Total visitors right now: 106

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Archbishops Anis, Nzimbi, Akrofi: We Will Recognize the New North American Province

Monday, November 17, 2008 • 10:03 pm

After my interview about the Anglican Relief and Development Fund, I asked Bishop Duncan, and Archbishops Anis, Nzimbi and Akrofi about the new North American Province.


Greg Griffith: Bishop Duncan, can you tell us more about the new province?

Bishop Duncan: It was the GAFCON conference that spoke so clearly, saying ‘It is our view that the time has come for a new province to be recognized in North America,’ and that the Common Cause Partners are the basis of that province. We here in the states have taken that very seriously, we’ve done a tremendous amount of hard work, we’ve made deep commitments to one another, and the Common Cause Partnership, which has an annual meeting of the representation of the U.S. and Canadian jurisdictions – that happens early in December – and at that time our governance task force will come forward with a draft provincial constitution on which we’ve had help from our foreign partners.

The recognition process I think will be one by which our partners, who were the Jerusalem primates, are going to decide whether they’ll issue recognition by their provinces.

Greg Griffith [to Archbishops Anis, Nzimbi and Akrofi]: Are Your Graces all going to support the new province?

Archbishop Anis: Yes… Oh yes.

Archbishops Nzimbi and Akrofi: Yes. [all nodding affirmatively]

Greg Griffith: You’ll all be on record as recognizing the new province?

[All]: Yes.

Archbisop Nzimbi: They have been accepted by us, in terms of their belief, and they need a refuge. It is important for us to come together, and give them that refuge, believing in what they are doing.

Greg Griffith: I’m sure you would all agree that this will be the biggest challenge to Anglican unity yet. How do you see this taking shape, and how do you plan to make this something that doesn’t further rend the communion?

Bishop Duncan: The way in which the Jerusalem conference did things, it didn’t separate itself from the communion, it said, in the Jerusalem Declaration, what the heart of the communion believes, and all of us believe this going forward together. It didn’t say that it separated itself from any existing structures, but it did say that the structures of the communion were colonial structures, and we’re now a global communion – we’re not separating, but new things are emerging, new ways to do business.


130 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

++Anis and ++Akrofi…wow! I will repeat myself: Wow!

[1] Posted by robroy on 11-17-2008 at 11:18 PM • top

It only gets better!

[2] Posted by AngloTex on 11-17-2008 at 11:27 PM • top

I think what you meant Rob Roy was:
Amen and Amen.

This certainly changes the dynamic. The HoBD listserve is going to be beside itself in the morning when they figure out that they can’t depose ++Anis and ++Akrofi and seize churches in Africa.

Now, is there more to this Greg?  You going to keep us up all night dribbling out bits of news?

[3] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-17-2008 at 11:28 PM • top

Yes, this is good, very good!  Thank you Greg!

[4] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 11-17-2008 at 11:36 PM • top

Oh, where the Lord has led us since that disasterous day five years ago at St. Paul’s Church in Concord, NH.  Our God reigns!

[5] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 11-17-2008 at 11:37 PM • top

You/re right Tj! The HoB/D will be buzzing and not in a good way! They are already (know don’t laugh)talking about the declining numbers since the four diocese have seceded and that they need to start focusing on “evangelizing to the unchurched and to the youth to get more members!” I kid you not!
This is great news and I am sure news that TEc and the HoB/D are not going to welcome one iota!

[6] Posted by TLDillon on 11-17-2008 at 11:37 PM • top

tj,

Go to bed. Sleep the sleep of the saved and thankful.

[7] Posted by Greg Griffith on 11-17-2008 at 11:46 PM • top

One Day,
“...that they need to start focusing on “evangelizing to the unchurched and to the youth to get more members!” I kid you not!”
Who? Where? When? They want more MDG’s not members.smile

Hopefully this will stiffen the backs of other orthodox who have been waiting for a sign to act. The signs are clearly bright and flashing.

[8] Posted by AngloTex on 11-17-2008 at 11:47 PM • top

Seems like things are falling in pleasant places?  Amen!

[9] Posted by observer on 11-17-2008 at 11:55 PM • top

This is exciting to watch, even for a hypercongregationalist like me.  It is worth it just to watch the revisionist froth at the mouth.  Ride on King Jesus

[10] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 11-17-2008 at 11:58 PM • top

He! He! JHGraves! ut here is the proof!

I agree with Tom and Kevin - time to look at the unchurched people who are
hungry for what we can offer.  If we can be intentional about that I am sure
we can grow rapidly - so intentionality needs to include trainign
congregations to receive new persons - including children of all ages!
Hallelujah!
My certainty about this is not just pollyannish - ach area of the country
has unique opportunites that will be revelaed through careful research.
Walter Righter

and

Just a quick note:  Perjury is lying under oath.  The affidavits found by Ft. Worth folks of earlier litigation would be probative evidence in any
trial over the title to property.  But perjury consists of an outright lie - the fact they submitted affidavits once doesn’t make them perjurers unless they directly contradict that affidavit, and even then I am sure they have lawyers who will argue it’s not at all perjury because the circumstances changed, and the church then isn’t the church now.
It’s a positive development for TEC, but it’s not conclusive, and it’s not yet perjury.
I agree with Kevin we need to quit counting numbers as a totem for the won/loss column and focus on how we can get more people into church.  And I think our target ought to be the unchurched, not just those who decided they like the Southern Cone or Ugandan flavor.  There are so many people of all ages in our society whose lives are empty and whose hunger is for the Bread of Life, except they don’t know about it.  Why don’t we go looking for them?
Then we don’t have to get into a numbers game with anyone.  And I strongly submit we will attract them more by honey than by conflict.
Tom Fitzhugh

[11] Posted by TLDillon on 11-18-2008 at 12:02 AM • top

A mighty fortress is our God,
A bulwark never failing.
Our helper He, amid the flood
Of mortal ills prevailing!

[12] Posted by our eyes are upon Thee on 11-18-2008 at 12:03 AM • top

we’re not separating, but new things are emerging, new ways to do business.

I find this very interesting: a “New Thing” is said to be heretical when it originates from The Episcopal Church, but cause for celebration when it arises out of secession.

I’m so glad to be Episcopalian… InSoOhio

[13] Posted by InSoOhio on 11-18-2008 at 12:09 AM • top

Sweet!

[14] Posted by martin5 on 11-18-2008 at 12:13 AM • top

The difference InSoOhio, is that we are not changing the Bible, 2000+ years of tradition, blessing sinfulness and sinful sexual behavior and calling it good & blessed, we are not suing other Christians, etc… but if the shoe fits…..go ahead and walk a mile or two in them!

[15] Posted by TLDillon on 11-18-2008 at 12:14 AM • top

If you bother to totally ignore the subject your observation works.  But in fact is as if you coukld like wise ask why death is considered a bad thing but a death on the cross good? 

Im not Episcopalian or Anglican and cannot see your comment here as being anything but childish.

[16] Posted by observer on 11-18-2008 at 12:15 AM • top

Those of us excited about the new province need to get/keep focused on mission and not look back. So it doesn’t matter what insoohio or Our Lady of Litigation think. Let them rot. Time to get on with it . . .  leave the dysfunction behind . . .  and uphold mission as the mission. We have way too many un and de-churched in our midst to reach with the Good News of Christ Jesus. The fruit will speak for itself.

[17] Posted by skramer on 11-18-2008 at 12:24 AM • top

Isn’t the HOB/D listserv supposed to be confidential?  If so, should we really be posting messages from it.  Correct me if I have heard wrong.  That being said…

I am shocked by those HOB/D quote.  Yes, evangelism is great and something we are told to do by our Lord Jesus.  However, as became strikingly clear at our recent convention, we often have dramatically different ideas about what evangelism truly is.  Furthermore, their (Tom’s and Walter’s) motivation seems to be petty one-ups-manship rather than compassion for the lost.  I fear for their converts.  What gospel will they be preaching?  The gospel of social justice or the gospel of Jesus Christ?  It is not what the Church has to offer that is of any importance; it is what Jesus has to offer that matters! 

I am so heartened by the response of these three archbishops to the new Anglican Province in North America (I’m still saying that name over and over trying it out).  I can’t wait to see the affirmations roll in like they did for +Duncan after his so-called deposition.

[18] Posted by Modest Mystic on 11-18-2008 at 12:41 AM • top

Thanks be to God!

[19] Posted by Gigs Girl on 11-18-2008 at 12:43 AM • top

one day closer (15)  I always find it so interesting how you twist what it is the EC believes and what it has done…your statements are far for accurate and you also ignor the role that the break away churches have played in all of this…i.e. the EC filed law suits because we were locked out of our churches and our churches were being taken over by people who no longer wanted to be episcopalians.  There are always two sides to each issue and your (as well as othrs) who make such statement are getting old…and truly show very little insight into what has and is really going on.  Maybe some balance would be helpful…take your head out of the Bible long enough to see what is really going on around you.

[20] Posted by jessie on 11-18-2008 at 01:24 AM • top

skrmer (17) the let them rot attitude is charming…is that how you plan to reach other Christians?  If I were without a parish or religious tradition and read some of the things you all write about TEC, and the way you talk about people people who hold beliefs that are different than your own…your “new church” that you are all so excited about that is so biblically based would be the last place I would look for Christ…unless this is not the side you show when you are being holy and worshiping YOUR GOD, as I have heard it termed so often on this delightful blog.

[21] Posted by jessie on 11-18-2008 at 01:32 AM • top

Jessie,
You really want an eye-opener, subscribe to the HoBD listserv. 

Some of the posters seem to be genuine Christians, but most, well, wolves ain’t the word for some of the folks over there.

[22] Posted by Bo on 11-18-2008 at 01:50 AM • top

but I thought you were all so much better than the rest…are you saying that there really is not that much difference…or with the line of reasoning I hear so often on this blog “they” are not Christians anyway, I wouldn’t expect anything other than what you tell me they are saying…but to those of you who hold to the one true faith I am (not) surprised!

[23] Posted by jessie on 11-18-2008 at 01:59 AM • top

Jessie, first of all, I would be among the first to say that there are Christians in TEC.  There are also those who outright reject Christ in TEC.  There are more than two sides to this story.  This separation is a heartbreaking one, but one that is necessary to preserve, as you say, “the one true faith”. 

Secondly, in this crowd, it isn’t much of an insult to tell someone to get his/her head out of the Bible.  That is exactly where our heads should be.  The Bible is what colors our view of the world.  That is as it should be.  Check out 2 Timothy 3.  That last few verses are particularly pertinent to this issue. 

I hope that you will one day understand why this must happen.  It is not that we don’t want to be Episcopalians any longer.  It is that we want to remain Christians.  It has become increasingly difficult to do that within TEC.  This new province will happen.  So, let us try to make the transition a smooth one so that no one finds themselves locked out of their worship space.

[24] Posted by Modest Mystic on 11-18-2008 at 02:42 AM • top

Modest Mystic: the last line that you asked me to look at “so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” I said take your head out of the Bible long enough to see what is going on around you…balance.  It was not said as an insult, but so much of what is said here is clearly not true, taken out of context, and used to get everyone all worked up over the EC.  I was born in the EC and for better or worse I will stay here.  I can speak for many of us when I say we read the Bible, care for the poor, and care about the world in which we live.  We are not bad people as some who post here go on and on about putting everyone into one catagory.  I have many dear friends who have left the EC.  Most of the real world I see is with my head in and out of the Bible…and we are all finding our way the best way we know how.  I respect my friends who hold views about the roles gays etc. should have within the church, I don’t agree with them, but I respect them.  I also have just as many Bible verses I can quote to support my beliefs…but in the end none of it really matters to me.  The most important thing that I see and learn and hear everytime I read the Bible is the love that God has for us…and the way in which Christ died for us…the people that he loved and ministered to a long the road to his death.  His love speaks volumes and his life more volumes still.  Anyone who has spent anytime reading His words and talking with Him knows that above all he loves us.  This does not mean that he wants us to sin, to hurt one and other etc. and yes I do believe that he holds us accountable for our actions…all of our actions. 
I am happy for those who have found peace in their decsion to leave the EC, but why in your rejoycing do you (not you personally) need to rejoyce in our loss?  The people who have left are a loss, and it has been painful on both sides.  So yes, is there perhaps some common ground in that we can rejoyce for eachother at a time when you are all so excited and have such high hopes for the future?  I would hope so, but it would be so much easier to rejoyce with you if we did not have to constantly hear that we are not Christians, that we do not know Jesus, that our numbers are dropping and things are really difficult for us now. Yes our numbers are dropping, you all left.  Your numbers are great, but you are starting from nothing… I love the EC, and I hope and pray that it will make it through these times.  As fellow Christians who love God it would be helpful to know that at some point the anger will end (on both sides) and that the love that we share as Christians is far more powerful if we use it to build eachother up instead of rip eachother a part. That is the love I read about in the Bible, and it is the love that those who nailed Christ to the cross were unable to see or understand.  That is the love I pray to have for others each day in their journey with our Lord…and I too fall short of more times than you or anyone else could ever imagine.

[25] Posted by jessie on 11-18-2008 at 03:51 AM • top

Jessie, thank you for your comment #25. In particular for reminding us that this is not a time for celebration. That Bishops Duncan, Iker etc. have been forced to take this step; that the Episcopal Church is no longer something that they can be a part of is in itself and must be a profound grief, and not just for us, but for God; and, of course, for those who they leave behind.

You were also right to emphasise the Christian bounden duty to love. It is, of course, not easy to love when you are being sued out of your own church buildings where you and your ancestors have worshiped for centuries, and for that reason (and others) we of course fall short in this duty and joy on many occasions, but I would hope that Christ is strong enough within us that we can prevail, overcome the devil’s snares, and still live our lives fully in agape. Where we have fallen, we can only apologise. But I would say (if it is not too bold for me to put words into his mouth) that agape is precisely Bishop Duncan’s primary motivation for this separation: love of God first of all (which, of course, requires obedience to God), and love of our neighbours second. One important difference between common cause and Episcopalians is that we disagree on what agape means, and what it requires.

  16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
  17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
  18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
  19 And this is the judgement: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil.
  20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.
  21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been carried out in God.

For somebody who believes these words (and I am particularly refering to the second part of verse 18) it is not loving to say, as the presiding Bishop has done, that it follows from the controversial statement that Jesus died for the whole world that everybody can be saved whether they believe in Christ or not; when Christ himself said that those who do not believe in him will be condemned. That would not be an act of love but, however `good’ the intention or motivation, an act of the most profound hatred. And to indirectly support such statements, by remaining in and contributing to the organisation makes them is no act of love. It is not loving to politely and inoffensively lead someone down the path to hell. So is it for the sake of love, for his flock, the yet to be churched, and even those within the Episcopal Church that Bishop Duncan has been forced to make this step.

You also said

We are not bad people

That depends, of course, on what you mean by `bad.’ On one hand, we all are `bad people.’ I am, you are, Matt Kennedy is and even the saintly Sarah Hey. None of us match God’s standard.  None of us can without God’s help: submitting to Christ as Lord, being sanctified by the spirit and by being united with Christ, through Baptism and the sacrament, gradually being remade so that we can take our place in the Kingdom which He will establish by His power alone. That is what Jesus taught his apostles; that is (one part of) the gospel we have to preach. In that sense, you are bad people, and so are we.

But if you mean `bad people’ in the sense of `no worse than anyone else, and better than most,’ then of course you are not. I am sure that most Episcopalian are thoroughly nice people; certainly all those I have encountered are. You read the Bible, care for the poor, and care, in your own way, about the world in which we live. That is essential, but it isn’t enough. As Christians, we are called, mandated, to point to Christ; and the living Christ of the (whole) New Testament and Church Fathers rather than the Christ of the nineteenth and twentieth century form critics which is what most Episcopalians seem to preach. One cannot properly care for the world or our neighbour in love without first knowing Christ; because to love someone is to desire to bring them to perfection; and Christ is the standard of perfection. Because you preach an false image of your own construction rather than Christ, and because that image has led you and those who listen to you astray on many issues possibly to their destruction, and because there is no other name in which men can be saved, we cannot be a part of it any longer. We have to go.

[26] Posted by Boring Bloke on 11-18-2008 at 05:28 AM • top

I dearly wish everyone, within or without TEC, would read the book entitled “Never Silent” by Barnum which reports the overlapping history of the TEC, The Global South, and Bishop Tays of Southeast Asia over the last quarter-century.  The passion for Christ in the actions of the key players reported therein is palpable.  I felt very moved when I read it, and I believe all of you who have posted comments above will also find it a very compelling report.
David E. Frederick, Ph.D., Huntington, West Virginia

[27] Posted by DavidF on 11-18-2008 at 05:52 AM • top

I believe the Holy Spirit shows himself at work when God the Father’s purposes are served by His doing so.  Thus I am convinced beyond question that emergence of an Anglican Province of North America results from the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit of God, in formation of Common Cause Partnership, in GAFCON and the brilliant Jerusalem Declaration, and now in our Anglican Province.  None of these would have been possible left to only to human devices.

We live in grand and glorious times!

Thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Stanley F. Nelson
Christ the Redeemer Anglican Church, Garland, Texas.

[28] Posted by Stan Nelson on 11-18-2008 at 06:47 AM • top

Re celebrating:

There’s nothing wrong with celebrating what’s good about the new Province, namely the uniting of the faithful remnant who have been pushed out of GCC.  Having godly bishops is a completely novel experience for me, having come to Christ here in the Heart of Darkness—DioNY—and it’s a wonderful thing.

The thing to regret here is the apostasy of GCC, not the formation of the new province.  For myself, I’ve cried all my tears about the dissolution of my old parish and the corruption of a once-great church. 

As far as the future of GCC goes, I have a number of old friends who have fallen for the ‘new thing’.  For their sake and the sake of thousands of others who are being enticed to their own destruction, I hope and pray that GCC in its current form disappears as rapidly as possible.

My first choice would be that they repent and believe, but failing that, I pray that God will do what is necessary to prevent people from being led astray by false teaching.  Souls are at stake here.

Cheers,

Phil Hobbs

[29] Posted by gone on 11-18-2008 at 07:22 AM • top

[the HoBD listserve] are already (know don’t laugh)talking about the declining numbers since the four diocese have seceded

Yes, ODC, I’ve noted how happy they are that “only” 2% of the baptized membership of TEC has left in the departure of three dioceses in the last 5 weeks.  Just yesterday, one of them pointed out that they probably also need to address the needs of the other 1000 people who leave on a weekly basis.

tj,
Go to bed. Sleep the sleep of the saved and thankful.

Greg, thanks for the thought, but perhaps you may overestimate my piety and condition of my soul. One problem with being an Anglo Catholic is that the “saved” part is only the beginning.  Christ showed me the way a long, long time ago.  It is staying on the path, or more accurately, trying to find it again, that keeps me up at night.

[30] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-18-2008 at 08:18 AM • top

I don’t know one person who has gone rejoicing from the Episcopal Church, but with great agony…but when your “mother” tells you that black is white we have only a few options…ignore it and go on, refute it, or separate yourself from such damaging information.  How can you raise/protect you “child” in the atmoshpere of incorrect imformation?....there is no way to salvation but through Christ and to teach anything else to to condemn the child to an ethenity without Christ.

[31] Posted by ewart-touzot on 11-18-2008 at 08:26 AM • top

So, T. Fitxhugh, where you attend church is now the “flavor of the month, year, etc”???
I wonder how many of those remaining in TEC will reflect back on the statements they made to those of us who have left: “If you don’t like it, leave”?? I was personally given that statement from an official at 815, all the way to the organist of my local TEC church, who, BTW was a hired employee and I was the Sr. Warden. The only thing I need to deal with now is my lack of faith.  When VGR was elected, I thought the rest of TEC/Anglican Communion would have no problem with his election and I would be very alone in my walk with the Lord.  (In fairness to myself, there has and will continue to be a major news blackout as to what’s happening in the rest of TEC/AC, unless it affords VGR an opportunity to whine and be front and center in the media).  I was so totally unable to conceptualize that God would rescue not only me, but countless others in just five short years.

[32] Posted by no longer NH Episcopalian on 11-18-2008 at 08:45 AM • top

I guess this is the thread I’m supposed to comment on as a “leaver”.  I pray that our Lord would provide a spirit of unity as the new province forms.  I hope the leaders will submit themselves to our Lord Jesus Christ and check their egos at the door of the conference rooms.  I have faith that God has provided those who will guard the faith once delivered. I am thankful for my bishop JDS who offered the Abrhamic first step for our Diocese. As an older clergyman, I would suggest the acronym “NAP” for the North American Province. Hallelujah!

[33] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-18-2008 at 09:09 AM • top

Jessie, dear, it is when we take our heads out of the Bible that we lose our focus.

I hear your angst but try just for a moment to put yourself in the place of the orthodox who have been brought up one way, with one faith, and then their church changes the rules on them halfway through the game.  And when they would politely raise their hands to question the newest thing, they are called a variety of names. It has not been easy for anyone.  But rejoice with us.  This move really will be easier on TEC, as well, who can follow their own way with a lot less dissent.  Seems to me to be a win-win, unless you look too closely at TEC current demographics.  All I can say about that is, if you follow the Lord, he will bless you and increase your numbers.

[34] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 11-18-2008 at 09:20 AM • top

Jessie, we are to be kind and gentle to non-believers. Don’t bruise the fruit. But as for false teachers within the church, we are not supposed to even eat with them. There’s a difference . . . if you’re interested in what scripture says. TEC is full of, and led by, false teachers. This needs to be called out for what it is.

[35] Posted by JerryKramer on 11-18-2008 at 09:28 AM • top

Amen, Jerry….amen!

[36] Posted by Cennydd on 11-18-2008 at 10:02 AM • top

Oh my goodness! I went to Disney for a couple weeks and completely missed this!

Does anyone have the Inigo Montoya “let me sum up” version? Does this mean that those who affiliated with other provinces will be re-reaffiliating? Has the ABC commented?

[37] Posted by Positive Phototaxis on 11-18-2008 at 10:13 AM • top

Jessie, please keep in mind the fact that TEC is engaged in multiple lawsuits against those who have done exactly what TEC people have asked: “If you don’t like it, leave.” These suits, alas, are costing them (and those who have left) millions upon millions of dollars which—if TEC were truly interested obeying Christ, would never have been pursued to begin with. TEC signed on to the agreement to abandon lawsuits, then decided their millions would be better spent on lawyers than on ministry to those they profess to love. So they broke their word—again and again, in countless ways. This is not a “win-win” situation, unfortunately. It is a “lose-lose” situation, at least in the sense that people who desperately need Jesus and His Word are being deprived.

[38] Posted by our eyes are upon Thee on 11-18-2008 at 10:37 AM • top

If there were sustainable numbers able to maintain most of the church buldings whose ownership is under dispute, I would say the lawsuits had merit in a secular sense.  But in may cases, the churches are being wrested from congregations only to be padlocked and overgrown by weeds.  To me, there is no good faith in such actions, and no seeking first the Kingdom of God.  Would you agree with that, Jessie?

[39] Posted by Fidela on 11-18-2008 at 10:50 AM • top

Dcn Dale, bitterness doesn’t become you.  ; > )

But it does not appear that you appreciated my response to your questions here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/17906/#303086

But here’s my perfect chance to fulfill what I hope will eventually happen on SF threads betweent the two conservative sides, by saying . . . :

. . . [drum roll] . . . “Oh, isn’t that nice?”

See how easy that was?  How simple it was?

[40] Posted by Sarah on 11-18-2008 at 10:53 AM • top

It was said: “the EC filed law suits because we were locked out of our churches”.

I don’t think this is true and I challenge the writer to name one instance where the orthodox who have separated have locked anyone out of a church.  Though TEC bishops have literally locked the orthodox out of churches, notably in Connecticut.

[41] Posted by pendennis88 on 11-18-2008 at 11:22 AM • top

Sarah,
How you get “bitterness” out of my post on #33 is beyond me.  Please let it go Sarah.
YBIC

Dale

[42] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-18-2008 at 11:23 AM • top

Importantly here as this progresses is that TEC is loosing a grip on all its legal arguments…it can’t hold in trust for the future something when it has itself denied that for which it is held…and the rest of the communion not only is saying that clearly…it is offering ‘refuge’ for those who do want to hold in trust for future generations that which is Anglican…including property dedicated to that purpose…in fact the new province ought to ask the courts that the building at 815 be turned over to Bob Duncan for fulfilling the purposes for which that building was purchased…

[43] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 11:44 AM • top

Anglican Province, no offense but I hope the real new Anglican Province has more legal sense then that.

[44] Posted by AndrewA on 11-18-2008 at 11:46 AM • top

Some house keeping issues: Is +Duncan to be Primate? Is it likely that there will be a majority of the Primates in agreement? What of ++Akinola and ++Orimbi? Does the ACC have enough stroke to mess this up?

In my thinking, this is the most unlikely of scenarios that would resolve the crisis.  I would have expected almost anything else. The Holy Spirit seems to have overlooked my opinion. This outcome is clearly the most beneficial, economical, and spiritually sound of the alternatives.

For the “stayers” my prayers and sympathy. However, it is entirely possible that the wretched and diseased TEC will collapse and you will be handed the keys. Is this any more unlikely than the bishop of Pittsburgh making common cause with some Afridcan Primates and ending up as a Primate of a new Province in Kate’s back yard?

How cool this whole thing is.

[45] Posted by teddy mak on 11-18-2008 at 11:55 AM • top

44   In what way, Andrew?  I believe the name proposed is “the Anglican province of North America.”

[46] Posted by Cennydd on 11-18-2008 at 12:01 PM • top

That’s “province” with a capital “P.”

[47] Posted by Cennydd on 11-18-2008 at 12:02 PM • top

And yes, +Duncan will be the first Archbishop.

[48] Posted by Cennydd on 11-18-2008 at 12:03 PM • top

RE: “Please let it go Sarah.”

You first, Dcn Dale.  ; > )

But how about my comment?  Maybe others will join in on “stayer” threads . . . and we will have joy and peace in ConservativeVille.

[49] Posted by Sarah on 11-18-2008 at 12:09 PM • top

AndrewA…that is their argument…that they are holding the property in a spiritual trust (there is no actual trust document that holds the property)and that they should have control over it to assure it is used for the purposes for which it was intended, when themselves no longer hold to those purposes…proven by these rescue attempts, the establsihment of refuges, for those who are themselves under attack by TEC for holding to the very purposes for which the property was given…it goes to motive, that the Epsicopal church is suing for control of assets which, as poiinted out above, will be sold to fund a false gospel, not to further the Anglican Way…do some case research Andrew and see…

[50] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 12:10 PM • top

#16 Observer   But in fact is as if you coukld like wise ask why death is considered a bad thing but a death on the cross good?

A review of death begins with the words death is considered a bad thing and since man rejected obeying God’s command until the ministry of our Lord Jesus, this is how humankind viewed death save for those Jews believing in the resurrection, i.e., Mary and Martha. With the resuscitation of Lazarus, the child of the Centurian and others by Jesus, the disciples know that death is under the control of Jesus.

On the cross, the dying Jesus says to one of the two beside him enduring the agony of death, “Today you will be with me in paradise,” certainly a different ending than most expected for that criminal.

St. Paul to his church plant in Philippi [1:21] wrote For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. If I am to live in the flesh, that means fruitful labor for me. Yet which I shall choose I cannot tell. I am hard pressed between the two. My desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better. But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. [ESV]

The apostle Paul is not only unafraid of death, he is convinced that for him to die as a disciple and apostle of Christ Jesus is to enter a far better existence for him personally. Why? At least two of the reasons are the direct experience of Jesus as promised to the thief on the cross and the promise to become like Jesus in the resurrected body and especially the words the Apostle John shared with him from the Last Supper when in their attempt to understand what this death talk was all about: 

Jn 14 Let not your hearts be troubled. Believe in God; believe also in me. In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. And you know the way to where I am going.” Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.  If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.”

With the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ Jesus making this promise of Jesus reality, the believer is able to seek the full assurance of the truth of these words. The promised Spirit not only flows into the group of believers but also into each believer so that a dying Deacon Stephen can forgive his killers, look into paradise and rest in peace.

St. Paul is looking forward with great expectation to death and Christ except of one thing. He knows that to stay and share this gospel is crucial that we may hear, take to heart this good news, live it out in our lives and share this good news with others.

Ph 1.24 But to remain in the flesh is more necessary on your account. Convinced of this, I know that I will remain and continue with you all, for your progress and joy in the faith, so that in me you may have ample cause to glory in Christ Jesus, because of my coming to you again.

Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel, and not frightened in anything by your opponents. This is a clear sign to them of their destruction, but of your salvation, and that from God. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake, engaged in the same conflict that you saw I had and now hear that I still have.

Observer, may you and I reading and believing in the truth of these scriptures discover the Spirit resonating in our hearts, minds and souls so that with assurance we may rise and and make the same response of all disciples before us,

I believe in God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth;

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord;
who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried.
He descended into hell.

The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.

[51] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 11-18-2008 at 12:12 PM • top

#44 and #46:

In #44 Andrew was commenting on the “legal” theorey espoused earlier re: whether a trust can exist in fact if the beneficiary of the trust it self is repudiating the very purpose of that trust.  ( It just wasn’t stated that way). As a matter of law, that is a defense to enforcement of a trust, and is one of the very arguments being raised to defeat the Dennis Canon.
Per Sarah, we do kind of need to tone down here.
Blessings

[52] Posted by aacswfl1 on 11-18-2008 at 12:15 PM • top

I thank God for our apostolic bishops, faithful priests deacons and laity that obediently have prayed and worked for the new APNA. So many opportunities, so little time.

I’ll see y’all in Wheaton.

Bob+

. . . still ridin’ for the brand.

[53] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 11-18-2008 at 12:22 PM • top

AndrewA…that is their argument…that they are holding the property in a spiritual trust (there is no actual trust document that holds the property)

No, their legal argument is that they are holding the properties in a trust established by the Constitution and Canons of TEC, to which the parishes and dioceses had previously consented.  It is an argument that has prevailed in some courts and failed in others.

and that they should have control over it to assure it is used for the purposes for which it was intended, when themselves no longer hold to those purposes…

The purpose of the properties was to be for the use of parishes of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, or so said organization would say. 

it goes to motive, that the Epsicopal church is suing for control of assets which, as poiinted out above, will be sold to fund a false gospel, not to further the Anglican Way…do some case research Andrew and see…

It would greatly distress me to find any cases in a US court of law that have made rulings based upon what is or is not a “false gospel” however given the existence of the 1st Amendement, I can’t imagine that any research on my part would turn up such a case.  The courts have no power, nor should they have the power, to rule on how well TEC follows the Gospel.  Their only power is to rule whether the canons of TEC are in fact binding on the property of parishes in such cases where the deeds and titles to said property give no mention of a trust or property claim by TEC or a TEC dioceses.  Such cases have gone both ways.

[54] Posted by AndrewA on 11-18-2008 at 12:26 PM • top

aacswfl1…but in fact the biggest argument against the Dennis Canon is that it was never passed…not to mention that the church cannot pass a canon that supercedes state property laws, including taking over property when their name is not on the title…if the orthodox churches weren’t all so successful, maybe TEC could pick up the properties in foreclosure sales…but it is more apt to be the other way around…in fact I think it might be cheaper and quicker to let TEC have the properties…and then just buy them back for pennies on the dollar after remnant congregations go under financially

[55] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 12:29 PM • top

Jessie, just a couple of things, not necessarily to post an answer on (there are enough comments to you to answer already!), but to ponder.

You write, correctly, that Christ dide for us.  Why did He die the way He did, and in what sense was it “for us”?  If you say to show us how much He loved us, that seems a non sequitur, because in no earthly sense was His death on a cross necessary to meet our earthly needs 2,000 years later, nor even the earthly needs of His contemporary Jews or His disciples, or to show love.  They would have been overjoyed to see Him continue to multiply loaves and fishes, heal the sick and raise the dead, oh, and by the way, about those Roman soldiers…  Apparently we had a still far more serious problem and need, and He addresses it many times in the Gospels.

If you say Jesus died to save us, then from what, and by what reason sould His death on a cross rather than a “natural” death accomplish this?  I enclose “natural” in quotes because death entered the world through, well, look it up, but it was not part of the original unspoiled creation, and the last two chapters of Revelation describe the state to which God intends to lift the whole creation along with the redeemed in the fulness of all things.  Jesus did not seem to think that death was just a natural part of life, having reversed it (temporarily) on several occasions, and He wept openly at the grave of Lazarus.

You name and document ONE instance of conservative Episcopalians “locking out” anyone from their church building when the majority of the congregation and clergy could no longer follow TEC leadership that has strayed far from the faith once for all passed down from the apostles.  The TEC loyalists were every bit as welcome to worship in their building as before, even gays and lesbians.  But go and learn what this means, +Andrew Smith of DioConn arriving at church offices when he knew the rector was on approved sabbatical seeing to a critically ill child, with locksmiths and computer hackers in tow, intimidating secretaries to gain admittance, seizing church bank accounts, redirecting the church website, hacking into confidential files of counseling sessions, changing the locks, summarily ejecting the rector and vestry, posting an armed security guard 24 hrs. a day to secure his prey, forcing in a revisionist supply priest and declaring all this to be the process of “healing” this congregation.  There have been other similar, though less brazen, incidents in TEC and in Canada.  Such inclusion!

Why are you, in your own less pointed way, so concerned with the buildings that TEC seized by fiat with the Denis Canon?  Who is trying to seize YOUR church building or sue your clergy, vestry, staff, and volunteers?  Names, please, and only then will you have anything to say worth listening to on the issue.

And, lastly, why do you care whether some bigoted, exclusive, judgemental, Bible-thumping, homophobic fundamentalists (in your apparent vies) put up a tree house, hang a sign on it (to your reading) “GAYS KEEP OUT!”?  Wouldn’t you rather say good riddance?  Do you post messages to Baptist and Catholic blogs lamenting their so, so sad exclusion of partnered gays and lesbians from ministry, and teaching the “clobber passages” of the Bible?  Just write us off as pathetic, paranoid losers and get on with your ministry to people’s digestive tracts, wardrobes and wallets until they die, as we all must unless the Lord ceases tarrying.  Unless the mere existence of an alternat parallel Anglican province is a threat, and ask yourself what TEC would have to fear from it.

[56] Posted by Milton on 11-18-2008 at 12:33 PM • top

#55 On the other hand, we can continue to do battle with TEC in the courts and let them spend themselves into bankruptcy and oblivion.  Let them keep the properties and then have to sell them in order to pay their legal fees and court costs.  Either way, we win in the end.

[57] Posted by Cennydd on 11-18-2008 at 12:40 PM • top

They have significantly greater assets and fewer great commission demands than the orthodox I fear it would not be they who are bankrupted in an all-out legal war.  At some point, the faithful must make the decision to cut bait if the process draws us to far from our primary objective as messengers of the Gospel.

[58] Posted by Fidela on 11-18-2008 at 12:44 PM • top

Even the very rich can fall.  Yes, indeed, TEC does have assets, but in the eyes of the Lord, they are meaningless.  They will fail in the end, as they are failing now. 

They think that just because they have money, they can buy anything and have everything their own way in the Communion, but they have been repudiated to the point where they have become a mere laughingstock except among the few friends they have left.

[59] Posted by Cennydd on 11-18-2008 at 12:53 PM • top

A real Christian leader in this mess would have kept people in prayer and discussion…and never insist on their own way to such an extent…but the clear rush to the courts by TEC and the terorist tactics they have used against clergy and parishes and now dioceses shows a real lack of converted hearts…there is something pretty scarey about their determination…it is so full of hubris without any sign of subjection to or fear of the Lord.

[60] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 01:00 PM • top

cennydd (59) you say “Even the very rich can fall.  Yes, indeed, TEC does have assets, but in the eyes of the Lord, they are meaningless.  They will fail in the end, as they are failing now.”  You speak with such aurhority as if you were God himself.  Do you really think God would say this?  I don’t think God wishes anyone to fall in the end…rejoyce in your happiness, but comments like this tell me you are still more tied to the EC more than you think that you are.

[61] Posted by jessie on 11-18-2008 at 01:16 PM • top

I know of several instances where diocesan and “815” $$$$$$$ are funding lawsuits. I haven’t read about any situation where a departed congregation or diocese hasn’t been served “pro bono.” Have you?

The DRG, so I was told, has hired an attorney to plead against the call for summary judgment by St. Francis on the Hill. This attorney works for the El Paso Public Defender’s Office. This also could be a stalking horse for a different expert real estate attorney to step in at the last moment.

[62] Posted by Bob Maxwell+ on 11-18-2008 at 01:18 PM • top

Uh, uh, jessie….you are wrong….so very WRONG!  And yes, I DO think that God would say this.  Remember the moneychangers in the Temple, and what Jesus said to them?  It still applies.

And by the way:  I’m in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, and I will have nothing to do with TEC.

[63] Posted by Cennydd on 11-18-2008 at 01:21 PM • top

Bob, I think all the attorneys working for the departing congregations on this are being paid by those congregations. There have been many reports on the fund raising being done by the Northern Virginia churches for sure. It is costing both sides millions of dollars!

[64] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 01:23 PM • top

I am well aware of the diocese of San Joaquin…and Fort Worth…Quincy…blaa..blaa…blaaa.  I lived in community with many of these “good ol boys” at Nashotha House a few years back.  Knowing where you are from explains a lot. Thanks for the insight.

[65] Posted by jessie on 11-18-2008 at 01:25 PM • top

Jessie, you seem to be new here. We try to refrain from those sorts of personal attacks.

That you are upset with the new province is obvious, but it gives you an idea how upset we have been with the things going on in TEC.

This is why one doesn;t talk abotu religion at a diner party. It is a highly charged subject because people know their very salvation is at stake in getting it right.

I am glad Jesus made getting it right not my issue or yours.

[66] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 01:38 PM • top

#48 - I think it would be a mistake for +Duncan to be chosen as the new primate, because I think that would squelch any hope of unity with much (if any) of the Continuum.  On the blogs of The Continuum, and others, there is nothing but negitivity, because of GAFCON partners that ordain women, and because they are in comunion with Canterbury. Chances are, however, that if those two problems were eliminated, the Continuum would still not join the new Provence, because “it is just not ‘CATHOLIC’ enough.  Do any of you know of any dialog between the ‘continuing’ churches and GAFCON partners?

[67] Posted by BCPchurchmouse on 11-18-2008 at 01:49 PM • top

Jessie, you seem to be new here. We try to refrain from those sorts of personal attacks.

No, you really don’t.

[68] Posted by Vintner on 11-18-2008 at 01:51 PM • top

Greg,

I don’t know how to send an email regarding article submissions directly to you or the other administrators, so I am posting this suggestion here.

Many recent posts have concerned the discussion of recognition by various primates of a new North American province, vs. recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Here is a remarkable paper presented by Bishop Jonah, the newly elected Metropolitan for the Orthodox Church in America, that you might want to consider linking or posting on Stand Firm for its application to the current discussion about GAFCON’s emerging role and the soon-to-be orthodox North American province:

http://www.oca.org/PDF/metropolitan-jonah/MJ.Episcopacy_Primacy_Mother Churches.pdf

The above-linked article shows that the issues we confront as GAFCON emerges with a new leading role, and as numerous bodies in North America call ourselves Anglican, are not unique to our tradition.

More specifically, among the points I found interesting was the discussion of when a group of overlapping jurisdictions within the same territory could still be viewed one catholic church in a geographic area.  The distinction for Metropolitan Jonah turns on whether there is a synod of bishops in which bishops of the overlapping structures participate.

In the Orthodox structural model, then, overlapping jurisdictional structures within a province should not be relegated to a “federation” status when the bishops are part of a larger conciliar body forming the province as a whole.

Second, Metropolitan Jonah has interesting observations about the origin of the “first among equals” refrain used for Rome and Constantinople—this is a function of accomodation that accords the greatest honor to the seat of an empire.  This is completely consistent Bishop Duncan’s observation that Canterbury’s old role stemmed from its place within the British Empire, a primacy of honor that makes less sense when Anglicanism has grown beyond the ethnocentric confines of one particular nation/empire.  The difficulties of Constantinople are, to a certain extent, the difficulties of Canterbury when there is no means for disciplining or exercising meaningful authority on those of other regions.

Again, for Metropolitan Jonah, the solution is for collegial catholicity that exercises authority and discipline through a worldwide synod (not one particular bishopric).

The implications within Anglicanism, if Anglicanism looks to the same common tradition of early church unity to which Metropolitan Jonah refers,  are that the recognition of a province, and definition of a province as Anglican, should be determined by the recognition of a worldwide conciliar body of Anglicans rather than the unilateral decision of one bishropric to extend or withdraw recognition at his whim.  This may come as the majority of the Anglican Communion find they have a common faith, and identify themselves in terms of conciliar unity that agrees on those essentials of faith rather than structural unity with Canterbury in particular.

Likewise, the implications for the emerging North American province are that its status as a province (vs. a loose federation) is not determined by whether it resembles a top-down monarchial structure from one presiding bishop to local bishops whose territories may not overlap.  Rather, it is a function of whether the bishops of the respective overlapping jurisdictions are part of a provincial synod for North America.

My observation, from Metropolitan Jonah’s points, would be that even with overlapping bishops for multiple jurisdictions that are perhaps on a slow journey towards a streamlined structural merger, multiple structures within a collegial synod that come to be recognized by most Anglican provinces worldwide (regardless of Canterbury’s individual recognition) would be far closer to the catholic unity of the early church than a one bishop per city/region model (with only one recognized structure as part of a province) if that bishop is tethered to a monarchical structure that lacks accountability to other Anglican provinces, to all Anglican bishops, clergy, and to the laity as a whole whose assent is required.

Interesting reading…

In Christ,
Dn. John (REC)

[69] Posted by John Clay on 11-18-2008 at 01:56 PM • top

Just out of curiosity, I would be interested in others’ conjectures as to which provinces might ultimately recognize the Anglican Church/Province of North America, whether the “sole” representative or in parallel with TEC and ACC.

Here is an alphabetical list, with a few tentatively marked by me as Recognition Y = Yes, N = No.

What do you think ??

Anteroaea, New Zealand, Polynesia - N
Australia - N
Bangladesh - ?
Brazil - N
Burundi - Y
Canada - N
Central Africa - Y
Central America - N
Congo - Y
Church of England - (Hmmmm) - ?
Hong Kong - N
Indian Ocean - Y
Ireland - N
Japan - N
Jerusalem & Middle East - Y
Kenya - Y
Korea - ?
Melanesia - ?
Mexico - N
Myanmar (Burma) - ?
Nigeria - Y
N. India - ?
Pakistan - Y
Papua New Guinea - ?
Philippines - ?
Rwanda - Y
Scotland - N
S. E. Asia - Y
S. India - Y
S. Africa - N
Southern Cone - Y
Sudan - Y
Tanzania - Y
Uganda - Y
USA - N
Wales - N
W. Africa - Y
W. Indies - Y
Ceylon - N
Cuba - N
Bermuda - N
Lusitania - N
Spain - N
Falklands - N

I count perhaps 17 Anglican Provinces to recognize the New Province in the first year ?

I almost marked the Church of England a “N” but decided to wait for better information from our English friends on Stand Firm.

Experts, is this too high or too low ??

Thanks and God Bless,
Anglican Observer

[70] Posted by Anglican Observer on 11-18-2008 at 02:00 PM • top

Sarah,

I don’t mind being the first to let things go per your request.  I would rather have you unleash your quick wit and nimble mind on heretics and apostates. I am just an old guy who was a little late realizing that there was this struggle within a struggle on the SF website. My question to you is this, “If the stayers complain about TEC, are the leavers allowed to agree or have we lost the right to criticize TEC because we are on the outside?”  What concerns me most is that many of those who have decided to stay (and fight) seem to have nothing good to say about TEC.  Perhaps the criticism is only directed at the leadership and I am missing the point once again. There is an old game in Transactional Analysis called “uproar”.  Uproar replaces intimacy when love has departed.  I hope that there is still love between the stayers and leavers who are beginning to sound more and more like the Big Endians and the Little Endiens in Gulliver’s travels.

[71] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-18-2008 at 02:05 PM • top

not an attack…an observation…I am not upset about your new province…if you would read the comments I have made you will clearly see my point is START REJOYCING AND STOP WITH THE ANGER ISSUES toward the EC.  Move on…be happy…celelbrate…this is what you have been waiting for.. so stop looking back with all of the comments that are so obviously filled with anger and regret…move on…and if you start at the top and read down you will see this IS what I have been saying.  And no, not new here…just seldom comment…and Vitner is right…you all have slammed me more than once over the years as well as MANY others…and nothing so mild as what I just apparently offended you with…knowing what diocese you are from DOES TELL ME SO MUCH…how rude am I?

[72] Posted by jessie on 11-18-2008 at 02:08 PM • top

Jessie, if I have said anything to offend or hurt you I apologize.

And I agree, let us all REJOICE.

And just a comment here, you might not be aware of, but where I am from (deep, deep south) “good ole boys” is pretty much a racial slur.  It implies negative, corrupt behavior, pack mentality, etc.  It is a very hurtful phrase to many of us.

[73] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 11-18-2008 at 02:30 PM • top

Jessie…goodness knows that given the diversity in the pews, especially among any who have a connection with the Episcopal Church, including in their past, there is not much that can be said that would apply to all of them by parish, diocese, or even section of the nave. It is a wild and wooley bunch by definition.

[74] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 02:35 PM • top

aacswfl1…but in fact the biggest argument against the Dennis Canon is that it was never passed…

Gossip is a sin.  You are repeating unsubstantiated gossip.  If the Dennis Canon did not pass, then how come this fact has never once been raised by the AAC, ACN, CCP or any of the lawyers that have represented the same?  How come courts have in fact ruled in favor of TEC several times already because of the Dennis Canon?

not to mention that the church cannot pass a canon that supercedes state property laws, including taking over property when their name is not on the title…

You are assuming that all state laws are the same, and all defer to the parish.  The case history does not support this.

to let TEC have the properties…and then just buy them back for pennies on the dollar after remnant congregations go under financially

More likely TEC will sell them to someone more acceptable to their mission and theology and more financially sound, like a strip club.

[75] Posted by AndrewA on 11-18-2008 at 02:39 PM • top

ashcroft is that you?

[76] Posted by jessie on 11-18-2008 at 02:45 PM • top


I almost marked the Church of England a “N” but decided to wait for better information from our English friends on Stand Firm.

PagentMaster probably has better information than me on where the open evangelicals stand, which is probably key to how the house of Bishops react. If the open evangelicals and charismatics move as one to back the new province, that could be enough to force it through. But given the lukewarm reception to GAFCON I don’t see that happening. I would guess that the open evangelicals will split, with the vast majority opposing recognising the province.

My guess would be that on December 4th (more or less), +Rochester, +Lewes, the Forward in Faith Bishops, and perhaps a few others like +Exeter release a statement welcoming and recognising the new province. On December 5th +Chelmsford, +Worcester etc. leak an equally strong statement utterly condemning it. A few weeks later, +Durham and some of the open evangelical/moderate liberal Bishops write a letter to the Times saying that while they sympathise with the concerns of the New North American province, they feel that they should have waited for the Windsor and covenant process, which will of course eventually solve all the problems of the Anglican Communion, to work its way through the various committees and meetings. +++Cantur and ++York make no public comment, except possibly some brief acknowledgement which doesn’t say anything or satisfy anyone (in Dr. William’s usual opaque style), but ++Pittsburg (or whoever gets the extra ‘+’) doesn’t get invited to the forthcoming primates meeting. And everybody in the middle (especially +++Cantur) tries their best to keep this off the agenda for general synod, though probably not successfully.

In other words, the C of E will try very hard not to make an official decision; although there will be firm dissenting voices on each side. But in this case I think that inaction probably counts as `No.’

[77] Posted by Boring Bloke on 11-18-2008 at 02:48 PM • top

Not that it really matters much!

[78] Posted by Cennydd on 11-18-2008 at 03:00 PM • top

Jessie #25, wow a lot of people have posted between last night and now!  I’d like answer your response to me to be more clear.  First of all, I guess I should have specified which verses I meant.  I said last few lines (plural). 

13 But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. 14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

 
I’m sorry I did not make that clear.  I would never say that TEC is not interested in good works.  That is actually the opposite of the truth. 

and we are all finding our way the best way we know how.

This is a very true statement of everyone involved.  Thank you for saying it. 

I also have just as many Bible verses I can quote to support my beliefs…but in the end none of it really matters to me.  The most important thing that I see and learn and hear everytime I read the Bible is the love that God has for us

I don’t think anyone here would disagree with you on the second part of this statement.  It is the first we would have a problem with. Paul told Timothy in the above passage, “All Scripture is inspired by God”.  We cannot take Scripture in parts as suits us.  That would be inauthentic and rebellion against God.  However, that love which we are to emulate must also not be forgotten.  I am saddened that some of us with our heads in our Bibles get so distressed as to forget to love as Jesus loved.  I think with time, those wounds will be healed.  In the meantime, I apologize for whatever uncharitable actions or words have been expressed in this debate. 

The second half of your post is amazing!  As I said before, there are many sides to this situation.  There are Christians in TEC.  I have family in TEC who are Christian, but don’t see that there are others who are not Christian and who seek to persecute us for our biblical stance.  So, there is much confusion and wounding surrounding this separation.  I don’t think any of us are unaffected by this.  You may be one of those like my family members.  And, if that is so, I look forward to building bridges with you and others like you in the future.  I rejoice that there is a new beginning for those weary from battle.  I rejoice that there is a joining of 9 different Episcopal/Anglican entities which is a unity that has never happened in western Christendom before!  I rejoice that so many long to worship the Lord uncompromisingly.  I do not rejoice in TEC’s destruction, unless that destruction is God-orchestrated because when God judges us it is for our correction and for reconciliation with Him.  So, if there are even harder times ahead for TEC, I pray that it will bring you closer to God and for those who have rejected God that it will bring them to Him. 

Thank you, Jessie, for your humility in this post and for your candor in expressing your feelings.  That takes guts in the face of opposition.  Keep being honest like that, and we can talk to each other.  It’s when we hyperbolize everything and everyone that future unity becomes impossible.  Thanks for weighing in.

[79] Posted by Modest Mystic on 11-18-2008 at 03:04 PM • top

Andrew, you need to read those briefs more closely. The Dennis Canon has been shown to not have passed in the VA briefs.

If a church holds title without accession language in their articles of incorporation and does not show real subjection in their behavoir to a diocese, it is going to be pretty hard to get the property from them under any states property statutes, which is all that matters.

[80] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 03:06 PM • top

Our good Curmudgeon states that the vote in the ACC needs to precede the vote of the Primates (which does not need to be at a Primates’ meeting). Now, the curmudgeon thinks the vote in the ACC might be fairly close, perhaps even winnable. It is too bad that the TEO isn’t still voluntarily withdrawing as asked for by Windsor. Anyway, I wonder what the vote of the Primates might be if the ACC had already approved it.

[81] Posted by robroy on 11-18-2008 at 03:07 PM • top

#70 Anglican Observer and #77 Boring Bloke.
I am not sure I can speak for the CofE or for open or conservative evangelicals for that matter, only myself.

Formally our bishops and our General Synod speak for us although other organisations and groupings will have an opinion.

If the NEAC meeting I attended is anything to go by there was a great deal of concern for Conservative Episcopalians both within and outside TEC.  Our differences if they are there are over whether to support the GAFCON way of dealing with things alone or whether to also support the Archbishop and his efforts with the Windsor process.  If allowed to continue I think that it would be very interesting to see what the result would be.

I suspect you are going to have to give us a bit of time to get up to speed with this as it is all rather new and we tend to be a bit behind with developments.

For myself I wish those going for the CP and CCP routes well and hold all Episcopalians of whatever persuasion in my prayers at this difficult time.

[82] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-18-2008 at 03:14 PM • top

Andrew, you need to read those briefs more closely. The Dennis Canon has been shown to not have passed in the VA briefs.

Interesting.  Where can I find this?  Did the judge make any ruling on that no doubt contested point of fact?

If a church holds title without accession language in their articles of incorporation and does not show real subjection in their behavoir to a diocese, it is going to be pretty hard to get the property from them under any states property statutes, which is all that matters.

Perhaps.  But that is a fair sight different then making judgments based on who is teaching a false gospel.  Like I said, some parishes have lost and some parishes have one.  It remains to be seen how the cases of the dioceses will go.

I guess the main thing I’m trying to caution people against is the idea that because they are in the moral right, they can expect the courts, Canterbury, Lambeth, the primates, or the ACC to come down on their side.  Instead, they should be prepared to loose every scrap of property and every official connection to the Anglican Communion.  Pray for the best.  Plan for the worst.

[83] Posted by AndrewA on 11-18-2008 at 03:15 PM • top

No, Jessie, you don’t make outright personal attacks, preferring instead to smear entire groups with guilt for vague insinuated injuries done to innocents, namely TEC and Integrity.  You can stop the amatuer psychoanalysis and projecting your own ANGER ISSUES (like your use of all caps there) onto us.  It’ll do your soul a world of good.

Maybe you could name the poster you seem to think is one of your bogeymen, “ashcroft”.  For that matter, jessie is that you?  Don’t bother answering, I have no idea who you are nor is it the least concern of mine or probably “ashcroft”‘s either.  Trying to smoke someone out?  If you think I am ashcroft, send me a PM and you will realize we probably are not even in the same state.

[84] Posted by Milton on 11-18-2008 at 03:16 PM • top

#78, if that was a reply to my #77, then it matters a great deal to us in the Church of England. With `Women Bishops - The Rematch’ and this (not to mention Paul Eddy’s private motion, if it is allowed onto the agenda this time) the next general synod is likely to be a bloodbath. What would our worthy opponents do if synod says `Yes.’ What would I do if it says `No?’

[85] Posted by Boring Bloke on 11-18-2008 at 03:17 PM • top

Rereading my comment “If allowed to continue I think that it would be very interesting to see what the result would be” should perhaps be qualified.  By that I mean if the consultation started on Saturday is allowed to continue.  We in effect ran out of time and the structure was not in place for having a full debate and drafting and agreeing resolutions based on what we had heard.

[86] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-18-2008 at 03:18 PM • top

Boring Bloke,
“Women Bishops the Rematch” - can you point me to a place where I can come up to speed on that issue?

[87] Posted by Bo on 11-18-2008 at 03:19 PM • top

BTW - I am not sure that the approval of a new province would be incompatible with continued development of the Anglican Covenant as envisaged in the Windsor Report.

[88] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-18-2008 at 03:52 PM • top

#87 Sorry, my title was somewhat of an overstatement. What I was referring to was that the last synod passed a resolution (scroll down to the last item) asking for the working group to consider what form a code of practice could take to protect those opposed to the resolution, and, if things go to plan, a draft will be presented to the next synod. There are some whispers (and this isn’t the only report I’ve seen circulating) that the liberals aren’t happy with the way things are going. Many Bishops weren’t happy with the tone of the last debate and have drifted towards trying to work out some compromise. I don’t expect (baring an act of God) synod to reverse its decision to the extent that it offers something which the orthodox can accept, but there will almost certainly be an opportunity for discussion, and a lot of people have a lot of conflicting and strong views on the subject. (Although possibly the real debate will be delayed until July and just a bare `acknowledgement motion’ presented, if anything). In any case, prayers are still needed.

[89] Posted by Boring Bloke on 11-18-2008 at 03:52 PM • top

PM, no, but given that the new province is sponsored by GAFCON and +Durham etc. are on record criticizing GAFCON in favour of the covenant (as though they see them as incompatible), there may be some personal issues confusing the two separate topics in some minds. At least, that is what I thought at the time I wrote the post. But you were at NEAC and I was not, so I suspect that you have a better judgement of where people stand.

[90] Posted by Boring Bloke on 11-18-2008 at 04:02 PM • top

We will have to let +Durham etc. speak for themselves but I have certainly heard reference to +Durham having sent a message of support to +Duncan, but not seen anything formal.

I suspect that the outrageous deposition of +Duncan changed everything.

[91] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-18-2008 at 04:06 PM • top

Perhaps I should qualify that “outrageous purported deposition of +Duncan.  The goons mucked up even on that.

[92] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-18-2008 at 04:09 PM • top

The new province is in a real sense the protection the pastoral scheme from Dar that TEC refused to establish and the previous pastoral oversight the ABC never initated after the primates directed it…so now a large group of primates have formed this refuge as a means to protect, and to fulfill their own promise to stop border crossings…now the law suits need to stop and let well enough alone until the theological matters are settled over the next 100 years or so.

[93] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 04:10 PM • top

(73) Good miss murphy:  Sorry for the good ol boys comment…I am not from the south and had no idea.  My understanding of it has always been = to the mens club, where women were not allowed in and so forth.

[94] Posted by jessie on 11-18-2008 at 04:22 PM • top

#70. Too high.
If formal vote at Primates Meeting. I’d change these to:
West Indies – N
Burundi – N
Tanzania – (Y to ‘Gafcon’) N to new province
SE Asia - ?
Central Africa – N
Sudan – N
Indian Ocean – (Y to ‘Gafcon’) N to new province
And of course: support for Duncan against deposition does not equal support for a New Province.

[95] Posted by zebra on 11-18-2008 at 04:40 PM • top

#95 - Chris, don’t count your chickens before they are hatched.  I would rely on Bishop Duncan’s headcount.

[96] Posted by Dallas Priest on 11-18-2008 at 04:44 PM • top

I suppose the other thing we have to bear in mind is that the CCP grouping if estimates of 100,000 are correct is roughly twice the size of either the Scottish Episcopal Church or the Church in Wales.  It would be larger than about 2/3 of the provinces of the Communion as I understand it.

For us in the CofE I think we should be careful of being critical.  I bear in mind that the British backing for the South in the American Civil War was remembered by the United States for many years.

[97] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-18-2008 at 04:51 PM • top

[51] Posted by Bob Maxwell

Thanks but the point was Jessie’s arguement only made sense if he was allowed to ignore the context.  I.E.  A new direction for conservitives vs Liberals doing something new and Death vs Death on the cross.  In the first the conservitives here are actually taking a new direction by choosing to stay the course and not veer off into insanity and in the latter yes as I was alluding to Jesus makes all the difference.

Thanks

[98] Posted by observer on 11-18-2008 at 04:53 PM • top

What a strange comment, #96. Someone asked what the conjectures were so I gave them (+Burundi is a CP Primate and a close protege of Radner’s and someone we talk to; +West Indies will not want a new province and I seriously doubt the others listed as Y). If I wanted to ‘count chickens’ I might actually *hope* that a vote is taken, because I don’t think this would be a wise move (as others have said). But many people don’t think it really matters anyway whether the Primates give approval, so why a concern over different tallies? #70 asked for response. I have given that. Grace and peace.

[99] Posted by zebra on 11-18-2008 at 05:02 PM • top

Anglican Province:>  I don’t agree with your earlier comment that the new province is the ‘pastoral scheme’ constructed, graced and defined by a group of primates. Their provinces have provided much needed temporary oversight -but that oversight was essentially requested by the parishes, dioceses and not initiated by the primates.  Nor do I believe that the new province is a refuge that obviates the third ‘moratorium’ (border-crossings) that has galled TEC so much.  This new province has been decades in the making and now that we are on the brink of declaring the birth of the creature,  announcement for 3rd of December has been an inevitable outcome of many factors.  Perhaps we can say, continuing this horrible allegory, that the final contractions began in 2003.  But my point is that despite much outside, prayer, support and encouragement, this emerging province has come as a consequence of the TEC’s deviation from the truth of the gospel and the authority of the Scriptures.

[100] Posted by Bill C on 11-18-2008 at 05:28 PM • top

Bill, could we both be right here in a sense. I wouldn’t disagree with anything you have written, and only add my perspective as an explanation of why all else has failed and there is now no other alternative but the new province, despite Communion Partners reincarnation of the failed Windsor Bishop’s scheme.

[101] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 06:12 PM • top

Anglican Province, yes I’d agree with what you say.  I just think that we’d have come to this moment even if the pastoral scheme had been successfully implemented.

[102] Posted by Bill C on 11-18-2008 at 06:24 PM • top

I think that Professor Seitz is accurate with respect to Burundi, West Indies and Tanzania (the Communion Partners Primates).

Ephraim+ has said that the new Anglican Province will strengthen the hand of the liberals (see Chris Johnson’s site). I disagree but do agree that it hurts the inside strategists and Communion Partner’s. This really shouldn’t be the case. If the revisionists weren’t such fools, they would see that the new kid on the block has arrived and will be providing some stiff competition, so they ought to play fair with those who are trying to stay. But, alas, 815 will continue their backstabbing ways. Also, the strategy of increasingly outrageous acts will continue, undermining the CP leaders in the eyes of the guys in the pews.

[103] Posted by robroy on 11-18-2008 at 06:30 PM • top

Sometimes we might think people agree with us, fooled in a way by their own cultural politeness that is easily misinterpreted by our American hubris/egos.

So I think the unfounded speculation of all these primates caving to episcopal church order/canonical desire over biblical truth is just that, speculation.

I would hope that we didn’t give lip service among ourselves to God’s intervention, but rather really put oursleves aside, and make room for God’s will to be done, the Lord glorified, and the truth proclaimed.

[104] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 06:35 PM • top

Rob Roy, the New Province leaders have always invited those who now make up Communion Partners to join them along the way, but it has been hard to get any of these people to come out into the light of posible persecution, but Minns, Duncan, Anderson and company should be a sign of hope rather than competition…unless of course if the issue is power/to be right rather than truth.

[105] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 06:49 PM • top

Dear Dr Roy. I appreciate your concern. But in all reality, why should this be a threat to CP? CP has been referenced by the ABC; it has substantial numbers; it has already seen most leave who wanted to leave, in places like Dallas and CFL; it has a superb group of Rectors at its core: a model group of leaders; it has the latitude to do what it wants. I say this not to produce a strange rivalry, which I think is not the point (there are principled differences at foundation, and that often is the case), only to respond to your comment.
I think from where we stand, the present new province idea flirts with an odd brinksmanship. It is unlikely to receive proper formal support; but then it says it does not matter, or many say they don’t want this anyway. It says it has approval of a Gafcon Council and is a provincial entity, but this is self-publishing and only a Communion ‘province’ in idea form. It proposes to contain a Sydney on one side and a FW on the other. It faces innumerable litigation battles ahead—no matter how many Primates (8 or 28) get behind it. All this is well known. In many ways, from where CP sits, it is hard to see why this is a threat. As many others have commented, in its desire to put facts on the ground, it can be reasonably compared with the strategies of the left wing TEC. But of course God runs the affairs in His Body so we can watch where all this leads. It would not be my immediate instinct to criticize a new province whose actual logic I find difficult to comprehend, at least based upon what has been released in various venues. No one has even seen its constitution yet, except those who drafted it. Grace and peace.

[106] Posted by zebra on 11-18-2008 at 06:55 PM • top

From the article Rob Roy references comes this:
Last week, leading conservative Anglican theologian Ephraim Radner, a professor at Toronto’s Wycliffe College, came out against a separate orthodox province, saying a split would strengthen the hand of liberals in Canada and the U.S.

I would suggest that it is those who agreed to go with the separate province if the other plans failed and are now not folllowing through are the ones causing a split…the reason that the CP types are underminded by the new province is that they were no where to be found when the now new province people were waging the fight from within…and now find themselves fearful without the strength of Minns, Duncan, et al.

So the only game in town is the now New Province, and the feelings of having been deserted coming from these CP rectors might be because they themnselves have been AOL for all these years.

[107] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 07:00 PM • top

[Communion Partners] has the latitude to do what it wants.

Cool.  So what exactly is on the agenda?

[108] Posted by AndrewA on 11-18-2008 at 07:13 PM • top

107—CP does not think the new province will succeed on the apparent terms of its own goals. Of course this could be wrong (depending on how you define success). But I can assure you no one in CP feels like a new province is a rival plan now ‘winning.’ The new province idea has been a reality for many years and it is not something CP believes is a good way forward. That’s OK. But it is not some kind of agreed upon idea that bishops like MacPherson, Stanton, Howe and others abandoned! It was never something they had in view. I will leave it to you and others to believe a new province is the only game in town. I tend to agree with Sarah here: why can’t people who believe in a new province believe in it and not presume that others want this or believe in it or find it the appropriate way forward? grace and peace.

[109] Posted by zebra on 11-18-2008 at 07:20 PM • top

BTW, in reference to my 108, my comment was overly flipant, but my intent, like my intent in 83, is not to attack any particular strategy but to get people promoting the strategies to better articulate them and explain how they will deal with the challenges inherent in each, whether it be loss of formal status and property (inspite of overly optomistic reasurances that nothing will change and the “leavers” remain a valued part of the Anglican Communion) or a ecclessiatic culture that has proven highly resistent to any attempt at internal conservative reform and in which the liberals have the controlling majority at all levels.

[110] Posted by AndrewA on 11-18-2008 at 07:29 PM • top

Anglican Province writes,

So the only game in town is the now New Province, and the feelings of having been deserted coming from these CP rectors might be because they themnselves have been AOL [sic, AWOL] for all these years.

I disagree with this. Chris Seitz is correct that there are some great leaders in amongst the CP’ers (they also have the likes of Ed Little who is totally compromised himself with his Gene Robinson begging trip). These guys have been fighting just as long and hard as those who are now on the outside. You need to give credit where credit is due. +Love, +MacPherson, and +Lawrence are faithful, godly leaders.

But the bringing together of AMiA, CANA, Southern Cone, REP, etc., would be a miracle that none could have predicted. (Chris is correct that the constitution isn’t even released nor even ratified.) I might be wrong, but I think the legal battles against the four dioceses will be a disaster for the TEO, but Americans like to support the underdog and will not hurt the four dioceses. If they lose their churches, they will strengthened by the trial.

Thus, I see the new province (recognized or not by the ACO bureaucrats and the old ditherer) will be very attractive to the orthodox left in the the TEO. This will continue to hurt the CP laity numbers, I think in a big way, especially after GC09 officially makes the TEO the gay church.

But keep up the fight taking up the full armor of God.

[111] Posted by robroy on 11-18-2008 at 07:32 PM • top

Dr McLean—thank you for your comments. Having worked with the CP leaders and their congregations, I am less sure of the great attrition. Most who wanted to leave left (it bespeaks a certain understanding of being Christian). I was very heartened by my time in CFL. Most in CP do not believe that anything GC does need affect them. We concur. Dioceses have extraordinary sovereignty leeway, and we have yet to see that play out, in full throttle. The ability to withhold money and chart a different way is virtually limitless, thanks be to God. Ed Salmon, Jim Stanton, Bruce MacPherson, John Howe have always seen this and have written it into their DNA. Will ‘the national church’ hunt them down and force them to submit? Odd, really. Just how would they propose to do that? And the same is true of many of the rectors who are with CP who are not in CP dioceses. Great leaders, strong men, faithful men of prayer. Let the new province leaders pursue their plan, and let us say why it is not a plan we believe is good or desirable. But can we have the kind of spirit you appear to be exhibiting that says CP is not just a failed version of new province gusto. CP is what it is, it has been tested in the ways God tests all of us, and it does not agree with new province logic or goals, and it is prepared to live into the mission God has given it, especially in trial. grace and peace.

[112] Posted by zebra on 11-18-2008 at 07:49 PM • top

Most in CP do not believe that anything GC does need affect them.

I’m not convinced that is a healthy assumption.  Sounds too much like “Somebody Else’s Problem”.  I also think you underestimate the market forces at work in the “branding” of the Episcopal Church in terms of who joins the denomination and why, and who leaves and why.

[113] Posted by AndrewA on 11-18-2008 at 07:55 PM • top

Good. You are entitled to your view of course. That’s it from here. May God give his blessings. Grace and peace.

[114] Posted by zebra on 11-18-2008 at 07:58 PM • top

We new province people do feel confident and hopeful, and only try to offer additional perspective when the Jessie and ACI attacks come.

We are actually excited more than one could imagine, and wish CP well against the overwhelming odds they face…against which the same bishops mentioned above have had little or no success in their various incarnations, now CP.  What has changed I don’t know…but will watch with interest.

Grace and Peace I say dismissively as Sietz likes to do.

[115] Posted by Anglican Province on 11-18-2008 at 08:03 PM • top

Seitz I think people’s concern about the “inside strategy” is not such much that it will be hunted down and purged at once but that shere erosion and inertia will sweep it away through generational change. 

In 1979,  how many dioceses refused WO?  In 2009, how many dioceses will refuse WO?  How many clergy that were ordained in 1999 considered WO theologically wrong vs how many considered in wrong in 1979?  As something becomes the norm for the whole denomination, especially a hiercharal denomination, is written into its canons and liturgies, and is taught is sound theology in its seminaries, pockets of resistance will slowly fade away through simple, undramatic erosion.  That would be my concern.

[116] Posted by AndrewA on 11-18-2008 at 08:04 PM • top

Dr. Seitz,
Perhaps CP is not so uniform as your comments seem to suggest.  We must remember that in includes within it bishops who range from those who publicly refused to acknowledge TEC’s deposition of Duncan (recognizing that they all voted against it), to one who went to Canterbury to try to negotiate an invitation for VGR.  Some do not send money to 815, others do.  Some negotiate with departing parishes, others do not.
  Nor are the people leaving all the same.  There is no longer an active Anglo Catholic bishop in TEC.  Catholics, even the Anglo variety, need bishops.  The faith as it was handed down to me is canonically illegal in TEC- am I to stay?  The local diocese (N. Mich) would have me believe that I am a living incarnation of the Trinity (this being a “promotion” they gave us after “affirming” that we were each “an only begotten child of God”).  The “latitude” of the CP bishops does not reach this far.  I am the enemy here, for suggesting that the Nicene Creed be taken seriously.  That is the reality of TEC for those of us not blessed to live within the 15% of the diocese and parishes under the oversight of CP bishops.  SO…I think CP is a wonderful idea.  Should have been put in place in 2003, when it would have had many more dioceses.  It is a blessing for those so defended.  It has no power or influence here.
The test of the new province will be whether those in it can be such good Christians that the ABoC will come to the conclusion that he must recognize them regardless of whatever vengeance KJS and TEC wreaks on him, and regardless of his own concerns about ecclesiology.
The test of the CP will come when one of their number retires and they face the task of gaining consent for a new bishop equally orthodox.  The other test will come the first time a rector is inhibited or deposed by his (non-CP) bishop for the crime of asking for oversight.  Right now, I can tell you, there are a number who are afraid to ask.
I would like to suggest to all of you that we should be praying for both the new province and CP, and that our own activities, and words, should be directed to having them both succeed.  There is no gain for a new province in seeing the diocese of S. Carolina or W. Kansas fall to 815.  Nor is there any gain for CP in seeing Ft. Worth crushed by TEC lawsuits.  Let us stop worrying about who is in and out of TEC.  Let us remember that our goal is to be worthy members of the Church, and not a church.
  And to take that one step further, it would be good to see new province bishops recognize the diocesan integrity of their CP neighbors.  The CP might reciprocate by allowing the occasional visit of an FiF bishop to an Anglo Catholic parish in their diocese, provinces not withstanding. For that matter, for those of us who see ourselves outside of TEC, let’s try to reason with our (British and other) brethren to limit their activities in Durham and other oversees dioceses where, like the CP dioceses, we can be reasonably sure the faith is being defended.
I guess my thinking is that if TEC comes for me, whether they hang me on the tree with +Bob Duncan and +Jack Iker, or they hang me on the tree with +Mark Lawrence and Chris Seitz+, I’m in good company either way.

[117] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-18-2008 at 08:21 PM • top

One other issue for the insiders (bless them richly Father), is that it looks like, if they restrict or refuse their portion of giving to the national church, they will lose ground representationally to GenCon. So any inside strategy (assuming such is the case), will have to speak to the loss of representation and voice in national decisioning. On the flip side of that is the continuance of giving under the apportionment strategy, and see the dollars applied to further the progressive strategies. My prayers are with all of the brave insiders, and well as with those of us who as continuing on down the outside strategy as well. May our roads rejoin somewhere further on.

[118] Posted by masternav on 11-18-2008 at 08:34 PM • top

“Most in CP do not believe that anything GC does need affect them. We concur.”

Hmmm.  Interesting comment.  At one time, many churches did not believe that the Dennis Canon would affect them. 

And then there is this.

rolleyes

[119] Posted by tired on 11-18-2008 at 08:50 PM • top

#26

Jessie, thank you for your comment #25. In particular for reminding us that this is not a time for celebration. That Bishops Duncan, Iker etc. have been forced to take this step; that the Episcopal Church is no longer something that they can be a part of is in itself and must be a profound grief, and not just for us, but for God; and, of course, for those who they leave behind.

This occasion has been bittersweet.  It is heartbreaking to be forced to take this kind of action, yet we are joyful that we will no longer be “linked” to The Episcopal Church, for its remaining leaders have scandalized the church.

#30

How can you raise/protect you “child” in the atmoshpere of incorrect imformation?....there is no way to salvation but through Christ and to teach anything else to to condemn the child to an ethenity without Christ.

Jessie, you may practice the faith once delivered, but if you have children or grandchildren and live twenty more years, you will not even recognize the theology they will be taught or the liturgy they may practice.
#82

I suspect you are going to have to give us a bit of time to get up to speed with this as it is all rather new and we tend to be a bit behind with developments.

We have been 40 years (plus) in the desert.  It is not really new.  When many like Jessie find out that TEC is going to try to pass a canon that will require ALL churches within it to turn their property rights to TEC perhaps they will understand what has been happening. The unfortunate part is that they will not understand that concerns about property are minuscule and only a symptom compared with the destruction of the Gospel.  Many still do not understand the underlying destruction of the faith by their Presiding Bishop and many of their Bishops who have remained in TEC.  It has become nothing more than a social justice organization that does not recognize the Lordship of the Trinity.

[120] Posted by Gigs Girl on 11-18-2008 at 08:57 PM • top

I am happy to see those like +Howe (CFL) stay and fight the good fight from within the existing structure.

I am happy to see those like +Iker knock the dust and move on.

Didn’t Peter go to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles?  Some might think the ‘insider plan’ (Conversion of the Jews) failed.  Others may point to the way they remained faithful to the Old Covenant and the New until such time as the Old become impossible (AD70), and that many of God’s Chosen were shown the true light by their faithful actions.

We need not think of this as an ‘either or’ situation.  Sometimes God says ‘Yes, Both!’.

The Communion is among the people, and Bishops and the Church, it is not actually among the “organizations”.  +Howe remains in communion with Duncan and he with Iker, can we not be supportive of all the fine Bishops?

[121] Posted by Bo on 11-18-2008 at 09:06 PM • top

#121 Bo - I like your thoughts. 
I wonder if we need a new vocabulary - I don’t think there can be an “inside strategy” - only an inside witness or approach.  And I think it is necessary… along with an outside strategy.
No, the inside witness did not produce a thriving “Jewish Christian” church - but it gave us the wonderful insights into Christ found in the Letter to the Hebrews.  Plenty of testimony to Christ to be discovered by those enduring in TEC… and by those realigning with the vital, global Anglican entities.

[122] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 11-18-2008 at 09:15 PM • top

Oh, one other thing for both the insiders and the outsiders to worry about:  Mobility and demographic shift.  Dioceses are not sealed tight boxes.  People leave and move in all the time.  People join churches, become laity, elect vestries and convention delegates, etc.  What is to prevent liberals moving in, or conservatives moving out?  Nothing.  You can’t be assured that the theological makeup of your base community is going to remain the same, especially if most Episcopalians moving in from elsewhere have a very different idea of what TEC is all about.

No parish is an island.

[123] Posted by AndrewA on 11-18-2008 at 09:29 PM • top

As an outsider (see post 25 Jessie) I agree with those who see that there is the potential, esp. in years to come, for much cross over.  The question what will my children/grandchildren etc. be learning in years to come…what will the theology look like then?  That is a lot to think about!  I so appreciate the posts from “Good Wise Murphy” #34 and #73…and “our eyes are open three” (39) and most of all the kind words of the “Modest Mystic” (79).  We don’t all agree but I learn much from you all, the things you say AND THE WAY YOU HAVE CHOSEN TO SAY THEM.  I thank you for that and I truly feel that if we were all able to talk openly with love and respect for eachother about those differences we would have more common ground than we even know…perhaps the healing that needs to take place around the world is something that will be left to our children etc.  but I am also not so sure that some healing can’t take place on a blog such as this smile

[124] Posted by jessie on 11-18-2008 at 10:24 PM • top

“Most in CP do not believe that anything GC does need affect them. We concur.”

That is like my local Chevrolet dealership asserting that it is unaffected by GM’s looming bankruptcy and poor car line up.I believe some have a special call to remain, but that contention strikes me as preposterous.

[125] Posted by Going Home on 11-19-2008 at 02:19 AM • top

Most in CP do not believe that anything GC does need affect them. We concur.

The more I look at this, the more troubled I am.  Is the “inside strategy” really a “strategy” or is is a “head in the sand” approach?  If Seitz was saying that they have plans in the work for how to defeat unfavorable actions by GenCon2009, that they are organizing workshops to teach people how to counter Integrity’s activism, that they are looking at ways to get more conservative canditates for vestries elected, or that they have ideas as to how to purge the liberal rot from the seminaries, that is something I could buy into.

But instead what I am hearing in the quoted statement is “The problems of others are not our concern” or “As long as it isn’t going on in my parish I don’t care what the rest of the denomination does”.

[126] Posted by AndrewA on 11-19-2008 at 08:08 AM • top

AndrewA,
I can only guess at this as leaver but perhaps the inside strategy is to preserve islands of safety until the storm passes.  I don’t believe the outsiders should even concern themselves with TEC but focus on creating a new continent (province) of safety and orthodoxy. It is either brighten the corner where you are or come ye out from among them. I think each call is still legitimate. I am uncertain how either strategy has affected the course of TEC in the short run or will affect it in the long run. What I am now convinced of is the disrespect and infighting between the leavers and stayers is counterproductive and damaging to each group.

[127] Posted by Fr. Dale on 11-19-2008 at 08:55 AM • top

Dcn Dale, see 110 for my motivations.  It is my intent to challenge what seem to be weak assertions by either side, such as “TEC can’t do anything to us” by insiders asserting they can maintain orthodoxy in isolation without a stragegy to change the entire denomination for the better, or by outsiders that talk as if they are taking for granted that they can win property lawsuits or that they can bankrupt TEC faster than TEC can bankrupt them.

[128] Posted by AndrewA on 11-19-2008 at 10:10 AM • top

Dear Jessie, I am Good Miss Murphy, not “Wise.”  Sorry I can’t quite claim “wise.”  Good Miss Murphy comes from my mishearing the 23rd psalm as a child “Surely Good Miss Murphy shall follow me all the days of my life.”  I figured since I can’t get rid of her I might as well claim her.

Thank you for understanding the “good ole boys” issue.  It hearkens back to days of the KKK, etc.  Anyway, that aside, in all your posts I hear the real sadness there at your beloved church splitting asunder.  And sadness can bring on anger and bitterness, which I think are easier to live with than the melancholy.  I know that I was once a member of church that split.  This was about 2005.  It was once a lively place, lovely church, strong prayer life, good people.  85% left to form an Anglican church.  I continued on and the services were just pitiful.  And I mean to be pitied, because they folks had done nothing wrong.  They attempted to act “as if” nothing had happened, hosting the same yearly events that nobody came to.  We eventually stopped going not out of theological reasons (at that time I was not aware of the inner workings of TEC that at this point I don’t care for) but because there were no children in the nursery and no more Bible study.  We remained unchurched and then found a different new Anglican congregation where we are quite happy in what has become a blessed renewal.  We are fortunate down here in the Bible Belt to have a lot of choices now.  But I have heard the echoes in the pews and heard the priest say “Y’all move on up closer, please” and it was just so very sad.  While I will continue to rejoice at the reallignment that I see happening, I have been made re-aware, through your posts, that there is pain.  I once went through a period of extreme loss and my counselor told me that according to Jung, “There can be no change without pain.”

There are obviously good people of varying opinions regarding the issues and I am far from a theologian, but wow, you can get that on here for sure!  It just seems to me good sense that right now we should agree to walk separate paths in order to walk peacefully.

I know you hear folks ruminating about how awful it is going to be for TEC, how the church will be eroded away to nothing in a generation, and there is more to that prediction than spitefulness.  I think that when you leave your childhood’s church, you want to know for certain you have done the right thing; that you had no choice.  The concept of just kind of sliding into the Anglican church (the new province that is) and never missing a beat is comfortable and comforting in its denial.  If TEC were to just go away, I think many of us believe somehow we could pretend the whole mess never happened.  As if.

[129] Posted by GoodMissMurphy on 11-19-2008 at 11:26 AM • top

My family and I at one point had to leave our church because it was obviously going down a revisionist path. Sometimes we don’t see, but others do. I try to explain to orthodox people who are still in TEC, you may think you are orthodox but the world sees you differently. Unless you believe what TEC teaches, why would you join a TEC church if you have kids? There are more options now, and kids can get a solid foundation of what Scripture means.
It was painful to leave, but TEC, spiritually, was killing my family.

[130] Posted by martin5 on 11-19-2008 at 01:16 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.