Multiple Sources: New Province to be Born December 3rd

Were these the peccable or impeccable sources? Just wondering.

Good for them.  Nothing like competition to make things more interesting.

This is GREAT news!

Just curious—what is going to make it “the” new North American Anglican Province, rather than just “a” new North American Anglican Province?

A new American province optimally ought to include all of the so-called Continuing Churches, plus the Reformed Episcopal Church, AMiA, CANA, the Canadians, the Dioceses of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Quincy, and Fort Worth. Less than full participation by everyone (well, lacking a few of the teenier Continuing Churches wouldn’t overly matter), and the ‘new Province’ won’t amount to as much as it could.

That will make two great births to celebrate in December.

I can hardly wait, as I need to start attending church regularly again. A couple of years ago I had reached the point where merely ‘talking the talk’ or ‘splinters of splinters’ churches just weren’t worth the trouble anymore.

It will be interesting to say the least in many ways….Sure hope they can address the WO issue!

#7 - If in fact there is going to be full participation by all the different bodies as per #5, I imagine that the parties involved have agreed to disagree on WO for the time being.

Addressing WO will not be simply swept under the rug, I’m quite certain of that; but it would seem that both sides have decided that this issue will not be a deal breaker.

Please advise of your source if and when it is public as soon as possible, as this will bring great encouragement to supporters here in the UK and elsewhere. Praying for you guys that the new Anglican Province of North America does indeed unite all faithful Orthodox Anglicans around the Lord Jesus Christ, the authority of the Scriptures and the gospel mandate. The NEAC5 Conference held yesterday at the invitation of the Church of England Evangelical Council, by a majority present, were unwilling to pass a motion expressing support for the Jerusalem Declaration. While more time could have been given to announcing the intention to put such a resolution to those participating, I am deeply saddened that those who support the Jerusalem Declaration were unable to do so collectively on this occasion.

Also my birthday, cool!

Most of the names have been used already.  The Anglican Church in North America was the body for which Bishop Chambers (Springfield, retired) and Bishop Pagtakhan (sp?) of the Iglesia Filipina Independente consecrated bishops in Denver in the early 1970’s.  The Anglican Province in America is a very respectable 1920 BCP male priest church headed by Bishop Grundorf in the Orlando area. All best wishes to the new church.

The Reformed and Catholic Evangelical Orthodox Conservative Bible-Based Liturgical Women Ordaining Non-Woman Ordaining Worship Song and Hymn African Music Dancing Tambourine Playing Anglican Church of the Americas?

Oops I forgot the Charismatic bit

[12-13]  Pageantmaster et al,

It is hope and prayer that this new body will contain some significant elements of Charismatic Anglicans.  To be honest, it is my hope that this will contain a significant element of Charismatic Anglo-Catholics. 

I really feel that a Charismatic element in the ecclesiastical mix will prevent a repeat of the High versus Low Churchmanship which created the environment where many saw liberal thinking as a hopeful middle ground, rather than a group with its own extreme agenda.

I expect soon after the December meeting that many Continuing Churches will become part of the New Province.  There is considerable reservation about joining with others who ordain women as priests and bishops, given the years already in the wilderness over this issue.  Nevertheless, I see the logic similar to that expressed by my Bishop as winning the day. 

Bishop Hewett’s email on the topic is still the first item at http://anglicanblog.org .

Someone as steely-eyed as Bishop Iker (some photos) has declared the way all this will hold together. The key will be the focus on Jesus Christ as The Way. Organizational structures and personal respect will allow smart, wise, loving, biblical, spiritual Christians to live and function under one umbrella-theme and name. God bless them—every one!

Hopefully, Pageantmaster, this new province will be part of a movement of *repentance* and *reformation* of Anglicanism - a result of Christ’s *refining* fire, given life, vision and inspiration by the Holy Spirit to focus upon and abide in and bring glory only to Jesus Christ - not a protest group, not a self-concious, self-promoting, self-glorifing, self-perpetuating, proud institution…with little fiefdoms for bishops and priests who have power but no accountability. 

I didn’t use the words *restoration* or *revival* because after reading the history articles at by the Anglican Curmudgeon and at Lent and Beyond, we learned that Anglicanism and Lambeth have a rather bloody dishonorable dishonest history…with few bright spots, except the fires of martyrs burning in British streets.  There is no desireable ‘system restore’ point or date to which we should want to return. 
We can pray instead for *reconciliation* to God.

It is reasonable to wonder, given the history of Anglicanism in North America, if this Province be a quarrelsome splintering or is it a true movement of the Holy Spirit?  How are we to discern our place and part in this?

A statement I read recently comes to mind:

‘A church takes on the character of its leaders. Join a church where the pastor is a person in whom you can see good fruit, qualities that you would like in your and your children’s lives.’ 

With the formation of the new province, we have an opportunity to scrutinize at the lives and ministries of the bishops, priests in the various organizations and decide which most bear the fruit of Jesus Christ…righteousness, peace, joy, holiness, truth, love, life, the Presence of God, the evidence of lives being redeemed, transformed, growing in maturity through sound preaching, teaching and discipleship in the Word of God…

We have a choice…we may choose to walk with Bishops Duncan, Ackerman, Iker, Shofield, Minns, Guernsey, Anis, Nazir-Ali, Archbishops, Venables, Orombi, Akinola, the Global South, CAPA, the REC, AMIA, ANiC…men like J.I.Packer, Michael Green…with shepherds who guard and cherish the Faith, the Word and Gospel of Jesus Christ…

We are given the opportunity to align ourselves with shepherds who pollute, distort, dilute, defile, divide, the Truth of the Gospel, who defame the Name of The Lord Jesus Christ, who deceive and defile the Sheep, who obscure, hedge, delay justice.

One way or another, actively or passively, we will choose.

For me, it depends on the position the new province takes on LIFE.

I meant to say, ‘obstruct’ justice.

I have rather come to the conclusion that what will be will be and that those pursuing the inside and the outside strategy need and deserve our prayera and support.

As to whether things become riven with factionalism on women’s ordination, prayer books or any of the other multiple issues which have riven the continuing movement it is a matter for the participants to decide.  But they all have my prayers.

Let us go down on our knees in prayer and thanksgiving.
Halleluia!!!

From my rememberance watching the live streaming of the CCP organizational meeting Aug/Sept 2007,  the issue of WO was slid over in the urgency to get the articles passed. b+Duncan simply
asked that a note (not a resolution) be made in consideration of those members who had it.  Am I correct that Pittsburgh is alone in that?  I know that I pointed this out as the real elephant in the room and my suspicion that its female priests would be the last of their kind.

(#17) Floridian,

For me, it depends on the position the new province takes on LIFE.

My guess is, that there will be:
- an overwhelming consensus concerning the morality of abortion; 
- a strong consensus concerning what should be done about abortion;
- a strong consensus regarding the morality of stem-cell research;
- disparity on how strongly embryonic stem-cell research should be opposed;
- disparity on the morality of Capital Punishment (if we include that in the category). 

But I like that idea - In fact, it might be a good exercise for a new province to set down a statement on paper, regarding her position on the life issues.  Having established a common vision first would help when she has to face the difficult issues.

Greg - the date I heard from a reliable source was December 5th, however, whether it is the third or the fifth, it will be more than welcome.  I pray folks won’t see this as perfection as it won’t be because it is the Church filled with sinful folks like us.  Come Holy Spirit.

Dcott+ (#14),

You appear to be, if I may say so,  a man after my own heart.  As frequent reaaders of SF know, I am a persistent and enthusiastic advocate of what I like to call “3-D Christianity,” or three-dimensional Anglicanism (evangelical, catholic, and charismatic).  And I do very much intend that in conscious and deliberate contrast with the historic three parties within the C of E: which I like to humorously call “high and crazy, low and lazy, broad and hazy.”  In other words, I intentionally substitute the charismatic dimension for the Broad Church wing, and I do stress that one can and should ideally be committed to all three dimensions at once. 

But in the teasing spirit of Pageanmaster’s cheeky #12, let me add a crucial one he somehow overlooked and omitted: the new province must also include inerrantist, non-inerrantist, pro-critical scholarship, and anti-critical scholarship Anglicans.

I know it won’t be easy.  But this is the dawning of a bright and promising new day.  The New Reformation is about to begin in earnest.  Thanks be to God!

David Handy+

There is little doubt in my mind that the recent departers in the Southern Cone, Kenya, AMiA, CANA and any others I’m over looking can join together and come to an understanding on things like WO and BCP issues.  After all, they’ve already been a part of the same church until very recently. 

What I wonder about is exactly how REC, FACA and the ACN and FiFNA parishes still inside TEC are going to fit into this picture.

Re “still inside TEC,” we’ll keep the light on for them.

#22:  I agree with your predictions.  I wonder about contraception.  Any chance it will even get on the radar screen?  Remember, that only happened in 1930 via the C of E of its day.  Now that would turn the world around!  It’s working for Muslims.  You can even see how it’s worked in the Mormon “church” to good effect recently.  More believing Christians being born would be a very good thing.  There is a kind of (still small) awakening going on among young Catholics.  My prayer is that with this issue (as well as with women’s ordination) this new body will grow in holiness and come ever closer to the positions of Life.

Keep in mind that this will have no impact on the “property issue”.  Even if ABC were to regognize the new provence and toss TEC out, the law suits would likely continue. That said, the smokescreen “where would we go if we left TEC?” is cleared away and now parishes can face the real question of institutional loyalty to an apostate church, or (probably) giving up their property to be loyal to the Gospel.

Oops, I meant to address that to Scott+, of course.  Sorry, Scott, for abusing your name.

However, let me caution everyone to reign in your hopes just a little bit and not let them gallop away too fast.  What matters is not just what the leaders of Common Cause do on December 3rd, and whether they think that they’ve met all the necessary requirements for being recognized as an FCA/GAFCON province.  What will matter juast as much, and can’t be too easily taken for granted, is how widely that new orthodox province in North America is recognized by other Anglicans around the world. 

The recent NEAC event in England gives pause and reason for cautious optimism here (i.e., the 5th National Evangelical Anglican Congress (or Consultation now, the first being the famous NEA Congress led by the incomparable John Scott in 1967 at Keele).  The whole ACI/Fulcrum/Covenant wing of our orthodox coalition is sure to drag their feet and be very slow to come around to endorsing this move by us “outside strategy” types.  And like jamesw on some recent threads (just to name one very perceptive and wise commenter here at SF) there is reason to be cautious here.  We need to be “wise as serpents” as well as “innocent as doves.” 

For as one of our most esteemed and influential leaders in the FCA movement aptly reminded us all lately (i.e., ++Benjamin Nzimbi of Nairobi, and I paraphrase him slightly here):

“If you want to travel fast, travel alone.  Those who travel far, travel together.”

I want to travel far, very far indeed.

FWIW I’m a native of South Dakota.  When I was growing up in Sioux Falls, there was a spot where there were preserved, as unbelievable as it may sound, deep ruts in the earth still left from the days of the covered wagons a hundred years before, i.e.,  when pioneer settlers came to the wide prairies in search of free land.  And there was a historical marker that noted that some wag had posted a crude handwritten sign by a fork in the trail.  It read, “Choose your rut carefully.  You’ll be in it for the next 500 miles.”

Well, at the time of the fateful first English Reformation, the vaat majority of the English population chose to follow the monarch and the aristocracy or gentry into the Protestant rut, and that momentous choice has shaped our destiny for almost 500 years.  Now that the New Reformation is here, we all face a similarly momentous decision:  Which rut will we choose this time?  Our choices could shape the destiny of our children and grandchildren, and our great, great grandchildren (if the Lord tarries).

Such decisions should not be made lightly.  Or hastily.

But choose we must.  This IS a decisive, fateful fork in the road.  Continuing on with the status quo is impossible.

All I can say, echoing the familiar words of Joshua’s grand farewell speech is:  “Choose this day whom you will serve…But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” through the new province (Joshua 24:15).  We will chosse the New Reformation. 

And how far will that rut take us?  Only God knows.

David Handy+

What does “being born” mean, Greg?  This is a sincere question;  I really don’t know.

If you don’t care what the ABC thinks or does, then it doesn’t mean the ABC will recognize it, does it?  Does it mean that there will be a vote in favor of it at a Primates’ meeting?  I assume the ACC would not recognize it….?

Please elaborate;  I just want to understand what you are saying.

Thanks.

The news of the new province was announced at the Anglican Awakening at All Saints Anglican Church and Ministry Center, Amesbury, Massachusetts:

“Bishop Bill Murdoch and All Saints Anglican Church and Ministry Center will host the first Anglican Awakening East Conference on November 13-15, 2008. Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi of Kenya and Bishop Robert Duncan will be present as well as Bishop Bill Atwood and Bishop David Bena. The Awakening will feature empowering worship as well as three dynamic teaching tracks presented by leaders from across our Communion, including: Church Planting, Lay Catechist & Evangelist Training, and Prayer. These learning tracks are designed to move our region and the nations into a mighty gospel mission. You have an important part in the exciting shared future of evangelistic mission in the Anglican Communion, and we want you to be here to join us! Registration tables (Pre-registration required) for the Awakening opens at 7 p.m. on Thursday, November 13, at All SaintsChurch and Ministry Center (67 Friend St., Amesbury, MA 01913). The event will concludeon Saturday afternoon with an Ordination andCommisioning Service conducted by Archbishop Nzimbi.”

Seen-Too-Much, LongGone et al,

The reason I refer to it as “the” new Anglican province in North America is that it will be “the” only new Anglican province in North America.

My sources are many - lay and clergy, inside TEC and out, and from all points N, S, E, and W.

By “born” I have to remain a little vague, because while I’m told that as of the 3rd (or perhaps the 5th, as suggested above) there will indeed be something that will constitute a new province, I don’t know exactly how it will be done. My expectation is that it will simply be declared to exist. I expect the ABC to react to it with a typically delphic statement. I expect it to be recognized by all of the GAFCON primates as well as perhaps one or two primates who have not thus far been identified as GAFCON primates. I expect it to be dismissed as “lamented emissions” - if it’s mentioned at all - by 815. I expect it to come under attack by 815, ACiC, Jon Bruno, Marc Andrus, Stacy Sauls, John Chane, and the usual bunch of lesser hyperventilators.

Actually, there have been three Anglican Awakenings this year - and somehow, I missed seeing any coverage of these meeting here at SFIF.

The first was on Feb. 27 - March 2, 2008 led by the Rev. William Beasley of AMiA, in Chicago.  Another Anglican Awakening was held October 21-23, at St. Luke’s in Akron, Ohio.  The third one this year was in Massachusetts, on November 13-15 led by Bishop Bill Murdoch.

The Anglican Awakenings are sponsored by the Common Cause Partnership groups.  Here’s a little background:  “The Anglican Awakening movement began in the Chicago area. Beasley and Chief Jimmy Gboyeja Delano, who serves as treasurer for the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, were two early organizers. 
According to both Beasley and Delano, the Awakening movement initially brings conservative Anglicans together, but it won’t stop there. These two, and other supporters of the movement, have a truly global and trans-denominational vision of helping Christians come together in one body to share the good news of Jesus Christ. “We see them all coming together under Christ, that is what I am spending the rest of my life for,” said Delano.”

If the ABC isn’t going to officially recognize the new province, then what would be the point of whether or not the new province is geographically contiguous?  +Dunan, +Iker et al., could simply remap their diocesan borders until they met somewhere in the middle. 

Hehe.  Of course, if he didn’t recognize it, then no one could complain about incursions now, could they? 

Hehe.  SWweeeet. 

Moot, my man, have you so soon forgotten that most of the US and Canada is now a mission field…most of it excluding the 4 Southern Cone Dioceses (and a growing number of parishes) are under apostate/enemy control?

32   And what good will this do them, Greg?  Where will their ranting and raving get them?  The answer to that is “nowhere.”  Our new province is going to be a fact, and there is nothing….absolutely nothing….that they or anyone else can do to prevent it or stop it from functioning once it’s up and running.

“There is no desirable ‘system restore’ point or date to which we should want to return.”  Dear #17 Floridian,
I find your phrase interesting but would offer a ‘restore point’;  The first five centuries of the undivided church.
I also agree with David Handy’s makeup of the new province since a “mature” Charismatic dimension, while demonstrating a past potential for divisiveness also could provide a spirit of cooperation and ecumenism within the new province.
The question I would pose to David, “Will we still be Canterbury Anglicans without the Broad Church dimension?”

Thanks, GA/FL (#33).

The background you provided is very helpful.  FWIW, I count Fr. William Beaseley as a friend,  We were students together, first at good old Wheaton College, and then at Yale Divinity School.  And I think that the (West) Chicago area which is his base is one of the most promising spots where some remarkable networking and collaboration among different orthodox Anglican jurisdictions is taking place, and a genuine spirit of deep fellowship and cooperation is growing (involving mostly AMiA, CANA, and Uganda, especially in the Dupage County or Wheaton/West Chicago area).

Greg, let’s make sure that this Anglican Awakening gets lots of coverage in the days to come.

David Handy+

Pageantmaster, your gracious offering of a name needs an acronym (despite the likelihood that it would include most of the letters of the alphabet).

21 EmilyH
There will be no barrier to WO in the new province. There is recognition that the situation in this province will mirror the mind of the wider communion. There will be parts that ordain women and parts that do not. No one will be forced to ordain women and no one will be prevented.  This is pretty much what Bp. Iker said in his recent interview with Greg Griffith, and also what I learned from Bp. Duncan when I inquired.

StephenSizer, I share your sadness that English evangelical Anglicans were not able to endorse the Jerusalem Declaration.  Perhaps it is too soon.  This calls for prayer and for enhanced preparation and communication among evangelicals in England.  May God bless your efforts.

While this is an exciting and long awaited development, I am inclined to think that it will be longer and more drawn out than a given afternoon in early December (whether the 3rd or the 5th).  I do believe that the 4 former TEC dioceses will, for example, require conventions to change their canons and adopt resolutions first to recognize and then to join the new province. If it required two readings for some to leave TEC, will it require two to join a new province? Likewise, I would suggest that most Continuing jurisdictions (should they join) will need to enter periods of discernment, and do things in accordance with their parliamentary structures. AMiA and CANA may be able to move more directly (I am not familiar with their constitutional structures). 
  Although it will take a while to organize, it does seem likely that it will be the North American entity that will be recognized by Churches that represent 60% of the world’s Anglicans.  The negative is that it will cause yet another fault line in the Communion, and there are a great many of them already.  In this case, some Churches will recognize the new province and officially withdraw recognition of TEC (or have already done the second).  Some will continue to recognize TEC, and refuse recognition of the new province.  Some will recognize both and some, in true Anglican tradition, will be completely ambiguous in their answer to any question on the subject.
  I would suggest that the time leading up to the formation of the new province would be more appropriately spent in prayer than in celebration.  And we need to remember that the purpose of the new province is to build the body of Christ, not to exact some sort of revenge on TEC.

Katherine.
I attended the NEAC meeting yesterday.  It was a great day with some excellent speakers and a really good atmosphere.  A body which should be developed and expanded and a real pleasure to meet many people who I had only come across by reading or conversing with on the blogs.

Although no motion was passed [for procedural problems of short notice] I must tell you that great concern was shown for the position of conservatives in the US and Canada and a real desire to have a longer debate on what can be done to help.  It was not that there was an unwillingness to pass a motion of support, we never got around to debating that motion, there were diffences in whether evangelicals should support solely the Gafcon approach in support of Common Cause or also support the Lambeth provision idea of the Covenant and also the efforts for the Communion Partners idea.

That was my sense fwiw.  I am glad I went and there were inspiring speeches by +Nazir Ali, +Sinclair, and +Broadbent and by the Reverends Mike Ovey, Paul Perkin, Christina Baxter and Chris Sugden and a final inspiring vision by Richard Turnbull.

Very positive, but I suspect that something more concrete was limited by time but there is most certainly support and a desire to do something.

I hope that there will be the chance for something longer on the same lines to develop, perhaps more regularly.

There will be parts that ordain women and parts that do not. No one will be forced to ordain women and no one will be prevented.

Ed McNeil,
This is all fine and dandy, however…..what do you do when you have women in your diocese that does not ordain women to the priesthood that want to become priest? We have one that i am aware of and maybe a few more on the horizon here in San Jaoquin. Bishop Schofield does not ordain women to the priesthood but does ordain them as deacons (and I still have trouble with that to some degree). If this one woman deacon who’s livelihood and roots are here in this diocese where she lives wants so desperately to become a priest (and she does) what do they do with her in this New Province that allows some in some places and one in others? That is going to be a problem or it will be a vehicle for a potential problem to brew up as I see it.

I forgot to spell check so sorry for the errors above, but there is also one more thing. That analogy of “some place will ordain and some will not” is already in play in TEC! There are some diocese that ordain women to the priesthood and some that don’t and it hasn’t worked that well for TEC so what makes the CCP’s think it will work any better for them just because we are no longer under the tyranny of 815, KJS, DBB, and all those liberal revisionists? The formula and execution of it is still the same!

ODC,
The answer lies in the Anglican Province of Christ the King.
Truly Catholic with Anglican roots they do not and will not ordain women. See the following link:
http://www.anglicanpck.org/

Blessings to you,
Intercessor

Perhaps all the women who wish to be ordained in this new province will end up in Pittsburgh.  After all, Bishop Duncan told the Post Gazette that one of the new vocations of the realigned diocese was to take in “refugees”, i.e., women who have trouble receiving calls in the conservative Anglican movement.  Are there lots of female priests in Pittsburgh’s future?

I suspect the WO situation will be handled by “local rule”.  There will be the flexibility of allowing Bishops who cannot with good conscience ordain women to the priesthood to have an agreement with Bishops that do ordain women- similar to the plan Bishop Iker set up with the Diocese of Dallas.  The Dioceses that ultimately will join the new orthodox Province will be less geographically based and more theologically or “ideals” based- but with the one focus on the “essentials” of the faith- that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour- and the sole source of our salvation- and the Bible being the revealed Word of God that is not open for man to change or modify.  It is the departure from these essential truths that caused the deterioration of TEC.  I also believe the united focus will be on Mission in the Church- that mission not being secularly based- but based on spreading the Gospel.

I also believe you will see tolerance for evangelical Christ centered parishes to coexist with Anglo Catholic parishes within the same Diocese and Province.  A model for that occuring is in our own Diocese of Fort Worth- where St Andrews is a traditional evangelical Anglican Church- but sits side by side and is a key component in our faith within the Diocese of parishes that are more predominantly Anglo Catholic.  Again- how can we do this?  Because we share the basic tenets of our Faith- the Essential beliefs in Jesus and the Authority of Scripture.  It becomes less important on the methods we might use to worship our Lord- as long as we worship the one and true Lord and Saviour and study and try to apply Biblical principles in our lives in our walk with the Lord.  I have been personally blessed to build wonderful Christian relationships with many members of St Andrews as we worked towards our separation from the General Convention of TEC- that has been one of the true blessings that has come from the unification that I have witnessed within the Diocese of Fort Worth.  Now, we must continue to build upon those bridges that have been built between our faithful parishes and find new ways to leverage our faith together for the mission of building Christ’s Church.

I believe you will see that same kind of thing occur within the new orthodox Anglican Province of North America.

“The ways of Man are passing strange….
He wins his victory, but he counts his change…”

Please folks, how foolish it would be for orthodox Anglicans, when God is offering us a path out of the desert, to allow any umbrella group to be unnecessarily stillborn over the issue of women’s ordination. The path of reasonable compromise and mutual respect is immediately before our eyes.

rkreed,
“Any umbrella group?” Whatever that is and who ever that is!
There has always been a path out of the desert and that path leads to Rome for those who are looking to be a prat of the One True Holy Catholic Church. But for those of us who are Catholic and Protestant in our beliefs and worship it is a bit harder to take a path that still has a vision that looks much like the one we are leaving in terms of “We will be the same except with a different name, different territory, and no more being yoked to the apostasy and heresy.”
Exactly what will be different other than what I have listed above? The issues that have plagued ECUSA for decades are not being addressed and changed, rather they are being put yet again, on the back burner to be dealt with when exactly?

Thanks, Pageantmaster, for that encouraging report from the NEAC.  That does sound more optimistic.  I was privileged to hear the energetic +Sinclair here in Egypt recently.

50- With all due respect, One day closer- not all of us have a desire to go to Rome.  Not all of us buy into the infallability of the Pope or that we must communicate with God only through the Virgin Mary.  Rome is not without it’s own problems and issues.  Hence, the Anglican Communion is a viable alternative to worship our Lord.

I left the Episcopal church in the late 1970’s, and helped to found about three ‘continuing parishes’ in the Houston area. One of them (St. Thomas of Canterbury, Pearland - now REC) is still around.

In the 70’s and 80’s, these splinters began to themselves splinter over every issue imaginable, mostly non-crucial. It was sad. Many good Christians were lost to Agnlicanism. Some quit going to church altogether.

As I see it, the new Province corrects just about all of the issues which divide the orthodox, except perhaps WO, where it is easy for Christians of good will to agree to disagree, and to move forward in faith, if one will forgive the pun.

that should read “divide the orthodox from the revisionists….”

Sorry.

frreed and others, if actual respect is given to the non-WO portion of the Common Cause Province, it has some chance to work.  Within TEC, while theoretically there was respect, in fact there was disrespect and worse.  What other valid chance do we have, as Anglicans in North America?  I have great feelings of respect for many of the Continuing folks.  Will a small Anglo-Catholic only entity, even if all those united, be the part of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church which we are supposed to be?  I fear that if we have an evangelical group and a catholic group, we will have two denominations, not one holy church.  We need each other.  Mutual respect and forbearance is what I hope for.  Hearts and minds can be changed on these issues which are contentious now if we all share a common faith.  I hope so.

#15 Hewett does say:

“Everyone knows that we cannot and will not compromise the ministry as our Lord instituted it and the apostles continued it. We are not, and can never be, in communion with anyone who ordains women.”

This does sound like a pretty non-compromising statement.  Will +John Howe eventually be vindicated.  He has always said that CCP will splinter on the WO issue.

cbates,
I never said anything to the contrary of what you posted…please read my post!

No rkreed…the BCP is another issue. Which to use? 1662? 1928? 1979? We are still using the ‘79 much to my chagrin and many others…the reasons given for still using it….“cost! and too many are used to it!”
First of all we never use the BCP that sit in our pews at the Cathedral because the whole liturgy and service is typed up in a program handed out! And the “used to it” excuse is just that an excuse!

No rkreed there are still unresolved issues that will plague the New Province unless the CCP’s get a handle on them and resolve them and not put them on a back burner or do as you say and “agree to disagree”!

ODC,

I expect that the new province will enjoy a diversity of models of diocesan structure for some time.  Some will likely be geographic territories, while others will likely be non geographic as they are now.  We’ll have to wait until Dec. 3rd to get some of these questions answered. 

In terms of prayer books, I expect there will be a new one put together; and that the freedom to worship in different ways will continue.

CBates, what do you mean about worshipping only through the Virgin Mary?  I’ve never heard of such a thing.  As it is, it stands as slander if not attributed to mere ignorance.  I’m not a Roman Catholic for various reasons but let’s try to not bear false witness.As far as women in the priesthood, it is a historical anomaly and ought to be phased out in the same fashon as “gay marriage”.

I hope I am right in predicting Dec 3rd is the day and Wheaton IL the place that Fr Bill Ilgenfritz will be consecrated as the FIF Bishop for North America

External unity (ecumenicism really) is not the ultimate focus of the Church.  True ecumenicism is not syncretism but evangelism.  Be the worshipping Church locally, joined by fraternal bonds of friendship not excluding “full communion” and God will reveal true unity as He will.  It is inevitable that a growth period is required.  Some things may have to change.  Some attitudes towards theology, especially the theology held by others, will have to change ... or full communion will fail and the curse of endless schism will befall and bend your best efforts.  I suppose it depends on whether local confessions which appear suspiciously like new dispensations to me (especially in the case of the Charismatic Movement), which seem to abound in Anglicanism in the USA, are as important and central as the Church of the apostles.  You will never root out all individuals who cause scandal.  Humans fail, and often.  Well, that’s my two cents.  Not worth much in the telling.

The GAFCON folks have adopted the 1662 BCP as the standard of faith and worship, unless I’m mistaken.  It will obviously be adapted locally—I don’t see the new NA province making everybody go back to thee-thouing, but ditching the 79 book for an improved, agreed version can’t happen fast enough for me.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

No rkreed…the BCP is another issue. Which to use? 1662? 1928? 1979? We are still using the ‘79 much to my chagrin and many others…the reasons given for still using it….“cost! and too many are used to it!”

My understanding is that at least in the short term, parishes will be given the option of using any of the books you mention.  In the long term, several groups such as the Prayerbook Society have been working on books that combine the best features of all the books you mention.

Again, I don’t see the parishes that have recently left TEC letting themselves get divided over things like WO or the 1979 BCP when they have been willing to make accomandations with both for quite some time now.  It is likely there will be some individuals that that are unhappy with any compromise on WO, but there is no reason why they should start a new group.  There are plenty of Continuing jurisdictions for them to choose from.

The real question is how REC and FACA are going to fit into this picture.

BTW, at least as far as Morning and Evening Prayer go, 1662, 1928 and 1979 are practically identicle.  1928 Holy Communion and 1979 Rite I Eucharist are very similar, and even many of the Continuers add extras from the Anglican Missal that make their services more like 1979 Rite I than 1928.  Rhetoric aside, I don’t see any of the major groups in CCP being willing to fight to the death for the precise use of a 1662 BCP that has never been used by PECUSA. 

As for Rite II 1979:  It is absolutly vital (and nearly mandated by the 39 Articles) that prayers in contemporary language be an option for mission driven churches.  However, I personally would prefer literal translations of the the original prayer book prayers to many of the Rite II “Eucharistic Prayers” that the 1979 BCP invents. 

So what might we see?  Well, for Holy Communion, My suggestion would be to have one service based on the 1928 BCP.  The few minor differences between the 1928 BCP and the 1979 Rite I will be optional uses, perhaps marked by a different font or brackets, such as having the Gloria after the Kyrie instead of after Communion.  That same service will be available in both Tudor and Contemporary English, not as two different rites with different content, but simply as two translations of the same rite.  It might also be a good idea to include a Spanish translation in the same book.

The GAFCON folks have adopted the 1662 BCP as the standard of faith and worship, unless I’m mistaken.  It will obviously be adapted locally—I don’t see the new NA province making everybody go back to thee-thouing, but ditching the 79 book for an improved, agreed version can’t happen fast enough for me.

An improved agreed upon version would be great, but while 1662 might become the official standarad for faith, I just don’t see the local evangelical-charismatic parishes like Falls Church, Truro and All Saints Dale City ditching their contemporary or blended worship styles for literal, word for word 1662 BCP in the original Tudor English.

As for marriage and funerals, I can’t imagine anything for stiring and appropriate than the 1662.  Even most non-liturgical groups like Baptists tend to draw heavily upon the 1662 BCP for such services.  However, I suppose a literal contemporary translation of said services should also be made available. 

Baptism is a bit of a sticky topic because the 1662 had a few different versions and the 1928 had its own variations.  Whatever they pick, I hope it is NOT the 1979 version. 

Ordination of ministers and consecration of bishops needs to go back at least to 1928.  I wouldn’t even bother with a contemporary translation for that.  If those doing the ordaining and being ordained can’t appreciate traditional language for even such a special and rare service, they shouldn’t bother being Anglican. 

St. Louis Declaration Redux.

FWIW
jimB

Yes, thank you, way up there #20 Suepie,  Let us all FALL TO OUR KNEES,  and give thanks to God for the faithful leaders He has given to us (and we could not possibly have better ones), and for this miracle which is unfolding before our very eyes.  PRAISE GOD FROM WHOM ALL BLESSINGS FLOW!  I plan to be in Wheaton, Illinois on December 3.

We sang “Onward Christian Soldiers” this morning with great gusto—and I was thanking God in my heart for all that He is doing to provide a faithful way forward for us (thinking particularly of the people of the Diocese of Ft. Worth).  If we remember the line, “with the cross of Jesus going on before”  we will be able to get over all the humps, by God’s grace—united in our Savior and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

re: prayer book options - is anyone here using “An Anglican Prayer Book” published for AMiA by Prayer Book Society- see at <https://www.anglicanmarketplace.com/shop.php?category=books&itemID=233>;  our doughty band of troublemakers in western Colorado are using it in our AMiA plant.  see us at <http://ccagj.anglicanconnection.net>

btw - a plug here for Greg’s anglicanconnection.net website service - really good, cheap, easy, and such a webmeister!

Ooops - new to links
us </a href=“http://ccagj.anglicanconnection.net/”>
AAPB </a href=“https://www.anglicanmarketplace.com/shop.php?category=books&itemID=233”>

I read, whether here (most likely) or elsewhere (T19?) that the new North American Province was to be inaugurated in December (date not given) in Wheaton, Ill.
Bp. Duncan to be installed as first N. Am. Abp. From comments above, this seems likely.  Fr. Ilgenfritz has served in DioPitt at St. Mary’s Charleroi (Bp. Akerman’s old parish) so he would be a strong contender for Bp. of FIF NA (Bp. Ackerman is President of it).  This is my speculation.  As to BCP, 1662 is not my preference. 1928 is preferred by me for theological reasons having to do with Calvinistic influences (pace Fr. Matt.).  The Prayer Book society has a modern English version out and it can be read, in part, online.  I think the english contained in it is less than the best. No attention seems to have be paid to speech rythms. (Rome is coming out with a new English version of the Mass that addresses some of these issues.
Dumb Sheep.

Note to all ultraliberal clergy:  What are you going to tell your flock when they asked why this happened?

Templar, why should they say anything at all?  Best to keep the sheep in the dark on such matters.

Better Calvin than Tillich or Spong, eh, dumb sheep?

By the way, our Rector asked for our prayers for the committees that are meeting to work on a prayer book and canons for the new province.

If someone has made these points please pardon:
1.] The date is almost certainly, Dec 3rd.
2.] This is the step before GAFCON Primates recognize the new NA province, perhaps, in January.
3.] Suggestion: If ABC recognizes ACNA he may not do so w/o casting TEC to the outer darkness; a nice British solution. (Just call me a romantic.)
Jarhead+

Cross Mountain,

Many thanks for the plug! Anyone who wants to learn more can hit the link, or email me at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

60- I do not mean to slander anyone- but yes, there are some within the RC Church who believe they can only communicate with God (or Christ) through an intercessor, Mary.  And others believe they can only via the Pope.

No offense is meant to anyone RC, whatsover.  I hope this clears this up.  I simply do not believe those things and believe we are called to have a personal relationship between us and Christ.  I also believe there is only one single human being that ever graced this world who was without sin- that being our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.  Do I think the Pope is a great beacon of light for Christianity- yes.  But no more than other faithful Bishops and Clergy- and even some faithful lay people.

I’ve never done well at predicting the future, but I find it very hard to swallow that a new Province will be [coming into being/born/instituted/whatever] on December 3 or 5.

i think it more likely an agreed ecclesiastical structure, conciliary in nature, will be [coming into being/born/instituted/whatever] on one of those dates, uniting a set of North American bishops and their flocks. It won’t be a Province of the AC until

1. The Primates of the AC accept it as such
2. Rowan declares it is in communion with Canterbury

It may sooner be a Province of GAFCON, but GAFCON is not the AC.

Not trying to rain on the parade, but I see a lot of expectations flying high with lofty questions that presume an actual AC Province will exist on Dec 3/5. I could certainly be wrong with my prognostications but in the meantime, celebrating a new AC Province on Dec 3 is like congratulating your infant daughter on becoming the first female President of the USA. It’s a wee bit premature.

Jarhead-
There are many of us who think that pb Schori has been planning all along to form their own liberal communion away from the Anglican Communion.  How else can you explain the name change- to eliminate all reference to only USA- and that they are in 16 countries already (not my number- I have not researched it- but comes from clergy in the know).  And she yells about “border crossings”?  Hypocritical to say the least.

Jerusalem GAFCON Audios now available - not sure where to post this news! Please spread the word. You can access the audios from here: http://stephensizer.blogspot.com/2008/11/gafcon-audio-recordings.html and here:
http://www.stephensizer.com/2008/11/audio-recordings-of-gafcon/
Anglican Mainstream advise that they may be copied freely.
Audios of the day conference at All Soul’s Church, London, from July will be posted tomorrow.

Blessings
stephen

Anitque-
While I understand your sceptical view- there are many who no longer believe acknowledgement by the ABC to be an essential issue given his lack of leadership in the past years.  Desirable, yes.  Essential, no.  We will be recognized by the vast majority of the AC when the GAFCON Primates recognize us.  Most of them (if not all)no longer view TEC as a legit member of the AC.

GA/FL (#35)

Moot, my man, have you so soon forgotten that most of the US and Canada is now a mission field…most of it excluding the 4 Southern Cone Dioceses (and a growing number of parishes) are under apostate/enemy control?

Not at all.  It’s just dawned on me that ++ABC is really over a barrel on this one. 

Think about it.  If he recognizes it, then he’ll at least be able to set the province’s geographic borders more or less in stone.  On the other hand, if he doesn’t recognize the new province, then what had been so-called incursions in the past, could no longer be regarded as incursions, leaving the new province to do whatever it liked in “TEC territories.”  And that’s because the new province is either connected with ++ABC, or it isn’t. 

It’s beautiful.

While I understand your sceptical view

I am not skeptical. I am however, pragmatic. A sack full of groceries does not a gourmet dinner make, no matter how hard you wish.

We will be recognized by the vast majority of the AC when the GAFCON Primates recognize us

Probably, and I certainly hope so. However, will that also happen on Dec 3? If not, then December 3 does not a Province, by any Primates’ reckoning, make.

Please understand I am not a naysayer. I worked hard behind the scene last year to assit in facilitating the advancement of CCP. I’m all for it.

It’s just that I see a lot of people in this thread reacting as though what will exist on Dec 3 will be an equal Provincial partner with other Provinces. It won’t be that, so far as I know.

It will change from being an organization called CCP with bylaws and a Statement of Faith to a formal church, with consitution and canons.

That’s all. No Province.

Becoming a Province will happen later.

(caveat: as I mentioned earlier, I could be wrong. But since no such ecclesiastical body exists at the moment, I find it hard to accept that any Primate anywhere could recognize a non-existant formal body as a Province).

#80 Antique,
You are right in being cautious. Even after whatever results from Dec 3rd, in a sense, it remains just a new look for Common Cause, unless there is recognition from beyond this continent.
However, recognition by the GAFCON Primates is no small thing; they represent about 80% of the Anglican Communion.
True,GAFCON is not Canterbury, but Canterbury is not GAFCON, either.
How can ++RW resist, even if he can’t bring himself to kick TEC to the curb?

Jarhead+

This is good news indeed about a new province. As one who has wanted to join an orthodox believing Anglican Church in Houston, TX, but has been unable to find one in my area,I really hope this happens soon.  If anyone out there has heard any rumblings from any of the conservative Episcopal churches here re leaving TEC, I’d sure like to know!

Texanne - there are a couple of The Reformed Episcopal Churches in the Houston area.  It is my understanding they are a part of Network/CCP and were at GAFCON.  If I am wrong, please correct me…..Should I be so lucky to have one near.  My one concern is whether Iowa will be in the Diocese of Ft. Worth or the Diocese of Quincy…..I’ll take either….thank you…..

The Curmudgeon offers these thoughts about the formation of the new province:

The forthcoming formation of a new North American province, however, introduces a note of uncertainty into the picture. That province, when formed, will not automatically be part of the Anglican Communion. The question will present itself, by the time of the next meeting of the Anglican Communion Council in May 2009, whether—-and if so, how—-the dioceses who are in that province may sign onto the Covenant. If it is ruled that provinces are simply administrative units into which dioceses are organized, and that it is the dioceses that constitute the Anglican Communion, then it will not matter whether the Constitution of the ACC has been amended by then to recognize the new North American province. Each diocese can then decide on its own whether or not to stay in the Anglican Communion as defined by the Covenant. . . .

Thus it will be very interesting to watch what may literally be the Armageddon of The Episcopal Church next July. The opposition to the Covenant by the leadership at 815 can only stem from a belief that its adoption will interfere in some way with the program of social justice to which they have dedicated themselves. If individual dioceses in The Episcopal Church are permitted to sign onto the Covenant separately, that result will spell the end of the current hegemony represented by the three digits 815. So they will be unalterably opposed to allowing such a procedure within the Episcopal Church.

But 815 does not control the ACC, although it may command considerable support there. It is conceivable that, over concerted opposition, the ACC will propose that the Covenant be adopted by the vote of individual dioceses. If it does that in May, watch for a proposal at General Convention in July to make it uncanonical in some fashion for individual dioceses within The Episcopal Church so to act.

He goes on to sketch the likely outcomes depending on which way the ACC decides to allow the vote on the Covenant to proceed. These will indeed be interesting times!

I would also advise people against getting too excited about the events to come on Dec. 3 (or 5, or whichever).  As I said in 42, the ex-TEC dioceses, and presumably everyone else, will need to abide by the rules set out in their own canons when it comes to joining a new province.
  The ABoC has been over a barrel since Lambeth 1998.  TEC has made clear since the conference ended in ‘98 that they had no intention of following Lambeth 1.10 as an organization.  They will destroy the Communion before they give up on their innovations.  A new province (if even 1 primate recognizes it) puts one more fact on the ground.  In a way, we might never have reached this point if 30 years ago, the Communion, or a group of Primates, had recognized the Continuing Churches (and had they done so, we might use that term in the singular).
  The difficulty the ABoC faces is that if he stops recognizing TEC, the CoE quite probably goes through a process similar to TEC’s in reverse- that is to say, there would suddenly be churches breaking off to join TEC and its client jurisdictions.  If he recognizes both TEC and the new province, he risks, he appears indecisive, and makes no one happy.  Perhaps loses both TEC/ACC/Brazil, etc. AND Gafcon.  If he maintains the fiction that TEC is the only legitimate Anglican entity, GAFCON may well split off from the Communion, and it will be open season on the Communion Partners in the US.

And I am predicting that the big bucks form TEO to the AC, ACC, ABC will trump any vote that may be considered.  You never reject your customers or patrons.  Money talks.  If you don’t think so, then just listen to what it says as it goes out the door.

Chancellor, (or anyone else who might know)
The ACC is often seen as a tool of 815.  However, the ACC is composed of delegates from all Anglican provinces.  Are we to believe that the delegates from Nigeria or Sudan are especially more liberal than their primates?  I realize that the representation on the ACC was heavily gerrymandered (how is that spelled?) when it was formed- giving TEC representation equal to that of the CoE.  However, do correct me if I am wrong, I am under the impression that periodically the delegations are modified to adjust for the growth of provinces.  I would assume that while the ACC might (due to tiny provinces under the control of TEC or the ABoC- which still get at least one rep even if they are 4 dioceses with 10,000 people total) lean TEC’s way, one would assume that Nigeria, Uganda and other large provinces would still carry some weight there.
  Granted of course, the ACO, on the other hand, seems to act as an 815 branch office, but if I were a Ugandan delegate, I would be more concerned with what Archbishop Henry thought of me than what Canon Kearon thinks.

Mr McMahon—many times I see statements about Communion Partners I do not understand, in terms of logic (like ‘we’ll leave the light on’—better screw in a long light bulb!). CP does not wish to join a new province, for legal, financial, moral, and ecclesial reasons (Radner has stated the matter from the standpoint of the covenant work on the covenant web-site). This is not a rebuke so much as a different understanding of how to move forward. ‘Open season’ in what sense? Iker himself made it clear that Dallas diocese, for example, is in a position to maintain its legal independence without joining anything. Yet to be tested completely—and this is Mark McCall’s point—is whether there is any real legal hierarchy above the diocese. Communion Partners believe it is fully possible to differentiate in any number of ways without attempting to form a new province—the challenge of which you rightly underscore, even for those in support. This is a very different issue than the desire some have to form a new entity as the way forward as they see it (ACI has always been sympathetic to the specific plight of anti-WO’s dioceses and sympathize with their specific dilemma, even if we would urge a different route of pressure than joining a new province where new challenges will surely need to be faced on just this issue; expedience works poorly when conscience and principle rank so high). ‘Open season’ then has always been the climate for most CP dioceses, as they have not funded much of TEC business for years and now believe they can maintain differentiated Communion life without ‘let or hindrence.’ This is due to the logic of the polity of this church. Dr Turner will soon be publishing his own paper on this matter so I encourage those who are interested in this position to wait for it. McCall has surely set the matter in clear light already. Grace and peace-

‘Open season’ then has always been the climate for most CP dioceses, as they have not funded much of TEC business for years and now believe they can maintain differentiated Communion life without ‘let or hindrence.’ This is due to the logic of the polity of this church. Dr Turner will soon be publishing his own paper on this matter so I encourage those who are interested in this position to wait for it.

This is a great approach except for the Mark Lawrence problem.  The HoB has a veto over any CP diocese’s ability to continue to consecrate godly bishops.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

The world has changed in the last 500 years.  Britannia no longer rules the waves, the British Empire is no more, and Canterbury is no longer the geographical center of Christendom. Whether the ABC approves, disapproves, sanctions or condems the new Anglican province is really a moot point.  The head of our church and it’s spiritual leader is Jesus Christ, not the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

We separated from the Roman church because of its corruption and the lack of its leadership to end it, now history is repeating itself and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.

The leadership of TEC and the Archbishop of Canterbury really have only 3 choices as this thing plays out….either lead, follow or get out of the way because it’s going to happen with or without them.

Dear #93,

Don’t you suppose that the rules will be quite different after the 09 TEC convention?  TEC will make it impossible for a Diocese to sign on to the covenant without permission from General Convention. Take a look around.  With the departure of Ft. Worth, you folks (moderates) are now the right wing of TEC.

I read Ephraim+‘s essay. I was sorely disappointed in the numbers game he plays. He states the 300,000 figure that Prof Seitz alluded to previously, which again is membership not ASA. The actual ASA of CP dioceses is probably 100,000. The ASA of the new province is purportedly going to be ~200,000. Even if it is only 100,000, the statement that CP represents a clear majority orthodox Anglicans is just not accurate. And I don’t believe that there has been a vote carried out in those CP dioceses. Do guys in the pews share the same ecclesiastical mindset as ACI? I rather doubt it. How many parishes in rural Tennessee, say, really want to be part of Ms Schori’s church if they had an option? But there HAS been a vote taken by by future members of the future orthodox Anglican province - they voted with their feet.

I would assert there is a big disconnect between CP leadership and those in the pews about ecclesiology.  Pew potatoes care a lot more about what their kids are being taught in Sunday school than ecclesiology.

Dec 3rd may not actually see the formation of the New Province, but the date (if indeed that is the date) will live as surely as July 4th lives as the beginning of a new Church.  May God bless and guide her.

ODC:

“No rkreed there are still unresolved issues that will plague the New Province unless the CCP’s get a handle on them and resolve them and not put them on a back burner or do as you say and “agree to disagree”!”

Intransigence and failure to accommodate varying views/beliefs could swiftly doom the new province.  I am an evangelical ‘low church’ (in the English sense) Anglican, always have been and always will be.  I don’t care for bells and smells, fancy vestments, and have never given much thought to the saints other than deep gratitude for what I have learned from their wisdom and lives.  But those differences are not important to me, and the positions of WO/non WO must not be a bar to the common unity of members of the new province.

The departures from TEC are because of TEC’s departure from our beliefs of our state as fallen beings, the uniqueness, divinity, and the purpose of God sending His Son down to live and die among us that we may be saved from our sins and live in restored fellowship with Him.  That, IMHO, is why the new province is being founded.

Andrew A.. ” a 1662 BCP that has never been used by PECUSA.”

Andrew, our parish was established in 1754, built in 1767.. Next spring (Psalm Sunday) will be a re-enactment of the service held in 1767…

What prayerbook would we have used?  Since we were still church of England, was there another one after 1662? 

I truly need to know,

Grannie Gloria

I think most people judge the idea of non-consenting for a candidate who does not intend to leave a non-starter. On what basis? Obviously the consent issue in SC turned on the claim that +Lawrence was intending to leave. But that is precisely what CP dioceses are threatening NOT to do. One can dream up all manner of possible evil intent, but there remains a difference between doing the Lord’s work in mission and gospel, and being persecuted and having to deal with the options when the time comes; and claiming ahead of time that one needs to leave and form a new entity. The leaving option is fraught with its own problems (legal, financial, ecclesial, moral), and it is a matter of christian conscience how to decide to move forward. Impossible to sign the covenant? I think it wise to speak about what can actually be enforced and what cannot. And one cannot really predict the development of such detailed outcomes anyway. If one wants to leave and form a new entity, it ought not to be because dire future realities are dreamed up for others. It ought to be because one believes this is the way forward for oneself, after prayer and fasting. Grace and peace.

Roy—there is an option to ‘being part of Ms Schori’s church’ and it is being chosen by CP. That is, being part of Christ’s Body and doing his work! I hope that we are not now in the place where doing the work of the Lord in sacrifice and in joy means following only the route you have concluded is right, for if so, we would then only substitute for ‘Ms Schori’s church’ the ‘church of Robroy.’ And I know you do not mean that. Grace and peace. (you are right, btw, it is hard to speak of 200K in a new province).

Grannie,
As your parish was founded before PECUSA, 1662 would have been used.
This does not contradict what Andrew A said!

Re #101:

IIRC +Lawrence was clearly on record as promising not to lead DioSC out of GCC before his first election.  I wouldn’t want to tell you CP folk what to do—I hope and believe that you’re guided by God in that—but humanly speaking, I wouldn’t bet a nickel at even money that any CP diocese will be permitted to consecrate a genuinely orthodox bishop ever again. 

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

All of the good theological and logistical statements above taken and appreciated…but December 3 is my ordination anniversary as well as my profession date as a third order Franciscan…this is HUGE! 

Maybe I will be like the ol’ boll weevil…maybe I will find a home! 

I pray so.  I pray that we all find a home in this move.
Fr. Chip

Phil—your point is sound but it is not relevant. The issue that was raised vs Lawrence was precisely that he intended to leave. You and I can say this was a false charge. But that was the charge. grace and peace.

My understanding is that a Province will need to be formed first, followed by recognition by the GAFCON Primates at a later date (January- February from what I have heard).  And after that recognition Dioceses will join via their own Convention votes- which may or may not be moved up from their normal schedules.  But after living what we have for the last 30 + years if we were all in the same Province by this time next year that would be “warp speed” progress compared to historic Church standards.  Here’s to sooner rather than later!

Roy—where did the purported estimate of 200K come from, just out of curiosity? Radner and I can make stupid mistakes, confusing ASA and active baptised, but I think the same records have shown that 50K is the active baptized attendance of four leaving dioceses (those staying churches like those of Simons or Eaton excepted). Where are the other 150K coming from? AMiA? CANA? REC? I am curious how this figure is reached.

As your parish was founded before PECUSA, 1662 would have been used.
This does not contradict what Andrew A said!

Entirely true.  Upon further reflection I suppose it is possible that some parishes may have kept with the 1662 BCP with homebrew modifications while the new PECUSA BCP was being worked on. 

For a nearly comprehensive collection of PECUSA BCP material, see
http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/bcp.htm

BTW, as far as the legal process of getting the “New Province” approved, I hope that the GAFCON primates do sufficient lobbying and polling to make sure that they do not put things to a vote at the ACC before they can be reasonably assured of a favorable vote.  Getting voted down by the ACC would be embaressing, to say the least.

When, not IF, the new province is created, up, and running, it won’t make a bit of difference whether or not we are recognized by Canterbury, because we will be recognized by the Primates.  Canterbury’s recognition or the lack of it will be moot, and our new province will be an accomplished fact.

Of course, the Anglican Consultative Council, which is in Mrs Schori’s “back pocket,” so to speak, won’t deign to give their approval, but who cares about what they think?  They’ll be on the sidelines, and they’ll be ignored.

More on liturgy:  Since Thanksgiving is coming up, some of you might be interested in seeing the original PECUSA authorized service for Thanksgiving, from PECUSA’s first BCP. 

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1789/Prayer&Thanksgiving;_1789.htm

Fr Seitz,

“Your point is sound but it is not relevant.”

Wow, that’s the sort of stuff I associate with Second Avenue rather than Wycliffe.  The issue of SC leaving either was a fig leaf, or it wasn’t.  From what you say, I gather that neither of us regards the refusal of consent for +Lawrence to have been an honest misunderstanding….so I remain puzzled.

I honestly wish you and the rest of CP the best of success, and if your witness results in GCC’s repentance, I freely admit that your wisdom will have been shown to be superior to mine.  Failing that, we’ll all have to wait till we cross the Jordan, I suppose.

For myself and our new Ugandan church plant, I’m very excited about the new province. 

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

Phil—I do not understand your comment. My point was that TEC non-consent was predicated on intention to leave (even if the charge in Lawrence’s case was false) and that as such, it cannot be extended to those who do not intend to leave but to stay. Grace and peace.

I wish to retract my earlier two comments.

I realize, now, that I was presuming this so-called “Province” was going to be the CCP. The thought occurred to me that it need not be that.

It may in fact be only the 4 ex-TEC diocese forming their own “Province” and has nothing to do with CCP.

Then again, perhaps these 4 dioceses are instantiating their own Province so that it may unite as one member of the CCP (along with AMiA, REC, etc.).

In any event, I realize belatedly I have no idea who is involved in this particular effort of Dec 3/5, so any comments I’ve made are without merit until that point is cleared up.

Dr Roy—I have been speaking with Russell Levenson about our April conference in Houston and other CP matters. (All SF members might consider praying for ++Josiah Idowu-Fearon, who lost his son yesterday; he is to be with is in ten days in Toronto; he is a godly leader from Nigeria and warrior for Christ). Russell had seen your comments and wrote this, which I said I would post on his behalf, re: St Martin’s. It comports with what I experienced last Sunday. “There’s lots of talk about ASA numbers—dropping, etc.  As you know—the key number now for national church is ‘communicants.’  We’ve seen a continued climb of communicants and a sharp climb of baptized members. We are presently at nearly 8250 members (we transferred 15 in this morning…by the way).  The last confirmation class was over 100 (Don Wimberly said it was the largest of his Episcopacy).  Average Sunday attendance last time it was posted was around 1900. As of last weekend in August, we had nearly 5,000 more people who had attended Sunday services since that time last year—noteworthy is the addition of two NEW services as well.” Grace and peace.

Phil—I do not understand your comment. My point was that TEC non-consent was predicated on intention to leave (even if the charge in Lawrence’s case was false) and that as such, it cannot be extended to those who do not intend to leave but to stay.

Fr Seitz,

Your faith in the good intentions of the GCC far exceeds mine.  Their track record shows that there is little they will not stoop to to get their way, although they try to provide themselves with protective cover when available.  The remarkable change in their attitude to the importance of “the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church” is a case in point.  They were unable to accede to the Windsor Report due allegedly to canonical issues—though no specific canon was ever cited IIRC—and yet there was no such scruple when KJS spitefully rammed through the deposition of Bp Duncan, in flagrant violation of those same canons.

I wish I could share your belief in the good faith of the GCC.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

Phil—sorry, what is GCC?

I don’t see why there needs to be such hostility between the ACI/CP posture and the New Province development…are they not speaking to the same walking apart of TEC, merely applying different but complimentary pressures unto correction and discipline…sharing in fact a similar theology and love of the church?

I think some of the “back and forth” on this thread bespeaks an unseemly and unnecessary rivalry between the AAC-ACN-CCP-GAFCON axis and the ACI-CPP axis.  I pray this is not the case.

The new province will be made up of the whole Common Cause Partnership in the US and Canada, minus those in the ACN who are still in TEC, so it is a very significant group for those who need numbers.  But to me the numbers mean nothing compared to the true and tested Biblically orthodox faith of the leaders that God has raised up to lead us in this new North American Anglican Province.  “Lift up your hearts, lift up your voice, rejoice, again I say, rejoice!”

ACI, CP, Seitz, Radner and all alike, please know we wish you well in your endeavors as some of us have been engaged in this strife for over 30 years to reform from within.  We have tried it, done what we are told at GC and other gatherings without relief.  I just pray you folks would, one day, wish us well in the path we will choose in the New Province.

The hover help on SF has most of those acronyms.  GCC is the General Convention Church, aka TEC aka ECUSA aka PECUSA—a mildly scornful name, admittedly, but one that I use because it accurately names their source of authority—themselves.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

P. S. I do not speak with any knowledge about the ACN parishes.  I have no idea what the plan is with regard to those inside TEC.  It seems logical that a parish would have to decide for or against the new province.  Would love for someone who knows about this to educate us.

121—I agree that mutual respect would be a very good thing. There are principled differences or course, even for those of us who also have been in this struggle for 30 years or more as well. Thank you for your kind words. As I said above, the dilemma for those opposing WO is real and it is one we at ACI have always underscored as requiring resolution. Grace and peace.

# 115 Antique-

The meeting in December is indeed the CCP meeting and Bishop Duncan, our own Bishop Iker, and many others will be present at it.  The consensus building of this being the way forward has already been done, in my opinion.  We look forward to it becoming a reality- and in my personal opinion- this Province will be very active in Mission work- and I am referring to Mission work to actually spread the true Gospel of Jesus Christ rather than the “mission work” of TEC to promote social agendas.

Dr. Seitz (re: your 93 in response to my 90)

Mr McMahon—many times I see statements about Communion Partners I do not understand, in terms of logic (like ‘we’ll leave the light on’—better screw in a long light bulb!). CP does not wish to join a new province, for legal, financial, moral, and ecclesial reasons (Radner has stated the matter from the standpoint of the covenant work on the covenant web-site). This is not a rebuke so much as a different understanding of how to move forward. ‘Open season’ in what sense?

  I believe I owe you an apology for making my “open season” remark in such a cryptic fashion that my intent could be completely misunderstood.  What I meant by my remark was that in a circumstance where there was a division of the Communion that caused the Gafcon to split off, TEC would have a free hand to set about the business of ridding itself of the Communion Partners.  Many posters on the HoBD listserve have made it quite clear that they object to the presence of Bishops Lawrence and (of all people) Geralyn Wolf, who is apparently (and ironically) considered a traitor to her gender for suggesting that marriage is a sacrament between a man and a woman.
  Upon re-reading my own statement, I can see how one might take what I said to mean that a province aligned with Gafcon might declare “open season” on CP dioceses or parishes.  I pray that you take me at my word that was not my intent, and that indeed, I hope and pray for the success of the Communion Partners.  And that I also pray that whatever differences may exist in terms of strategy or ecclesiology, that orthodox Anglicans wherever they are- TEC, new province, non-aligned, whatever, maintain Communion with one another, and mutual respect.
TJ

123 - many of us (ACN parishes) in a Diocese who has not left are waiting for the new province to link up.  We will be on our own, so to speak, unless we band together in each Diocese who remain in TEC.  KJS and Beers will attempt to inhibit and depose us as they will with Dioceses who have left. Comes with the turf and standing for something in today’s Church.  I shared with my folks this A.M. that if I will not offer something less than the Historic Faith, as I signed up at ordination.  Katherine, Beers, there are many of us out here so get ready.

124 - I’m sorry, I don’t get it Chris.  What is preventing you from saying Godspeed, we wish you well right now to us?  We understand the WO issue better than anyone, having lived with it over 30+ years; but it will be our opportunity, not yours.  The bonds of affection among some Bishops will far outweigh that which separates them.  I do know them that well.  So, once again, we wish you well in your endeavors.  Your turn.

I would also recommend Dr. Radner’s essay, and that people might want to also see his remarks in the discussion following the essay on the Covenant website.  Which remarks clarify his position.  I think it very important for us to remember that we are a Communion, and not a couple hundred thousand individuals looking out for ourselves.  Personally, I am entirely in agreement with bishop Iker’s remark that “enough is enough.”  But at the same time, we need to have some sympathy and respect for the clergy in revisionist dioceses (or bishops still in the revisionist province) who are desperately trying to hold together parishes of faithful people.  That is what CP is all about, I think. 
  All of that said Dr. Seitz, it is being said by some in TEC that refusal to recognize the deposition of +Bob Duncan constitutes a breach of the discipline of TEC.  And I do believe some of your CP bishops are on record as refusing to recognize said deposition.  TEC cab always find an excuse.

As I said, Russell Levenson+ is rock solid (as are many, many in the CP network). St Martin’s in a wonderful worship space.

The issue about using communicants is that one doesn’t have prior data. Average Sunday attendance is a good stat if one recognizes that the Sunday effect artificially inflates it. Note that South Carolina took a hit in the ASA.

The revisionists know how to vanquish the orthodox - make the name “Episcopal” an anathema. They will simply continue with more and more outrageous acts: gay pride parade blessings, same sex blessings, with the repeal of B033, more homosexual bishops, open communion, blessing divorces, blessing abortions, etc. Since no discipline will be forthcoming, the strategy is unassailable.

It will be a real crime when St Martin’s eventually falls into the hands of the revisionists.

Just posted on AnglcanTV:

http://tinyurl.com/664x9z

127—“So, once again, we wish you well in your endeavors.”

and does that include:

“It will be a real crime when St Martin’s eventually falls into the hands of the revisionists.”

Is your ‘we’ including comments like these?

A long day here. Blessings to you and grace and peace. May God go with your new province plans and colleagues.

For what it is worth, my personal opinion is that those orthodox parishes in ACN or CPP dioceses that have not left TEC yet should stay in to support their orthodox bishop, though perhaps find ways of building “life boats” just in case things go sour for them in the future.  The New Anglican Province should have some sort of understanding with these dioceses to prevent rancour and unnecessary competition, especially legal fights that might come from a parish trying to leave those dioceses with their property and without the blessing of their bishop. 

The rest of TEC, however, is fair game.

There is really no point in getting into confrontational debates about the future of this or that group in TEC or in an alternative Province or jurisdiction.  The fact is that we don’t know what the future holds, and things can develop differently then we expect, which might change our plans and objectives.

For example, Dr. Seitz argues that the key issue in future episcopal approvals will be suspected intention of leaving TEC.  He acknowledges that Lawrence had no such intention but still was initially rejected.  It was my impression that in my diocese, the rejection of Lawrence was hung on the “intention to leave” peg, but that was just a cover for hostility towards his conservative views.  If Integrity gets what it wants, I would think that in 3-4 years, one’s refusal to permit same-sex blessings in one’s diocese will be deemed to be “bigoted” and disqualifying for bishop candidates.  We have seen in the aftermath of Proposition 8 in California that not much is below liberal activists once they set their mind to something.  So, even if for now, it’s only about presumed intention to leave, it might be in the future.

On the other hand, who knows what will happen with this new Province.  Once the honeymoon is over, what happens if the new Province is not accorded recognition and the various groupings within it begin to conflict with one another?  Right now its all happiness and bonhomie, but it might not be in the future.

I can seen scenarios in which Dr. Seitz is a member of the new Province within 5 years.  Or a scenario in which many of the seperated orthodox rejoin TEC.  (Admittedly, I see a much greater probability for the former, but that is beside the point).

The key point is that for now both the CP and the CCP are pursuing paths which they feel led on.  Both may be making tactical and strategic mistakes, but no one is perfect.  I personally have criticisms of both groups, and I also know that both groups hold to critical truths which the other doesn’t always grasp.  And I also know that both are working to the best of their abilities for a reformed Anglicanism in North America.  So, my prayer is that, even though both pursue different goals for now, they both maintain cordial relationships so that when the time comes down the road, as I am sure it will, positions will not have hardened to such an extent so as to prevent reunification.

Rob Roy wrote: “They will simply continue with more and more outrageous acts: gay pride parade blessings, same sex blessings, with the repeal of B033, more homosexual bishops, open communion, blessing divorces,
blessing abortions, etc. Since no discipline will be forthcoming, the strategy is unassailable.”

This grieves my heart…souls are being lost in the church…the truth is being supressed and distorted in the church and people are being deceived by the blind shepherds and churchmen who use Christ’s Name to bless all this.

The remaining Windsor dioceses will soon be compelled to act similarly.  GC 2009 will almost assuredly approve same sex blessings (if not marriages).  It will refuse to address the call from the AC for the adoption of a covenant and will continue the persecution of biblically orthodox believers.  No reasserter will ever again be approved for consecration as a bishop.  The handwriting is on the wall.

“I can see scenarios in which Dr. Seitz is a member of the new Province within 5 years”.

I understand this and I don’t personally disagree with the viewpoint of my Communion Partner bishop. But, I say that from a “safe”, holy place, as a member of a CP/Network diocese.  I don’t feel the CPers are understanding the sad plight of orthodox parishes in revisionist TEC dioceses; no offense, but perhaps they just feel that’s not their problem or focus. My friends back in Massachusetts, from whence I came, are blessed to have Anglican plants via God, Kenya, and all the hard work of Bp. Murdoch and his clergy.  So, I’m not going to knock the CCP. 

Whatever happened to not chastizing people for either staying or going?  Not to mention focusing more on what unites us, rather than what divides us? 

I don’t have a problem waiting to see whether or not the Covenant can actually get worked out and have “teeth” in it.  It won’t be for lack of good intention and holiness on the part of CPs and drafters like Dr. Radner.  Go for it, BUT, my only caveat is that I do agree with Bp. Iker—insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.  The Covenant won’t mean a whole lot unless the primates and/or the AB of C are willing to enforce it.  I certainly haven’t seen the latter willing to enforce(to quote Dorie the fish in Finding Nemo) “diddly squat”. 

Not to mention, do CPers eventually want to be out from under the corruption that is General Convention? How do they get there from here?  I for one don’t care to slander Bishop Duncan, because many might not agree with him ecclesially, but all CPer theology is a hell of a lot closer to his than TEC’s. 

Time will tell, prayers abound, and never say never. 

Again, no offense, but I would suggest someone like Dr. Seitz attend Diocesan Convention in Massachusetts with all the “justice delayed is justice denied” mantra set to background music of lesbians or transgenders bonging Tibetan prayer drums before he disagrees again with Bishop Duncan’s ecclesiology.  Or, there’s always the Ian Douglas trainees spouting off that the Episcopal marriage liturgy should be tossed out because it simply “assumes a gender complimentarity that is culturally conditioned, thus making it ‘heterosexist’”...

Were I not with a godly bishop like Stanton, I’d be happy to get myself to the closest CCP church…

God save us all…

GiD

This has been a fascinating thread.  I have a few comments on various comments that may add interest.

AndrewA,

RE: “What I wonder about is exactly how REC, FACA and the ACN and FiFNA parishes still inside TEC are going to fit into this picture.”

From what I hear parishes that are concerned about being associated with the ACN or AAC in light of the new Anglican entity coming up are simply quietly withdrawing from either or both organizations.  Just got an email from a parishioner concerning this issue last week.

Edwin ,

RE: “That said, the smokescreen “where would we go if we left TEC?” is cleared away and now parishes can face the real question of institutional loyalty to an apostate church, or (probably) giving up their property to be loyal to the Gospel.”

Not certain how the new Anglican entity would fix the “where would we go” question, as those of us who are asking that question have no desire to be in the new Anglican entity.

When I, for instance, ask that question, the new Anglican entity doesn’t figure into my possible answers.

So might I suggest, Edwin, that the question isn’t a “smokescreen,” despite your delusionary beliefs about that and that, rather, it is a valid question for the analytical?

Truth is, a good number of traditional Episcopalians have decided they won’t be a part of a new Anglican entity.  Others decided that they will be a part of a new Anglican entity.  But in general, the decisions are made.  Those who have already decided that they would be a part of a new Anglican entity will slowly and steadily leave TEC and join the new entity.  Those who have already decided that they will not be a part of a new Anglican enttity will 1) slowly and steadily leave TEC and be a part of something non-Anglican, or 2) stay in TEC.

Seitz-ACI.

RE: “As you know—the key number now for national church is ‘communicants.’”

It may be that the “national church” [funny, so many people have said the “national church” doesn’t exist, but now it appears that it does?] has determined in its wisdom that the “key number” to emphasize is “communicants,” but ASA remains the classic and measurable number that is capable of both indicating a measurement of parish health throught the one specific action of its “members” and of providing a valid and decades-long comparable stat.

All of which makes us understand why the “national church” has decided to emphasize “communicants” now, huh?  ; > )

Sarah,
“When I, for instance, ask that question, the new Anglican entity doesn’t figure into my possible answers.”
How about adding “yet”?

Texanne,
I see at least nine (9) conservative Anglican churches in the Houston, TX area of various affiliations; including a Catholic-Anglican use.  Check out Granny Kay’s site here:
  http://www.shelterinthestorm.org/
The Lord’s blessings!

RE: “How about adding “yet”?”

Why—just because it’s important for you to imagine that all traditional Episcopalians will make the same decisions you do and thus affirm your choices?

It may be that the “national church” [funny, so many people have said the “national church” doesn’t exist, but now it appears that it does?]- Sarah

No, it doesn’t and never has existed.  Let’s review once again: C of E = National Church
TEC = only national canons used against those seeking truth.

If you buy the national church designation, one falls for anything.

Geographically contiguous? The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America is “geographically contingent”? Please explain how the United States, the Convocation of American Churches in Europe, the Virgin Islands, Haiti, Columbia, Dominican Republic, Equador, Honduras, Puerto Rico, Venezuela and Taiwan are “geographically contiguous.”

Interestingly, one of the canonical changes voted on by Fort Worth removed the geographical description of the diocese.

The alignment with the Southern Cone was by resolution, not by constitutional amendment. I would think that a resolution could change the alignment to a new North American province at a single (called) convention. I think they would be encouraged to do so by Bishop Venables.

You go, Geek in Dallas # 136 - I hope the CP are successful, but they’d better put some steroids in the ABC’s tea and crumpets…and have some truth serum mixed with tear gas misted in the air at the next Primates meeting and GC…maybe that would help synthesize and augment what’s been lacking: b—-s and repentance.

Better add a little tincture of testosterone to the tea along with the steroids…

This is all great news, however those who believe that woman’s ordination is a superficial matter do not understand the theology behind it.  For those to whom it matters, woman’s ordination is no less of contradiction with their faith than gay marriage.  A plan that would allow local jurisdictions to opt in or opt out would be about as workable as the current marriage situation in Massachusetts, Connecticut and California.

Huber, maybe you should try:
http://www.anglicancatholic.org
http://www.anglicanpck.org
http://www.united-episcopal.org

If you are unwilling to be in communion with those that practice WO, then anything involving the Lambeth-Canterbury centered Anglican Communion is not for you.

Andrew A:

Thanks for your suggestion.  Your comment is perceptive, as I am in fact a member of the ACC. 

Many of the earlier posts suggested that the Continuing Churches might be included in this new ecclesial body.  I don’t see how that would be a possibility with WO unsettled.

Many of the earlier posts suggested that the Continuing Churches might be included in this new ecclesial body.  I don’t see how that would be a possibility with WO unsettled.

I don’t see any of the three I linked joining.  I certainly hope, however, that they will set the example and go beyond only recent declarations of “full communion” with one another and find their way into “full unity” as a single church instead of three.  The differences between the three are smaller than the differences between the GAFCON groups.  As far as I know, there is no good reason they the ACC, APCK and UECNA couldn’t get together next year and unite, but I haven’t seen any annoucements indicating an urgency to do so. 

I don’t see the Affirmation of St Louis churches ever joining the GAFCON affiliated province.  I do hope, however, that all the assorted jurisdictions out with either join a newly reunited Affirmation of St Louis church or the soon to be born Declaration of Jerusalem Church.  That way people have the choice between a single completly independent Anglican church or a single GAFCON Anglican church.

GA/FL, frankly I’d like to be a fly on the wall at the next primates’ meeting, just to hear KJS explain the lack of cessation of lawsuits and so many TEC bishops and dioceses now endorsing SSM/SSB in either the print media or diocesan resolutions, or both. 

For God’s sake, lady, have the integrity to just walk apart instead of all the semantics, dodge-and-weave, or smoke-and-mirrors…

DUH

Also, I wonder if any primate will have the guts to pull the DeS Communique out from under its rock…

I don’t believe that a plan that allows local option on women’s ordination would be unworkable.  What has been unworkable has been dealing with people of ill-will.
As a FIFNA member, I am convinced that FIFNA needs the contributions of the evangelicals and charismatics to be healthy.  In fact, I think it is the devil who is behind separating the Anglican church parties.  That way he can take more souls to hell.  Anglicanism is such a threat to the devil precisely because we have gotten the strengths of all parties together.  I think the catholic faith is strong enough to stand on its own and win others over.  Those others need an infusion of sacramental grace, not to be cut off.  Also, if we withdraw from the others, the lines of communication tend to suffer and our witness is lost to them.  I realize this is a difficult issue and one tinged with much FEAR of being persecuted by WO supporters, but I really believe it is the devil who is behind using WO as an excuse for not working closely together.  I am convinced his sole goal is that by fostering division, he can take more souls to hell.  Someone recently postulated that the same spirit behind homosexuality promotes love of only those like yourself and, thus, denominational splintering.  It strikes me as insightful that the same Anglo-Catholic continuing church that is adamently doctrinally “purer” than everyone else and must shun everybody else is full of   clergy who are living in homosexual sin.  I am convinced Satan wants to keep these Anglo-Catholics from the charismatic, evangelicals who know how to do the inner healing that is needed for these clergy to break free—so he can take more of them to hell.  I believe that people of good will will gradually be won over by the TRUTH and women’s orders will slip away.  I am one of those who once sought ordination.  Fortunately, Anglo-Catholics didn’t throw me out, but, rather, fed me from the riches of Christ’s grace and patiently and lovingly brought me to the fullness of the catholic faith.

While it is very good to see the forward movement on the “new American Anglican province”, it is interesting to see how wildly speculation occurs, as well as the whole “in” and “out” alignment rearing their respective and unwelcome heads. The new province allows the African and Southern Cone provincials to oversee the formation of a whole province here, and then where prudent, release their charges into it, to flourish or languish as God so ordains. Whether or not the ACC, the ABC and the Primates council recognizes it remains largely a political issue. We have some indication where that recognition is “likely” to occur, and where not. All and any other speculation, is foolishness and striving after wind. WO will be troublesome, a show-stopper for those who have declared it so, not so much for those who believe otherwise. What this will do is create an opportunity to see if our faith and orthodox polity can withstand the assault of broken human nature warring against our redeemed nature. If this thread is any indication, the prospects are not good. Even sister Sarah got testy upthread. If our orthodoxy is to be more than simple orthodoxy and a real Holy Spirit-led movement, then we have to be able to do far better than we have done thus far. Unfortunately there is far too much care given to labels and not enough given to the realities of which those labels are mere reflections, again as widely demonstrated in this thread. All of our constructs, episcopal, anglican, roman, eastern, protestant, anglo-catholic, et cetera, are <human> constructs, which must weather God’s occasional shaking to see if they are firmly founded, or built on shifting sands. As I stated in another thread, I admire the “300”-like stand that Sarah and so many others are taking in TEC against overwhelming numbers, against aggressively dogmatically liberal polity, against abuse of canon, and against determined marginalization of the orthodox and even mainstream episcopalian. I too am a fan of the desperate stand against overwhelming odds. I personally am a pragmatist however, and seeing the fields white for harvest, need to focus my attention to the harvesting outside the TEC, even as they focus within, working as the Israelites did with Nehemiah, a stone or saw in one hand and a sword in another.

Now, all that being said, permit me to regale you with a tiny bit of wit regarding desperate stands:

One morning a mighty lord decided to take himself and his men-at-arms out to ride down the morning mists. As they rode, the morning sun glistened off the dew, swirled lightly in the mist are they passed on their horses and glinted off their armor. They had rode for sometime when suddenly they were set upon by a ferocious band of brigands in an ambush. It was three against a thousand. The odds were astounding and the clash of swords frightened birds from their perches and drove animals far back into the trees. The attackers were desperate and vicious. Never was a fight fought with such daring and recklessness. blood flowed in rivers, dust flew up in great gouts, horses whinnied and charged in the battle of the three against a thousand. The sun rose higher as the battle continued unabated, no one of the combatants dared pause for an instant in the charged atmosphere of the battle. The day wore on as the battle continued between the three and the thousand, bodies lay strewn about like toys, the groans of the wounded adding to the grunts of exertion and hoarsely drawn breath of the tired but dogged combatants. Finally as the sun was settling towards the western horizon, the mighty lord and his men-at-arms won the day. They stood over the field of bodies, surveying the carnage. The lord finally leaned over to one of his knights standing next to him and said, ” man, those were the toughest three brigands I’ve ever met!”

Blessings all.

he public announcement was this weekend at “The Awakerning.” Bp Harvey came close last week in Hamilton. The Anglican Clergy & Spouse Conf., held at Ridgecrest the last week of Oct, was informed of the date, general location and time and asked not to post it anywhere in public. This request was honored by all, a mark of the character of the clergy, spouses, bishops and laity with whom I’m privileged to serve our Lord Jesus Christ in the CCP.

I bought my airline ticket several weeks ago to ORD, Wheaton College is not the venue. I look forward to seeing many of you there.

Bob Maxwell †
All Saint’s Diocese
Church of Kenya
            . . . still riding for the brand.

#151, Mastervav, Thank you for the words of wisdom.  I’d like to altar your story a bit to tell it another way, one that also applies:
“One morning The Mighty Lord decided to take himself and His Two Men-at-arms out to ride down the morning mists. As they rode, the morning sun glistened off the dew, swirled lightly in the mist are they passed on their horses and glinted off their armor. They hadn’t gotten far when news came of an insurrection and a supposed coup d’etat…as time went on…more and more citizens renounced their allegiance The Lord, the True King.
The Mighty Lord rode from wood to wood, staying out of sight for sometime when suddenly they were set upon by a ferocious band of brigands in an ambush. It was three against thousands, millions of evil brigands who belonged to a master who had sworn to defeat the Lord.  The odds seemed astounding and the clash of swords frightened birds from their perches and drove animals far back into the trees. The attackers were desperate and vicious. Never was a fight fought with such daring and recklessness….blood flowed in rivers, dust flew up in great gouts, horses whinnied and charged in the battle of the three against a thousand. The battle continued unabated through the ages, no one of the combatants dared pause for an instant in the charged atmosphere of the battle.  Days and years wore on and the battle continued between the three and the thousand, bodies lay strewn about like toys, the groans of the wounded adding to the grunts of exertion and hoarsely drawn breath of the tired but dogged combatants. Finally as the sun was settling towards the western horizon, the mighty Lord and his Men-at-arms won the battle. They stood over the fields of bodies, slain and lost throughout history…but looking around and up into the heavens, The Three saw others who had come to their side, men and women, and children…some so young it unlikely they could hold a two-edged sword, some were very old and high in the heavens there were uncountable hosts of warriors whose armor and swords glinted and glowed red and gold in the setting sun.  The Lord leaned over to the other Two Knights standing next to him and said, “We knew nothing, no power in heaven and earth, could defeat us, for we are ONE ETERNAL HOLY, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.  But these who have joined with us and fought with us in The Way made our foes their foes.  They continued with us against internal and external foes, against visible and invisible.  They received, depended on and fought in our power and our Oneness.  Though the enemy may have slain some in the visible sense, they immediately joined the heavenly host.  In our immeasurable power, in our eternal unity and our unchanging holiness, they could never have failed no matter how long the battle or unfavorable the numbers.”

  Hewett does say:

“Everyone knows that we cannot and will not compromise the ministry as our Lord instituted it and the apostles continued it. We are not, and can never be, in communion with anyone who ordains women.”

This does sound like a pretty non-compromising statement.  Will +John Howe eventually be vindicated.  He has always said that CCP will splinter on the WO issue.
[56] Posted by star-ace on 11-16-2008 at 12:47 PM • top

I do not see that Bishop Howe will be shown right.  I am sure that they will address this issue of this disagreement within the formation documents.  While not ideal, working together while not being in communion is not a show stopper.

I belong to one of the “small and legitimate” Continuing Church bodies. Let me first say that the Contniuing Church has faild to be successful in a number of ways. Mostly due to its splintering and focus on internal politics rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However…All that being said I want to make it clear that the founders of the Continuing Church were some of the first individuals to identify where EcUSA was going and had the good sense to get out. WO was a canary in a coal mine. Everything the founders of the Continuing Church has said would come to pass has happened. The WO issue will splinter the new province if it is not addressed.

I am not saying we should go out and start pulling collars off of ordained women. What I am saying is that WO was a huge mistake and we must through love and patience help these women find a place in the Church serving in capacities other than as “priests”.

Sarah—Claims were made about St Martin’s Houston. The quote from Russell Levenson to which you refer was provided to indicate how the matter was on the ground. One would have concluded otherwise that various unsupported views being aired were correct. Thank you.

this is indeed good news and certaintly has been the reality of the situation of a very longtime…perhaps now Episcopalians who have not been in church for months will find together with others a reason to return and for those who have left and found themselves in a church that is not related to other Anglicans throughout the world a sense of belonging will return

I agree with you, DavidS.  God designed the sexes to be essentials, and to be complementary - not interchangeable.  The roles in biology, the home and the church should reflect, respect, revere God’s design.

A recognition of this by all Christians and a few simple changes of name and practice for male and females who are employed in the church and in the serving of the Eucharist, should settle this matter to facilitate both unity and to bring Glory and Satisfaction to Christ in HIS Church.

Where we sinful humans most often go wrong is forgetting Whose Church and Whose glory we are supposed to enhance.

Great News! Using the CP counting system my parish has just grown by about 30 people. I now have a parish of 130 communicants instead of the 90-100 we actually get on a Sunday. Thanks CP

Maybe starting December 4, stop posting ANYTHING about TEC.  Can we truly shake the dust off and move on?

For our Sarah, Leader of the Resistance and for Dr. Seitz and his colleagues, and for all who stay to hold lamps and light the Way in the dark recesses of the TEcosa Nostra political agenda movement:  I pray that you, like Latimer and Ridley, will ‘Be of good comfort (comforted and strengthened in His Word, power, life, truth, love) and that (we all whether inside or outside apostate institutions, may) play the man (continually behold and thus become like THE Man, Jesus Christ, THE Father, THE Holy Spirit and that)we shall (in) this day (and years to come) light such a candle by God’s grace in England, as I trust shall never be put out.’  Amen.

I meant to say, ‘brave and courageous Sarah’...hope you aren’t offended Sarah, by the ‘our’...for you have given us so much -  encouragement, inspiration, information…we feel you are ‘ours’...to love and pray for.
Thanks and gratitude always.

midwestnorwegian, many (including three of the bloggers running this site) are still in TEC, so what happens in TEC continues to be very relevent to them.  However, if you find yourself in a Continuing or GAFCON jurisdication and feel that need to “shake the dust off” or stop “looking back” before you can move “foward in faith” and mission then you always have the option of not reading or commenting upon any threads about TEC. 

I would hope, however, that many in the “New Province” continue to work amicably and closely with the Common Cause Partners and Communion Partners people that are still in TEC

Amen, AndrewA….with a combined inside/outside unified effort, the most people, parishes and dioceses can be saved, healed and delivered…the brighter the light for Christ to shine on the Way and the Word.  Only holding up Christ and The Cross can do anything of eternal value.

“If I be lifted up…I will draw all men unto Me.’

#163, to go a bit further than you did, there is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from creating their own website. It would be truly lovely if a website arose that was a ‘go to’ place for continuing anglican stuff, in much the same way that titusonenine and standfirm are for the reasserters and episcopal cafe is and father jakes used to be for the reappraisers.

Pessimistic reappraisers see the tomb as half-empty. Optimistic ones see it as half-full.

Sarah,
When I added the possible word “yet” to your decision statement, it was not an attempt on my part to get you to affirm my decision.  It just seems premature for you to make a statement that you won’t join an entity before it is even formed.  What I continue to hear is criticism from the loyal opposition who have remained in TEC toward those of us who have left and criticism of TEC from the the same group. My hat is off to those who have opted to stay and fight but they must realize that continuing the fight within TEC could eventually be hazardous to their spiritual health.

RE: “It just seems premature for you to make a statement that you won’t join an entity before it is even formed.”

I’ve had five long years to see the leadership [and I mean by this the dozens in leadership, not merely bishops] work, Dcn Dale, and to know the principles, values, and rhetoric of Common Cause, which sprang from the Network.  So have you.  And, Dcn Dale, many have decided your way, after the same five long years, “before it is even formed” as well, to “join Common Cause”.  ; > )
 
RE: “What I continue to hear is criticism from the loyal opposition who have remained in TEC toward those of us who have left . . . “

Not from me, you haven’t.

And you won’t.  I’m happy for the folks who left and seek a new Anglican entity.  I’m merely stating clearly, as I have for years now, that many of us won’t be a part of it.

So assumptions and snide comments and “wait and sees” merely make those who speak that way look like delusional fools who never—never yet—have been able to wrap their minds around the unwillingness of many many many thousands of traditional Episcopalians to join the proposed solution.  The level of denial has been eerily reminiscent of a certain other organization of which neither of us approve.

That failure to be self-critiquing and discerning about why it might be that so many don’t wish to be a part of the proposed Common Cause entity has been . . . . astounding.

In this one small area, Seitz-ACI, as well as the comments of Neal Michell have been excellent.  They continue—foolishly probably—to try to get across to the Common Cause folks that there are many who don’t see the Common Cause solution as a solution. 

Eventually, I suspect they’ll learn to be quiet and move on about their business.  Then we can have threads about the new Anglican entity for the leavers, and threads about the inside strategy, and both sides can be happy in their decisions and goals.

I agree Sarah…I do not think that CCP should make such claims and as for the Communion Partners, personally, I hope that the inside people come up with something better than CP which is a mixed body of collaborationists and resisters at the moment. With CP bishops upholding TEC’s dennis canon claims, colluding with the KJS’s plans to deceive the rest of the Communion with “Primatial Vicar” facade, seeking to strengthen KJS’s hand, and heading off to Canterbury to plead for VGR’s inclusion at Lambeth, the CP leadership claims to represent the “orthodox” inside TEC is hopefully a bad joke.

Matt, I completely agree with your comment.  There are some great folks in the Communion Partners, and some folks who are . . . well . . . doing all the things above that you listed and more.

It would have been nice for there to be a body inside TEC that would be made up of resisters, but it appears that resisters are simply on their own to work out things individually, diocese by diocese, with their lay and clergy allies.

I’m happy that rectors and bishops can be together and fellowship inside the Communion Partners group.  And certainly the group will provide much-needed cover for those rectors who need to take their parishes out of the AAC/ACN and put them inside some sort of group that tries to look as if it’s a differentiating group, so that their really conservative laypeople whom they don’t wish to leave the parish or diocese could potentially be appeased.

AS Setiz-ACI #93 noted ” CP believes it is fully possible to differentiate in any number of ways without attempting to form a new province”.  True, but the necessity of the new province is clear, else where will all the “differentiators” go when ++Schori purges them out, which she will do.  Make no mistake about that.  Differentiation coupled with actions consistent with the words, will be seen as dissent.  Dissent is not going to be tolerated.  ” We won’t do that here” will result in Title IV charges and removal of all dissenting leadership.  (This is a reality!  ++Schori is touring dioceses and meeting with cergy and making sure this message is getting out.)
CP must be very careful.  The fence rail gets very uncomfortable.  Unless the province is formed and as wide support as possible is provided..I shudder when I consider the plight of laity trapped in their “orthodox” parish (diocese)who must decide to play the TEC game or face seeing their leadership removed.  + Iker said it best:  this is not about loyalty to structures, etc.  It is about loyalty to the faith.
Blessings
Doug

Many Jewish traditionalists believe that as many as 75 to 80% of Hebrews remained behind in Egypt when Moses led the Exodus.  Within two or three generations, those who stayed were assimilated into the Egyptian culture and became, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from other Egyptians.  Pray that our brothers and sisters who remain in TEC don’t suffer the same fate.

Sarah—I conclude you are right about this being a foolish effort. It was only ever useful to correct gross errors and misperceptions. The CP movement has very serious rector leadership and they require no justification from me. We are excited about the way forward. If you would be interested in being involved, we have a major conference planned in our series, after Toronto next week, in Houston. +Burundi, +George Carey, and the CP Bishops and Rectors will be present, along with other Primates and associates. The emphasis is on mission and theological education. Grace and peace. in Christ.

CP does not wish to join a new province, for legal, financial, moral, and ecclesial reasons…Seitz

I think I understand all but the moral reason.  What would the moral reason be?  As has been pointed out above, to sit on the fence does one thing: gives you splinters somewhere to pull out.  After GC, version 2009, it may become impossible to leave TEC, even if you have a desire with new legislation being introduced to make it harder and harder.  Any Bishop thinking they can “hunker down” and be left alone is sadly mistaken, mislead and misguided.  How long does one think SSB will be optional?  I wish you well.

Sarah # 170 If CP is for appeasing laity, then no one serious about what is at risk here should have anything to do with it.  I fear that such a sentiment may actually reveal more truth than at first intended.  Appeasing the laity has more to do with institutional stability than fervency for the gospel.  I want militant laity, not appeased.  Militant for the faith!  Imagine the impact of that.
Blessings
Doug

Sarah,
“Eventually, I suspect they’ll learn to be quiet and move on about their business.  Then we can have threads about the new Anglican entity for the leavers, and threads about the inside strategy, and both sides can be happy in their decisions and goals.”
I would like some clarification regarding your above statement.  What do you mean by separate threads for the leavers? Are you inviting the “leavers” to post somewhere else?  Was SF formed primarily for the loyal opposition? The term “leaver” leaves me kind of cold.

It was said: “The leaving option is fraught with its own problems (legal, financial, ecclesial, moral), and it is a matter of christian conscience how to decide to move forward.”

It would, of course, be pertinent to point out that remaining in TEC also has its legal, financial, ecclesial and moral problems which should inform conscience.  Every parish and each diocese is in its own situation in this regard. 

It was also said:  “If one wants to leave and form a new entity, it ought not to be because dire future realities are dreamed up for others.” 

I don’t think those in the CCP have left for dreamed-up reasons.  Though I think the charge could be laid the other way based upon continued writings that this, that or the other should or must happen at a bishop’s meeting or Lambeth, the opposite happens, and then appears to be ignored.

At one point, it was also said that the orthodox in TEC should engage in civil disobedience.  Well, the writer of that may not have understood it, but this is what civil disobedience looks like.

re-subscribe

pendennis88,
You were posting as I was resubscribing and I came back and read your post and I must say that I am happy to finally read your post of which I have been thinking for quite sometime but you wrote it much better than I could ever do. Thank you!

Every stance that is taken by someone or some group has its pros and its cons. But one must weigh them out and take the road that is right for them in their moral and personal conviction of beliefs. Each side has its own issues and problems but at some point one must look at what has or has not been accomplished and then ask the hard questions. My eternal soul and salvation is far more important than some institution that has left the moral road and compass of the Truth in Jesus Christ and God the Father, the author of all of our lives. Stay or go, one still has to wrestle with the bottom line question, is my salvation and my immortal soul in danger of being lost within these walls of an institution and if possibly yes, what am I gonna do about it? Or better yet what would Jesus ask me to do about it? Follow Him or follow the institution straight into oblivion?

On the subject of litigation proceedings involving TEC, there is of course, a great deal to give pause about them and they should be avoided where possible.  But courts were made for differences that need them and in view of the fact that God is by no means circumscribed by the church as we usually know it, and is active in human affairs, neither is he barred from (or, by divine felicity and pun, he may indeed be barred for) the adjudication of civil courts.  There is much they have that is sorely missing within TEC and Anglicanism, including, careful reasoning about and procedures for, with the ability to execute and enforce, a kind of justice that has its roots and much of its essence in the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Discipline so many cry?  The discipline US courts will impose on TEC’s capricious, destructive chaos, and authoritarian abuse, may be one that God will use to his own purposes for the church.  If so, it would be like a court intervening in the personal affairs of someone incapacitated to care for himself or herself, not unlike those prohibited from being “a danger to him(her)self or others.” 

In this light, in this limited sense, I find it hard to object to TEC’s lavishing its money on what it might describe as, “a journey of self-discovery and revelation”, which may also be an unanticipated course of self-edification.  (On this topic, I note that Queen Elizabeth II [a frail, mere woman, as it turns out] sat next to Justice Roberts at the state dinner given in her honor at the White House by our current President the last time she visited the US, and Prof. Seitz has already noted that former President and Mrs. Bush, as well as former Secretary of State Baker, are members of a church he recently visited which is part of the Communion Partners group.  Happily, more than one US appellate judge has recently conferenced and heard papers about church-state relations.)

A system of justice arising from and honed by so much of church history might intervene in church affairs when or where justice and mercy have been lost in it.  That fact that that system might do so despite its aversion to “meddle,” begs the question, who then, might be responsible for this fact?

Lets face it, I believe the division in CP and CCP may be temporary.  The CP are placing all their credibility on the line for the success of the Covenant.  And the Covenant now being passed around for commentary is a far cry from the one first envisioned, lo those many eons ago, when the Windsor Report was issued. (Now dust in the wind).  Personally, I want “the Covenant” to be something memaningful and defining.  If it is then there is little chance the CCP (province) won’t be agreeable to it. If it is defining then won’t the fences be mended?
But chances are it will not be.  I think this is the most likely scenario.  What will CP do then? In that case won’t CP be looking away from an institution that continues to be amorphous in belief?  Won’t the new province be the logical place in that instance?
Blessings
Doug

IMHO, this is good news in that it shows that the members of CCP are continuing to work for increasing unity and preferably more coordinated leadership.  Given our current state, it is proper to organize reasserters outside of TEC, just as it is proper to organize reasserters within TEC.

Some have difficulty with the word “province,” which I suggest should be taken as a place-holding or aspirational moniker.  In many ways, it is difficult for all of us to adapt terminology and perspectives to the fluid anglican world.  I can repeat questions I have raised in the past: what does it mean when one instrument of unity (the ABC) actively works to impair the efforts of another instrument of unity (the Primates’ Meeting)?  What does it really mean for the fabric of the communion to be torn at its deepest level - what does that look like organizationally?

We do not know the future, and the Lord will provide for His church.  Rightly or wrongly, arguments at this stage that the inside strategy is doomed, or that the outside strategy is somehow morally impaired, sound to me like recruitment, or retention, speeches.  Let us be charitable and supportive of all reasserters that are, well, actively reasserting and spreading the Gospel.

RE: “I would like some clarification regarding your above statement.”

Sure.

I said that at some point there would be threads where leavers would post their comments about their new Anglican entity—and threads where stayers would post their comments about whatever their plan is—and hopefully each side will be happy.

In other words, Dcn Dale, at some point I have to hope that the pronouncements of the intentions of either “conservative” side will be met not with snide comments, chortlings, triumphalisms, inflated numbers, catcalls about the opposite side, predictions about one side or the other caving and changing their minds, etc, etc, but with simple “oh, isn’t that nice?”

RE: “Are you inviting the “leavers” to post somewhere else?”

No more than I am inviting the “stayers” to post somewhere else.