Total visitors right now: 99

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

ACNA: Carnival of the Blog Reactions

Thursday, December 4, 2008 • 9:37 am

Here are some of the reactions from around Anglican blogland to the birth of ACNA yesterday:

Hills of the North: Nyanna-nyanna-naah-naah.

Yips: The Morning After.

Wannabe feels good, with some minor qualifications.

CJ on the birthday

Plains: Shock and outrage.

12 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook

My friend M.B. Hwang has an interesting first-hand account of last night’s worship service that I have posted on my own blog for her. Read it at

[1] Posted by texanglican on 12-04-2008 at 10:52 AM • top


Thanks for adding that - I missed it in my surfing this morning.

[2] Posted by Greg Griffith on 12-04-2008 at 10:59 AM • top

I didn’t know I was in a carnival. wink

[3] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 12-04-2008 at 11:22 AM • top

Jim Naughton remarked that this new group:

“does not have much of a future because there are already a lot of churches in the United States for people who don’t want to worship with gays and lesbians.”

This is hilarious. The TEO wants to be the gay church. Someone needs to tell Mr. Naughton that there is already a gay church, the metropolitan church. It has a membership of ~50,000. When all is said and done, the TEO will have 25,000 and the metropolitan church will have 25,000 (unless they can evangelize the homosexual community).

[4] Posted by robroy on 12-04-2008 at 10:16 PM • top

For the record, this progressive makes it clear by spoken announcement and by a bulletin note that “All baptized Christians are invited to the Holy Table to receive Communion.”

I’m one of the people who thinks there may be merits in open communion (and theological and scriptural warrants). But until canons are changed, I for one will follow the ones we have. Just wanted to let you know that not all of lefties are anarchists.  grin

Maybe someday you’ll let me into the secret volcano for a tour.


[5] Posted by Scott Gunn on 12-04-2008 at 11:11 PM • top

Oops, sorry, I posted comment #5 in the wrong thread. Too many tabs open in firefox. It belonged over in the DioCFL communion thread, obviously. My apologies.

Clearly, this means my invitation to the volcano lair won’t be forthcoming.


[6] Posted by Scott Gunn on 12-04-2008 at 11:15 PM • top

Fr Scott,

If you think there is value in the sacrament of communion, just think how much more beneficial communion of relationship with the Lord of the Universe would be for those individuals for whom you care so highly.

[7] Posted by Fidela on 12-04-2008 at 11:15 PM • top

Another blog reaction: Stephen Noll+ has a piece in Anglican Mainstream. A couple of excerpts:

Most of these leaders were successful parish priests who in a better world would have been bishops in TEC. Most of them, even the Anglo-Catholics, have a strong commitment to church growth and world evangelization. Many of them and their congregations have made hard choices to leave their property behind and start over. They are risk-takers. And above all, they really do believe in the grace of God working through His Church.

Would they like recognition by the “Instruments” of the Communion? Sure. Do they consider that such recognition is the only means of recognition? No, they do not. Are they willing to wait for full and final recognition in a reformed Communion? You bet.

[8] Posted by robroy on 12-05-2008 at 05:24 AM • top

robroy (#8),

THANKS for calling our attention to that marvelous, short piece by Dr. Noll over at Anglican Mainstream.  I think it’s admirable in every way.  As so often, Dr. Noll has hit the nail directly on the head.

Greg, or whoever in leadership at SF is monitoring this thread and sees this appeal first, may I suggest that Dr. Noll’s excellent analysis be given its own thread?  It richly deserves it.  I think it’s very illuminating and helpful, especially since it’s so concise.  Please post Dr. Noll’s article here at SF.

Hats off to you again, robroy.  There couldn’t be a finer guy as President of the elite NRAFC.

David Handy+

[9] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 12-05-2008 at 06:26 AM • top

Actually Dr Noll had posted it here on SF - I noticed.

[10] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 12-05-2008 at 06:59 AM • top

Thanks, Pageantmaster (#10), you’re right.

But I stand by the request I made earlier.  I think the WHOLE article should be posted here at SF, and highlighted by having it’s own thread.

But you’ve shown us all how good your memory is and how carefully you’re following everything here in the States.

David Handy+

[11] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 12-05-2008 at 07:41 AM • top


In reporting the prospective emergence of a new Anglican Province in North America, the New York Times seemed (not surprisingly!) to interpret this development as having been prompted by a combination of sex and schism.  On the contrary, every Sunday all sorts and conditions of sinners – regardless of sexual orientation – both liberal and conservative, members and former members of the Episcopal Church, seek to be faithful in worship according to the Anglican tradition.  What unites or divides us is neither sexual nor denominational identity.  The unresolved question for us all is not whether any of us do or do not “want to worship with gays and lesbians” (as quoted in the New York Times) but whether or not the Episcopal Church as such still teaches a biblical view about how everyone’s human brokenness needs to be healed by God’s redemption through our repentance.  If that is not what the Episcopal Church forthrightly teaches, it is no longer Christian.

[12] Posted by William McKeachie on 12-05-2008 at 12:58 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.