morning, I too was having trouble saying “Episcopal Church”, when inviting someone to come to All Saints Eucharist…. 

That was the point!

The ‘orthodox side’ has never said that Christ’s Church must abandon brothers and sisters in Christ.  On the contrary,  the Great Commission given to us by Jesus is that we go out into the world preaching repentance and the good news of salvation through Jesus.  We are, as transformed children of God, saved by his blood on the cross, to look for His help to live those transformed lives, washed clean by the blood of Jesus, to show the fruits of the Spirit.  One of the fruits is to feed the hungry and care for the sick, etc.  That is a no brainer .... but the no ‘initial’ no brainer is to first to be saved.  That comes with neither baptism nor confirmation but with a heartfelt reponse to to Jesus’ call on us.  The value, relevance and truth of that call is being watered down in the Episcopal Church to mean words, lip service, and little else.  What is promulgated is that baptism is all you need and obviously, since TEC is seeking to espouse open communion, there is no call to give all to Jesus, to believe in Him and only Him.  The differences have become increasingly profound and irreconcilable.  We are two totally different churches.

Grandmother, I did get that, and I understand that, and I agree with that.
Just wasn’t sure of your perspective.  So sorry!
DO/Bill -if you prefer.  I keep coming back to Aquinas… 

Oh, folks, this all just sounds like pure craziness to me. If the Episcopal church isn’t Christian, what is it? It’s certainly not unitarian or pagan? I’m certain the majority of people in your church both clergy and laity affirm the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and the resurrection.

In every denomination there are those who do not affirm the central tenets of our faith, but they are by no means in the majority. The Episcopal church as a denomination is as Christian as the ELCA, or any other mainline protestant denomination. Of course, we will never have a perfect visible church until Jesus comes. This is no reason to jump ship. With God’s help, you can work through these differences and find some resolution together.

Phil, hang in there!!  Don’t abandon your church.

Grace, the problem is that the focus of the Episcopal Church, at the leadership level, is no longer on Jesus, and does not hold that He is the “unity” that we need.  We can quibble about WO and sexual morality, we can hold fast to our traditions and creeds and liturgical style, but when you have the person elected as the Presiding Bishop state that “Jesus is ONE of the ways to heaven” (I paraphrase), then it brings into question the Christianity of the entire denomination.  If she cannot state, with clarity and conviction that Jesus is THE way, THE truth, and THE life, for everyonethen how do we define ourselves?

From Schori’s TIME interview:

“Q: What will be your focus as head of the U.S. church?

A: Our focus needs to be on feeding people who go to bed hungry, on providing primary education to girls and boys, on healing people with AIDS, on addressing tuberculosis and malaria, on sustainable development. That ought to be the primary focus.”

Yes, that’s right: material aid is not part of our mission, it is the mission according to Schori.  Good works in the global community are important, but many others also do them, from other religious groups to secular government agencies.  How is Schori’s mandate definitively Christian?  How does it reflect Jesus’s command to evangelize?  It simply doesn’t.

Of course, now that Jesus is just one of many vehicles to the divine, there will be much more time to devote to areas that were formally wasted on evangelism.

Okay, I’ve posted some thoughts on this topic over at BabyBlueOnline .  It’s called “Pardon Moi: Come play the newest shell game to hit The Episcopal Church - Go Fish.”

bb

Baby Blue: Interesting article. If ECUSA tries to dis-vangelize the Global South, who will buy what it’s selling?

Re: “Oh, folks, this all just sounds like pure craziness to me. If the Episcopal church isn’t Christian, what is it? It’s certainly not unitarian or pagan? I’m certain the majority of people in your church both clergy and laity affirm the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and the resurrection.”

Grace, you may be right—but unfortunately those who are seated in power at the national level of the Episcopal church do not affirm those things.  And they are the ones that are in the vast vast majority at the leadership level of the national church. 

So when you say: “With God’s help, you can work through these differences and find some resolution together” we really cannot do that.  Those in leadership of the national church do not affirm the same gospel that we do.  There will be no “working through these differences” as “these differences” define what Christianity is!!! 

We will no more “work through these differences” with the leadership of the national church than we will with, say, the Tibetan Buddhists, or Hindus or Muslims.

Grace,

One thing I will guarantee you is that if you start asking every ordained Episcopal cleric you know and meet the following questions, you will be stunned - STUNNED - at the responses you get:

1. Did Jesus Christ walk the earth, fully man and fully God?

2. Was Jesus Christ, the literal person and savior, sent to earth to die for our sins?

3. Are we, in fact, sinful by nature?

4. Is our salvation made possible ONLY by Christ’s death on the cross, or may we enter the Kingdom of Heaven by other means?

In all seriousness, I urge you to start asking around, and come back here and let us know what you find out. For that matter, start asking people next to you in the pew… over coffee in the parish hall… at dinner…

To Greg’s list of questions, I’d add:

5. Did Jesus physically rise from the dead?

Fundamentalist.

Irenaeus, I agree.
Most of those arguing for litigation in the Anglican debate aren’t the ones who will actually be litigating, or putting their parish’s assets at risk. Litigation carries huge risks and expense, both in terms of financial and opportunity cost.  Negotiations simply have not been successful except in two instances. Sarah, can you list any parishes other than Plano and Overland Park that got their property through the secret negotiations you referenced? (Presumably, the existence of a formerly Episcopal, but now Anglican church, isnt secret, unless they are operating under a double secret false identity:>.)
Although I personally would not fight over property, I know that it, along with financial insecurity, is a huge issue for some congregations and their Priests.  I want these people to be able to leave, with their parish property, if possible. That simply is not going to happen on a broad scale unless there is a settlement.
Also Sarah, I believe you are called to wage a long term rear guard action within TEC, operating from a non-Network church. You may be right that many others feel the same way. I just don’t see how young couples can be convinced to raise a family in a church in never ending conflict and with, at best, a confused theology.  I know—I am already tied to the GS and thus view this from an “outside” perspective—but I still feel an obligation with the orthodox that are still waiting to get on the life rafts.
If a settlement presents itself that allows for a seperate ecclesiastical entity and a negotiated property settlement that allowed parishes to vote to leave, it would be a tragedy if it wasnt taken.  I realize that it would still leave some here isolated in parishes that don’t want to leave TEC. But these parishioners are going to have to leave their parish one way or another eventually. The fact that “misery loves company” should not prevent a settlement.

Irenaeus,
I don’t think TEC cares to re-evangelize the Global South.  I think it’s a strategic tactic to shut the orthodox down.

bb

Guys, I appreciate your patience , here. I bet it seems to you like ” I’m beating a dead horse.”

God as my witness, I can relate to your concerns. I know that if someone had expressed the views of your new PB to me a few months age, I honestly would have assumed that probably this woman didn’t know the Lord. But, in sharing the past several months with some progressives in your church, I can see that many of them are taking ahold of this issue in a very different way.  Among other things, they are feeling as if so many people are turned off to what is just percieved as “pie in the sky” type religion,  or the abuse of the “televangelists,” and that the MG are also a form of evangelism to these folks , away to reach them to take the church and our claims to follow Jesus seriously.

I can’t particularly agree with this as I think the church can still focus on things such as the irradication of poverty, and the proclaimation of Jn.  3:16 at the sametime. But, I’ve learned that things are not always what they may appear to be on the surface.

If the majority of people in TEC still basically affirm the creeds, surely all of you together can still make some impact on elements of your leadership that are causing concern. I notice that the Episcopal Majority is meeting early this Nov. Wouldn’t this be a good place to express your legitimate concerns?

Also, guys, I notice that Mother Kaeton over on her blog in discussing feminine imagery relating to naming God, really affirms her personal belief in the creeds of the church. This must be encouraging to you!!

I’m going to withdraw from this discussion, guys, but I just want to encourage you again to hold on to each other, and not give up on your church.  (I’ll also do as you ask. )

God bless!!

Great thread, and I feel compelled to add my $.02, maybe $.01 or less. I am still in a TEC parish, orthodox, but stuck in a revisionist diocese. At least the bishop (+Gulick) isn’t hostile. The problem with ‘staying and fighting’ is the effect on families. I have two married sons: one, with his wife and children and growing family, is RC now. One, with wife and children and growing family, is Southern Baptist. My daughter is single and attends no church at all. They are lost, forever, to the Episcopal church, which isn’t bad for them but is a tragedy for the church as an institution. Property is important. So is a sense that Sundays (and Wednesdays and summer camp) won’t be one fight after another. I can deal with it, but young families simply won’t. There are greener pastures, with good, Christian education for their children. We either find a way to settle, split, and get on with the business of planting churches and nurturing families, or be prepared to watch the Anglican presence in the US wither away except for a few fortunate pockets.

Grace,
Not everyone who uses name of Jesus believes in Jesus. Mormons for example.

The question is not: does someone affirm the words of the creed?

But rather, is the god proclaimed the same God revealed in the bible. The way to test that is to see whether or not what a body teaches is consistent with the Word of God.

If it not, then no matter how many times the Name is used or the Creed recited, the worship is false and so is the god.

Re: “If the majority of people in TEC still basically affirm the creeds, surely all of you together can still make some impact on elements of your leadership that are causing concern. I notice that the Episcopal Majority is meeting early this Nov. Wouldn’t this be a good place to express your legitimate concerns?”

Grace—the Episcopal Majority is made up of folks just like what we’ve been describing—people who preach another gospel.  I’ve noticed an excellent blog out there that seems to be describing member after member of this group—and it is quite telling.  So far I see that they have done stuff on Marge Christie, Lisa Fox, and Susan Russell:
http://episcopalmajority.com/?page_id=28

As far as whether the Episcopal church can be saved—check out point #6 on this post for my read on this answer:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1270/

Haven’t we gotten off the purpose of this thread?  We (the L2) thought we were talking about how to separate amicably.  That would be separate with not getting into the issues.  Just how to “go our separate ways”.

If you are looking for captiulation from the ECUSA you will not find it.  They don’t see or feel they are wrong or the problem - they think we are.  We don’t feel that if the entire Anglican Communion came back and told the ECUSA to quit they would.  Anyone (the orthodox) standing in their way is just that.  The reason that we don’t feel that there will be an “amicable separation” is because the ECUSA is angry that we won’t agree and accept their chosen path - they want and need validation.  And if we don’t agree with it, get the #$%& out of the way.

We have watched this build for over 40+ years.  My family became Episcopalian in the service overseas in the 1960’s.  We loved our church home in Okinawa. My Dad (who hasn’t been to church in years because of what’s going on), when I gave him the update on events yesterday, said that the church has been in turmoil since we came back the States in 1966.

Until we understand that the ECUSA has been working on this agenda for decades and does not want to change, you can’t understand how to go forward.  We need to figure out a way that we can leave with our property or just leave.  The ECUSA is holding most if not all of the cards and by not letting us leave peacefully is their way of punishment for not accepting and buying into their path.  “Scorched Earth” policy is what we feel we’re seeing, i.e., the CT6, Schofield/San Joaquin charges, etc.  They are not going to follow Scripture (not suing,, etc.) or the BCP because if they accept part of it, they would have to accept all of it.

What price is our souls.  This body of Christ has been bleeding for years.  The issue here is “Is Christ our Leader?”  If He isn’t, then we need to either figure out how to take it back or amputate before the infection ruins more.  We (the L2) feel the ECUSA will never stop with this agenda.  Reason is not evident here.  Yes, this whole mess is not from God.  We need to be praying for everyone that God will protect all of us from evil.

Off the thread, but we’ve been thinking about this for days:  How can bishops be bishops if they didn’t believe in the vows they took.  Can they be removed/bypassed.  In other words, how can the leadership of the ECUSA be valid if they don’t believe in the vows they took?

Jim Naughton,

Earlier, I had suggested you consider coming back to this thread and continue dialogue.  As I have reread subsequent postings and apologies to you, I believe it would not be prudent for you to continue dialogue here.  I believe you have indeed been treated rudely and after a half-hearted apology if one at all, further insult has been added with a subsequent comment of your cowardice when you graciously bow out as a consequent of the tone and insinuations in the dialogue.  I truly hope that you will take to heart the sincere interest which many of us have had in respectfully listening to you even though we may strongly disagree.  On behalf of those who truly believe offense was indeed caused to you, I apologize to you.

Jim Naughton,

While the issues divide us, I, too, wanted to thank you for seeking a peaceful path.  We’re sorry that in an environement that was to be spitball free, you were a target by others.  It’s weak, but proof that we are all sinners. 

May God bless you and may you be an Instrument of His love always.

Lakeland Two is right. We have gotten slightly off topic. Correct me if I’m wrong. This thread started with the following premises:
1. TEC/ECUSA consists of two diametrically opposed religions under one roof.
2. Those two religions do not get along, have not gotten along, and will never get along with each other.
3. Since neither religion is willing to compromise their beliefs, the only solution is separation.
4. The best solution for all would be some kind of “amicable” divorce with parishes and dioceses allowed to choose which church to associate with.
5. What would such an “amicable” divorce agreement look like and how could it be implemented?

I know Jim Naughton, Fr.Jake, and other reappraisers are reading this thread even if they are no longer responding. As I said above, if you want dialogue, this is the only dialogue left to have. How about it?

the snarkster

Where has the apology been rescinded? Please link me.

snarkster,

Until we can assure those who come to this site that they will be treated with respect and the dignity we expect on their liberal blogs, I think to invite them back is disingenious.  Go back and read more of the early postings.  You are not entitled to expect dialogue when they have been treated so rudely.  The first place for dialogue to begin is with OUR eating some humble pie.

Grace,

I have sat face to face with Episcopalians - in the last month, in fact - who tell me in the same breath that they affirm the creeds, say them every Sunday; but that they “interpret” them differently, in such a way that they don’t have to abandon their belief that Jesus was neither divine nor unique. How exactly they do this is, of course, a private matter they’re not obligated to explain, and anyone who suggests they should is being judgemental and bigoted.

I am very serious about the awakening I think you’ll experience when you start asking people, who stand up every Sunday and recite the creeds, what they really believe. Irenaeus actually suggests the question which, if you could ask only one, would be the one to ask. If you, Grace, believe that the resurrection is the central, defining event of Christianity - that anyone who rejects the resurrection is not a believer in Christ as the risen savior and is therefore not a Christian - then a lot of surprises await you.

As you ask people this question, you are going to find many, many more than you ever imagined who do not believe in the resurrection. When you do, you might follow up with:

‘Do you believe in Hell?’

What you’ll find is that a lot of people simply don’t believe in damnation. They believe that Jesus was singularly wise and right about all other things, but evidently He was wrong about Hell. They bend the map to reach the conclusion that despite all Jesus said about repenting of your sins, the narrow path, and those who say “Lord, Lord”... that we’re all going to Heaven no matter what we do, or what we profess, or whether or not we repent.

If you really start doing this, and if you proceed from a few basics about Jesus Christ and what it means to be a Christian, then you will be starting down the path that most of us here have followed, and brought us to where we are. Most people on the other side of this debate - and, it would seem, you as well - assume that everyone over here has always been on this side, that we’re intractable in our beliefes, incapable of being persuaded from one position to another, when in fact many of us have arrived here after a journey down the path I’m asking you to take. I know plenty of people - myself included - who started out with a traditional belief about God, Christ, and Scripture but had liberal beliefs about sexual morality; and moved to a conservative position about sexual morality after asking these tough questions and examining their own faith. But I know of extremely few who started out with traditional beliefs about Christianity, and conservative beliefs about sexual morality, who moved to a liberal position about sexual morality.

Incidentally, I think that galls our Worthy Opponents to no end. They continue to believe that people in the unengaged middle who, after “listening to the stories” of gays and lesbians, will go over to their side out of a sense of compassion and inclusiveness. But I find that what happens far more often, is when folks finally do wake up and start asking questions, start connecting the dots, start looking down the road a few years to the logical conclusion of all this “progress,” they find themselves on our side of the debate. Not to say it happens quickly - it doesn’t. It happens very, very slowly, like the gradual downward slide in Episcopal Church attendance since the mid-1970’s.

To think that there could be any sort of “amicable” separation is unfortunately to also deny the very nature of “Liberalism”, be it religious, political, or social in nature.  Liberalism of any form, and its clear Socialist and Communist underpinnings, are focused simply on power - first in obtaining it, and then using it to deny power and influence, and therefore dominate and control, those who believe differently.  Liberals justify their use of power by a concurrent belief that their views correct and unquestionable; they know better than all non-believers how to best structure their lives, again, transcending religion, politics, and society.  It is therefore in their minds both right and required for them to impose their system of belief onto everybody.

I thank God daily that I am in a faithful diocese (Pittsburgh), but frankly my patience with continuing in the Episcopal Church is more or less gone.  I stay because I do support our Bishops and I love my parish, but just saying that I’m an “Anglican” instead of an “Episcopalian” is not enough.  If we as orthdox Christians believe that TEC has devolved into heresy, then how can we stay, regardless of the cost, even in “Network” or “Windsor” dioceses that are continuing under the structure of TEC?

I think it is also wishful thinking to believe that the Global South Primates will either “discipline” TEC or render any more than verbal encouragement to faithful Anglicans in the United Staes until we effect our separation from TEC.  There are Christians dying for and because of their faith in Jesus across Africa and Asia and we’re expecting the Global South Primates to stand up for us and intervene here while we’re worrying about bricks and mortar?  I think Christ Church Plano is a fine example for all of us on the direction that we must follow (on an aside, it should come as no surprise that the only “amicable separation” so far from TEC came from a faithful parish in a faithful diocese; yet another confirmation about the nature of liberals vs. conservatives).

If the Network leaders, most notably Bishop Duncan, believe as they have said that it isn’t us who have left TEC, it is TEC who has left the traditional Christian faith, then how come it isn’t our side who is declaring the non-Network, non-Windsor sees vacant?  Why are we wasting time with APO requests and withdrawing consent from being in TEC provinces instead of declaring independence?  Why are we afraid of the fight?  Isn’t Jesus worth the costs?

Let’s get on with it.  That’s my hope and prayer.

We can discuss this amongst ourselves forever, but unless you can get the “spouse” to the table to talk NOTHING is going to happen.  Jim Naughton may (even if he doesn’t think he is) or may not be an opening to the ECUSA to a reasoned amicable separation.  But some people are at least listening.  Hopefully, they can impart reason.

Unless you have a workable plan to retake the church after the 40+ years of footholds this process has built, you have only two choices: 

1) Leave without anything and rebuild and leave the details to God Almighty who knows the plan.  We are reminded about King Solomon and the argument over the baby.  Maybe it’s time just to say, here, you have it rather than seeing it split in two.  God worked it out then.  He’s bigger than the rest of us.  Thousands of people have chosen just this path.  The ECUSA doesn’t want to recognize this.  I think remember when the TEC was 4.3 million YEARS ago (I may be wrong).  We are now a nation of 300 Million+.  Why in that time have we declined instead of growing with the population?

2) Try to get the ECUSA to come to the table and talk.  Not delay so a stronger foothold is built (although this tactic has been working for years-as it did in Vietnam).  This will take leadership.  Who’s ready to take that risk.  The “process” in place has been used to stall.  The ECUSA needs to see a reason why they should let those who want to leave to leave peacefully.  Here’s one:  The ECUSA, by acting as a punisher, loses points - new potential donors.  If they were to be gracious, perhaps they would gain instead of lose.  Whether they gain do is up to God.  If we are powerful in our witness, our light should draw others unto Him, not repel.

Re: “Until we can assure those who come to this site that they will be treated with respect and the dignity we expect on their liberal blogs, I think to invite them back is disingenious.”

What traditional/reasserter Episcopalian is foolish enough to expect to be “treated with respect” on “liberal blogs”?????

I hope that no one expects that!!!  Surely our standards should be far far higher than liberal blogs—where comments are routinely deleted should they express an opinion that is too conservative.

No—StandFirm has much much much higher standards than liberal blogs and those standards have led to the lengthy conversational threads by thoughtful commenters that we all enjoy.

Let’s please not treat others as we are treated on liberal blogs—that’s much too low a standard of quality.

Sarah,

I perceive you have not fully read this thread otherwise you would be joining me at the table of humility and remorse for how our liberal guests have been treated.  I would like to agree with you but our actions have spoken louder than our aspirations.  Must you add insult to injury by referring to their standards as too low?  I would like to think that on reconsideration, you would agree that your barb is a momentary weakness out of character for you.

Until we can assure those who come to this site that they will be treated with respect and the dignity we expect on their liberal blogs, I think to invite them back is disingenious.

richardc: Boy, that’s rich! I do not expect, and rarely have been treated with respect and dignity on “liberal” blogs. I have had my comments censored and been called all manner of names on so-called “inclusive” liberal sites, as have most of the other posters here.

Having said that, I do not advocate treating them the same here and have seen very, very little of it on this site. People get very emotional about this sort of thing and, yes, the discussions can get heated. When people like Fr.Jake and Jim Naughton come on this site, they have to expect that. At least they will not have their comments censored and be called names.

So yes, I do invite them back and sincerely mean it.

the snarkster

Re: “I perceive you have not fully read this thread otherwise you would be joining me at the table of humility and remorse for how our liberal guests have been treated.”

Hmmm . . . is it your usual practice to believe that the only reason why someone might disagree with you is that they are simply uninformed of the facts?  ; > )

I may need to use that myself . . . I have long suspected that Matt Kennedy does not read my articles . . . and it may be that that is why he does not agree with me on a few minor details.  He has simply not read my articles, and thus has not had the opportunity to be simply blown away by the force of my reasoning!!!!  ; > )

I suspect that richardc’s main problem is with my comments upstream spurning Jim Naughton’s “settlement” ideas as “boneheaded.” As I said in my apology to Jim, I don’t mean to characterize his idea of an amicable separation as boneheaded - obviously the very term “amicable separation” implies something the opposite of boneheadedness.

What I meant to characterize as boneheaded would be any orthodox support for a deal in which we pay huge sums of cash to TEC for our property, in exchange for the “privilege” of joining another province, while TEC is left in full communion and avoids any sort of discipline. As I explained, we can be out huge sums of cash and join another province any time we want - just hand the keys to our property over to our bishops, go purchase new buildings, and join another province. We don’t have to fill ECUSA’s coffers and sacrifice the principle goal of this battle to do that.

Let’s all remember who Jim Naughton is, folks. He’s the one who demonized us all as tools of the IRD. So do I suspect his motives here? You bet I do. Do I have good reason to? You bet I do. In between long stretches of counting all my crazy IRD blog-money, that is.

Look - the Episcopal left may well find itself booted out of the communion in a matter of months. I think some of them have begun to realize that this is more likely than they thought (which is to say, likely at all) and they’re freaking out. Naughton’s “settlement” idea can be viewed through the lens of the 5 stages of grief; right now, he’s in the “bargaining” stage.

Call that rude if you want, I say it’s calling a spade a spade. I agree as much as anybody does, that discussing an amicable separation is a worthy endeavor, but not one that involves terms which gain us nothing and lose us even more than we’ve lost already.

Isn’t it about time this thread discontinue?  It has run its course and is starting to wander aimlessly.  Jim Naughton is long gone, for whatever reason.  Let ECUSA (or whatever it’s calling itself this week) continue to cut itself out of the Anglican Communion.  We don’t have to stand and watch while it commits suicide.  Hand-wringing and endless speculation are a terrible waste of the time God has given us. Our duty (whether with or without the properties) is to fix our attention on exalting God and doing His work.  Let’s get on with it!

Greg,

I percieve that you have not read richardc’s post.

Alan Boordius wrote, “To think that there could be any sort of ‘amicable’ separation is unfortunately to also deny the very nature of ‘Liberalism,’ be it religious, political, or social in nature.  Liberalism of any form, and its clear Socialist and Communist underpinnings, are focused simply on power—- first in obtaining it, and then using it to deny power and influence, and therefore dominate and control, those who believe differently.”

I hope readers who regard themselves as “liberal” will not regard Alan’s comment as typical of this or other orthodox blogs.

Over the past century, anti-Communist liberals have made crucial contributions in areas like civil rights and civil liberties. These liberals believed in free speech for all. They would rightly regard postmodernist “political correctness” as illiberal.

Gary Trudeau based the university president in Doonesbury on a nationally prominent liberal. What did that liberal do when conservative students invited William Shockley to speak race, genetics, and test scores? He affirmed Shockley’s right to speak and announced that anyone who attempted to disrupt the speech would be arrested.

In any event, there is no necessary connection between political and theological views, whether left or right. To equate the two is grievously mistaken and creates needless stumbling blocks to orthodox Christian faith.
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=15704#comment-1055730
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=11810#comment-457291

PS: For the record, I am a theologically orthodox Anglican and a moderate Democrat who has never in his adult life identified himself as a liberal.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Still hoping Jim Naughton will continue the conversation about “amicable separation.”

Lightfoot,

So long as I have a sermon to write, this thread will never end.

Agreed that this thread has just about run its course. I’ll close it off around cocktail time here in Mississippi.

Snarkster,

Thanks for your comments.  It seems to me that a common experience for orthodox and conservative posters on liberal blogs is censorship.  I would suggest that I too would censor many of the comments made by many in our camp.  We often carry a holier than thou attitude.  It is an intrinsic danger for those who believe they are carrying the standard of truth to equate themselves with the standard.  An yet, if we reflect on our attitudes, tone, and statements, we see how much we have in common with those whom we believe want to and often do trample on the standard of truth. 

I would suggest that to highlight their offenses towards us is spending more energy pointing out the speck in their eye rather than the moat in ours.  Yes I agree with Sarah and your observation that there is a big speck in their eyes.  I’m suggesting at this time we focus on the moat in our eye.  I am keenly aware of the discomfort this raises.  Yet if we don’t carryout our own reflective analysis, they will do it for us and do so mockingly.

Sarah, why would I, or anyone else for that matter, need to read anything but my articles to be fully informed?

“I’ll close it off around cocktail time”
LOL now THAT’S an amicably Anglican separation!

Yes Timothy, amicably with gentileness.  In a very Episcopalian/proper sort of way, don’t you think?  I’m sort of reminded of Anthony Hopkins in “Howard’s End”  Wouldn’t you agree?

Re: “What I meant to characterize as boneheaded would be any orthodox support for a deal in which we pay huge sums of cash to TEC for our property, in exchange for the “privilege” of joining another province, while TEC is left in full communion and avoids any sort of discipline.”

Wait—so you were calling the orthodox “boneheaded”???? 

I am appalled, Greg.

Even though I heartily disagree with the “amicable separation” commenters on this thread, who did indeed seem to support “a deal in which we pay huge sums of cash to TEC for our property, in exchange for the “privilege” of joining another province, while TEC is left in full communion and avoids any sort of discipline.”

But it is surely going too far to call us orthodox “boneheaded”!

OFF WITH YOUR HEAD!!!!!!! 

Leave this blog entirely . . .  BEGONE YOU VILE TOADISH FELLOW!!!!!!!!!

Paul Zahl is laughing right about now.

about the film reference.

I’ll have a Harvey’s Bristol Cream Sherry. . .or Jose Quervo Top Shelf marguerita, depending on whether it’s here or there.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that cocktail hour in Mississippi began many hours ago, this morning.

At least .  . . for Episcopalians in Mississippi.

Re: “Sarah, why would I, or anyone else for that matter, need to read anything but my articles to be fully informed?”

Now I understand all the random statements by you inserted into the comment threads under my articles, with seemingly no reference to anything that I wrote.

This no doubt has something to do with your desire that all women wear burkhas [don’t think I don’t recall the Women in Hats argument that you propounded!] and that men have the duty to lord it over their wives with portly pomposity, and preferably sticks that are larger than a man’s thumb.

It’s the patriarchy that prevents you from scouring my articles for small tidbits of real information and analysis—but patriarchy is no excuse.

Sad that one can be so out of step with the metrosexual sensibility . . . and an Episcopal priest at that!!!

Perhaps, Lightfoot.  However, the essence of this post is of vital importance to those of us who wrestle with our relationship to TEC which for most here is painful, emotionally wrenching and sometimes confusing.  I doubt that there are more than a handful of commenters (aside from the odd troll or two) who here have any illusions about the Episcopal Church and its direction The dilemna they face is how to leave, when to leave, whether to leave: now, never or later.  Children and their rearing in a Christian environment is an enormous priority for orthodox parents and leaving the Church many of the parents grew up in and hoped to see their children grow up in is especially hard. 
So the orthodox are going to be apart from TEC because they have first walked apart and away into the setting sun. It is easier for individuals to leave than it is for parishes.  It’s easy to say that property is not important and it shouldn’t be, but it is.  Gosh, when I move house it is tough even when the move is to a nicer, bigger house.  I miss my old attachments.  Attachments shouldn’t matter ... but they do .... but they ought not to.  God provides for our every need but that doesn’t mean we don’t struggle.  We have rights, let go of those rights.  Wait a minute, the law is on our side but perhaps that still doesn’t justify fighting. 
The only thing that I know with any clarity in my life is that God will provide for me my wife, and my daughter, that He will bless our lives richly, and that He wants us to cleave to him, that He wants us to share our faith with others, and that one day the three of us will stand before Him with joy.  And sadly as many on this thread have stated how many of the liberals believe that, believe in the One Triune God, believe in the Purpose of the Cross, believe in life everlasting, believe in hell.
DO   ... Hi Gnade!

And richardc, I feel we owe Jim no apology other than for the bonehead remark which Greg cleared up.  He knew and expected opposition and I don’t think anyone on this thread tried to humiliate him or make him feel small.  I don’t think anyone agrees with his position but then he didn’t expect that.  But the issue was how do we separate and can separation happen with graciousness and respect and for ‘amicableness’ (sorry) to occur two sides are required.

Here I am, mid-paragraph on my latest sermon on biblically proper attire for ladies and Sarah has to darken my countenance with her blatant mischaracterizations. Burkas are only to be worn on Sunday mornings. If you had read my articles you would know that. Shouldn’t you be knitting or something…

; )

In the case of my eyes, that would be a dry moat.  I have to use eyedrops regularly.

Iraneus,

My intent was not to link religious liberalism vs. conservatism and political liberalism vs. conservatism as necessarily requiring one be bound to the same side in either arena; it was just to point out that “liberals”, not by dictionary definition but by common present day practice, in whatever arena, are concerned with imposition of will and not compromise of different viewpoints, thus making any though of an “amicable” separation within TEC to be a complete pipe dream.

Your point about “Over the past century, anti-Communist liberals have made crucial contributions…” is well taken (I believe my volume of collected JFK speeches and writings is on the shelf next to “When Character Was King” by Peggy Noonan) but doesn’t take into account that “liberal” has changed in practical definition since JFK closed his inagural address with, “here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

So, Greg you consider this blog a boneyard then????????????????

Oh, Greg, I wish I had more time to talk. I have to run out for work, and by the time I get back the thread will probably be discontinued. I don’t think all of these negative things about you. I know you are sincere, and zealous for the gospel.

But, I have known people who are more liberal theologically by far than me, who do not support gay inclusion in the church. On the other hand, I also know of people who are orthodox and evangelical in the faith who are gay affirming. There is just not always this connection especially with heresy and unbelief.

Greg, I’m sure we’ll have a chance to talk later, if not on this thread than some other time.

Take care, and God bless you!!

It’s time to remember the number one principle of Episcopalianism: It is always happy hour somewhere.
Johhny Walker Green Label for me, thanks. No ice.

the snarkster

Sorry: Should be Johnnie Walker Green Label above. Having a senior moment, I guess. For my penance, I will down two extra shots.

the snarkster

Dumb Ox,

If in my confession of my sins rather than acknowledging that I had indeed offended God and instead said, “God, if what I have done has offended thee, please forgive me.”  How would you characterize the nature of such repentance? 

One often has to apologize not for one’s intentions but rather for the offense which was caused - intentional or not.  We expect the liberals to apologize for what they did in GC2003.  When they apologize not for the offense but for the “hurt feels they caused us”, we were outraged.  Why shouldn’t we be similarly disturbed when we apologize “IF ... IF…” The point was, offense WAS taken.  The apology was one which in essence says, “I didn’t mean to offend you and I don’t think I did but if you say I did, well then I’m sorry.  That type of apology fails to recognize the true nature of the offense caused.  The fact that most here are not perturbed by it is equally distressing.  It is because of this that I have not addressed my comments to Greg.  We are collectively shared in his perspective.  I believe it was wrong and believe that it called for a collective apology for the offense which was caused whether I saw it that way or not. 

You seem to think that Jim Naughton is a big boy and if he comes here, he ought to expect a tough fight.  Indeed, so he should, however, I would hope that when he leaves, he can attest to the fact that we have lived up to the standards which Sarah espoused.  I don’t give a hoot if any of us think we lived up to that standard or not.  What witness did our behaviour give?  And now, onto cocktails.

richardc - Could you be more specific where a commenter has been insulting?  You see, I often find that many perceive disagreement to be an insult.  If you think an insult has been hurled, let’s put it on the table and open it up.

richardc,  The last time I suggested, gently I might add, that certain comments (made by you and Christoforos) might possibly be inappropriate or hurtful, you told me in no uncertain words to be ‘true to your name’  (my words, although yours were along the same line) and to get back to my barnyard.
And now, off to my New Hampshire cocktail party at which I shall need to drink a bucketful of hot mulled wine to ward away the local chills.  None of that martini stuff, stirred not shaken that those southerners year after.  ......shudder….

Jackie,

Read Jim Naughton’s parting postings.  Then read this thread and ask yourself, If I were a liberal reading this blog, would I merely vehemently disagree or would I take offense to jabs, characterizations, tone, or statements?  I don’t care that many here believe they do it to us.  That’s irrelevant. 

Please don’t misunderstand me.  I make no apology for uphold the standards of orthodoxy.  If you take offense at those standards, go do some reflective soul searching.  However, there is a lot that detracts from dialogue, mostly as a tit for tat.

Jackie: It’s definition time!

disagreement: I don’t like your idea.
strong disagreement: Your idea sucks.
vehement disagreement: What a boneheaded idea.
insult: You are a bonehead.

the snarkster

Dumb ox,
Would you post or link the gentle comment you made and my response?  I am prepared to apologize while at the same time allowing the bloggers to read both for themselves.  Do it quickly though, cocktail hour approaches!

Matt, the thread I refer to as in need of being discontinued is this particular dialogue, not your call to preach.  Perhaps “thread” was the wrong term. Your preaching is vitally needed.  Preach on, brother! But is this particular dialogue accomplishing anything after 200+ comments? 
Sarah, you said it is hard to come up with a name for what the Episcopal church has become.  I think closer to the truth is “secular utilitarianism” - whatever god it now worships (certainly not Jehovah) has become ECUSA’s servant and is good only for its utilitarian purposes. That seems to be ECUSA’s delusion.  In reality, it (ECUSA) is the unwitting servant of something quite evil.

Lightfoot, I was kidding with you…I meant that this thread has been vital to my efforts at sermon-writing procrastination. Sorry for my lack of clarity

I’m afraid you’ll have to hunt through the archives two or three months ago when I took up my current sn if you care to.  I’m afraid I don’t remember exactly when although I do remember making a response a day later on the same thread suggesting you might want to read a terrific book I was in the middle of by GK Chesterton called “The Dumb Ox” .... I guess I’m an Aquinas groupie.  I do apologize for the implicit sarcasm behind that remark.  It’s a long time past and I had forgotten all about it until you suggested that people here need to be mindful of what they say.  Anyway, no need to apologize.

My atomic clock on the wall reads 3:11 CDT… 11 minutes past Friday cocktail time…