ACI’s Proposal for an Interim Arrangement While Awaiting a Conciliar Communion Covenant

If they don’t know how to spell ‘interim’ I’m not sure how well they’d run a church.

This is an interesting proposal with much to applaud.  Things to applaud would include:

The creation of a college of bishops and dioceses that are recognized as a separate entity within the Communion.

The recognition that not all dioceses in or out of the college are uniform in their desire to remain in TEC or not and the provision for those who differ from their diocesan leadership.

However there are aspects of this that sound like the authors are not living in reality:

The expectation that those who wish separation or have achieved it should continue funding the very group they wish to leave.  In other words, faithful money should go to help fund apostasy.  This is not wise nor Scripturally sound.

The expectation that all property issues will be put off until the Covenant issue is decided.  This has an advantage for those small parishes who will get run over and lose their property to their diocese, but it also holds all faithful parishes hostage until the Covenant process is completed.  As we all know the passage of time is not healthy for faithful parishes as the faithful people soon vote with their feet and wallets.  Net effect of this is capitulation of all property issues to TEC in the long run.

Finally, the tension between these two paragraphs is palpable:

As far as possible, a means should be found for TEC to avoid any irrevocable realignment through the creation of a new province until it decides on the covenant. If this is done precipitously then it risks not only causing division among the different orthodox groupings noted above (1-4) but also causing other parts of the Communion to fragment in response to such a situation in the US rather than focusing on their response to the covenant. However, given the actions of GC 2003 and 2006 some form of movement towards a provisional form of such a “constituent”/“associate” distinction is probably now required within TEC.

The response needs, as far as possible, to address all 4 of the areas noted above in a coherent manner that produces some form of unity and order and establishes a recognizable body of Anglican believers committed to Communion teaching and discipline (a “separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA” in the words of Kigali) in contrast to the position taken by GC 2003 and 2006 and other dioceses (some most recently rejecting even the tentative moves of GC 2006 eg on some form of moratorium). Such a response must itself therefore seek to respect the ongoing Communion processes of common counsel or else it will cut off the very branch it claims to be sitting on.

I don’t see how you avoid realignment while at the same creating a body that is recognizable as being faithful to Communion teaching and discipline.  This gives new meaning to “living into the tension of being Episcopalian.”  I’m sure that some of what I have just written is flawed.  These are my quick thoughts and two pennies worth.

Postulant.

That was my fault. I transcribed the title from capital letters in posting it on Stand Firm and must have overlooked the spelling. Don’t blame the ACI. I’ll change it.

Prescription for delay, obfuscation, and a continuation of the death by a thousand cuts.

Not one red cent ought ever to go from the pocket of a believer to an ecclesial organization actively leading people deeper into sin and away from Christ. The suggestion is somewhat appalling.

This is a non-starter. TEC is a house irreconcilably divided, and a house divided against itself can not stand. In any case, any covenant acceptable to the orthodox has not a ghost of a chance of being accepted by TEC. Worse yet, it leaves the orthodox dioceses and parishes still chained in, and financially supporting, the house of cards that is TEC. The “stark choice” that is to be carefully avoided, is, on the contrary, the choice that needs to be made, as soon as possible. The only point in establishing the “college of bishops” would be to facilitate the immediate creation of the new province. It would be a great idea, were it done with that objective. The proposal ignores the very thing that has caused all the problems to start with:  TEC (and all groups who agree with it) is an apostate, non-Christian, heretic, former church turned cult (harsh words, I know, but is there any orthodox believer who will disagree with them?) and the Word of God clearly teaches that we are to disassociate ourselves from such false teachers. The ACI still does not understand, or seems not to understand, that the yawning gulf dividing TEC is not just about homosexuality, but is about the fundamental beliefs of Christianity. Anything that delays that disassociation longer is not good. This is merely the same old delay, delay, delay given a new coat. The Church, and the Communion, if it wants to remain relevant, cannot continue to remain yoked in tandem with apostate unbelievers. The sooner the clean break comes, the better. Read Sarah’s posts, she is right-if the Communion does not choose to cleanse itself, and soon, not spending the next three, or ten, years in wrangling over a covenant that has the chance of a proverbial snowball in you know where of being accepted by all parties, it will cease to have any meaning or relevance to the Church of Jesus Christ. Look to the ancient Councils of the Church:  When a heretical group repeatedly refused the call to repent, the Councils had no hesitation in breaking all ties with that group. The Primates Meeting is the closest thing Anglicanism has to the ancient Councils, at least in power: It must act, and soon. I do not think we can afford to wait until Lambeth 2008 for this, nor do I think it an appropriate forum. It was agreed to wait until GC2006 for TEC to speak, because the Presiding Bishop said he could not bind TEC; GC2006 has now spoken, loudly, NO! What more do we need to wait for? In a case like this, I personally believe, when the appropriate action is taken (I hope), it might not be inappropriate to revive the ancient excommunication service of the Undivided Church (yes, I think it is that serious). It would be one way for the modern Church to dramatically underscore, to the whole world, that the modern Church is finally going to take a stand for what it says it believes and say to the world: NO MORE!

cannyscot

Matt, this proposal seems to follow the logic of a good lawyer trying to respond to the reality of marital rupture, in which a period of publically acknowledged and affirmed separation is prescribed that seeks to leave open the possibility of reunion.  It’s in that sense that the continued funding concept has at least an analogue. It is common to insist that the partners maintain existing sustenance of each other as a way of comfirming both the possibility and the commitment to the quest for reunion.

Your description of that as ‘funding apostasy’ is understandable, consistent with your body of work on this issue, and I don’t wish to challenge your conclusion.  But their proposal seems not to presume that the final judgment of the discernment process will be ‘apostasy,’ although we know from their other writings that the ACI fellows embrace the Communion’s current stance on the issue of sexuality.  I suggest that their restraint is consistent with the theological concept that resonates throughout ACI writings, Rowan’s writings,  and in the Windsor report: the covenant’s foundational idea that we discern truth only in communion.  If we really believe that, if we are really committed to an understanding of Anglicanism as described in Windsor A & B and affirmed at Dromantine (para 8), then our trust in that theological commitment ought to allow us to refrain from prematurely assigning a final judgment until the instruments of unity complete their discernment.  I know that is not a popular view here, especially because it tries our patience.  But that seems to me the logic that underlies this whole proposal.  It tries not to foreclose the possibility of healing before the anticipated benefits of the covenant become a reality.  It’s triage. And it’s theologically consistent with the idea of mutual subjection in communion the way to truth, per Windsor.

My own sense is that the ACI has described fairly accurately what is already in motion, but that the ship most likely has already sailed….The breach is already complete in fact, and now we’re just waiting for the new Anglican church in North America to be born….perhaps a February birthdate? But the baby will look a lot like this….

Matt,
With regard to the tension you highlighted, it seems to me that the whole Camp Allen process can be seen in retrospect as the effort to create that college of bishops described here who would remain within TEC but be recognized as a separate ecclesial structure by the Primates.  I think a key concept here is the presumption that all that is done is “ad hoc” (to quote a piece by Dr. Radner that preceded Camp Allen.  That is, all that is done is understood to be provisional until the permanent re-ordering happens through the outworking of the covenant process.

And I agree with your pessimism on the property issues.  It is an interesting idea, but it is difficult for me to imagine that kind of restraint holding, particularly with the recent threatening actions by the new regime towards the leading dioceses of ACN.

If the proposal concerning money and financial support of diocesan and national administration were truly about waiting for discernment from those charged with establishing and preserving the unity of the Communion, why not let the money go into a trust fund to be given with interest to whichever side the parish lines up with after the discernment/realignment is complete?  Even in divorce cases the common property and funds are held in trust until the judge makes final decisions.

Parishes that wish to realign away from whichever grouping they are currently under still maintain the discipline of giving, but are not expected to give to an organization that they cannot support nor with whom they are theologically aligned.  This works for reasserters leaving reappraising dioceses and reappraising parishes leaving reasserting dioceses.  Parishes that aren’t seeking to realign away from their diocesan and national leadership will still support those leaders.

Unfortunately that is not what the ACI is proposing.  They are flat out telling both sides to pay up and financially give to causes and organizations that are working against their beliefs and convictions.  That’s like buying bullets for the guy who is shooting at your kids.

Rom, I did not mean to suggest that the giving was tied to the discernment of the Communion in quite the direct way you inferred. Mea culpa.  I was suggesting that the maintenance of ongoing obligations of support is something one does during a period of separation in which one wants to preserve hope for reunion.  I did not mean to suggest that the funding idea was dependent on the ultimate judgment of the instruments of unity.

My comment about the discernment of the instruments of unity per Windsor was connected with the word ‘apostasy.’  We know empirically that the majority of the primates agree with Matt’s use of the term, but I think their greatest commitment is to a way of being Anglican that seeks to read Scripture together in a particular way when we grapple with issues like homoeroticism today and similarly complex issues in the future.  That way of discerning the will of God through Scripture is rooted in the theological premise that we only recognize truth through mutual subjection to each other in communion, like washing each other’s feet.  Dromatine and Windsor says that way of seeking truth is central to Anglicanism, and they invite us to walk with that way of being Anglican or to walk apart. The covenant is aimed at committing us all to that over perhaps a ten year period.  So, if we conservatives and orthodox truly believe in that theological premise, we ought to have no anxiety about surrendering to that process, and leaving judgments about truth on the issues that divide us to our instruments of unity. At least it seems to me that that is one of the underlying premises of the ACI proposal.  And based on that premise, it seeks to create space for TEC and the emerging Anglican presence in North America (ACN et al) to walk separately from each other while we as a Communion work thru the lengthy covenant process, without foreclosing the possibility of a reunion.  The reason, I suggest, is that the covenant will naturally re-align us, and we want to save as many of the flock as possible for that time.  There will be many in TEC who won’t be able to subject themselves to the covenant way of being because it means trusting Global South brothers and sisters not to roll back what they perceive as social justice progress warranted by the example of Christ.  They’ll opt out on their own, producing a realignment that will cut across geographic lines.  So the ACI proposal, I think, is aimed at maximizing the number of faithful Christians who stay connected to the vine as long as possible until that more natural realignment happens.

Craig,

I happen to think the Covenant idea is a good one and I’m doing my best to wait it out and see how it shapes up.  The problem with the timeframe is most of the organizers and framers of the Covenant will most likely not be around to finish the job in ten years.  As with any leadership change this will extend the process longer as new leaders implement their own changes to the document.

That said, I think the division/realignment that we are currently seeing and have seen IS a natural realignment.  I’ve been in leadership in churches all over the world in one way or another for almost 20 years as God moved me and my family around.  I’ve seen several church/parish splits in that time and been a part of one.

I’ve never seen one happen that shouldn’t have happened earlier, but everyone kept hanging around trying make unity out of a situation that had no unity to be found.  Everyone of those splits was like Lincoln’s words about reading the same Bible and believing the same God but fighting over it all the same with a bloodthirstiness that rivalled the Civil War.

The other thing I learned watching some of those splits happen was that healthy organisms divide.  Division always leads to multiplication for healthy living organisms.  It strengthens the organism by increasing the amount of healthy material.  That’s true in the world microbiology and I think its true in the world of the Church.

Whenever an organism fails to divide and grow, it inevitably dies.  TEC is trying to hang on to itself and is dying.  Its cellular structure has grown incompatible and needs to separate to keep going.  Our unity should be based on our DNA but each side sees the other as having altered DNA, a mutation if you will.  In ten years, the mutations will have destroyed each other if healthy separation does not come sooner.  That’s not pessimistic, that’s life unless someone intervenes with appropriate medical attention.

Rom,
Well said.  What you have described wonderfully is what I would call a mixture of realism and free church theology, which most of us who are cradle Americans have been indoctrinated into because it has been the way of American protestants since just after the Revolutionary War.  Schism seems natural to us because that is all we know - our form of Christianity has been democratized and marketized.  And we also have all these models in life that support the theories of growth by division, just as you point out with your allusion to microbiology.

When i observe the reality you describe, i struggle with our creedal confession of one holy catholic church.  it is a present reality only in the same sense that evil has been conquered with the death and resurrection of the Christ - it is both ‘now’ and ‘not yet’... But we are to be pressing forward to the ‘not yet,’ which means our vision must be of becoming one united body of Christ.  We have to do all in our power to keep the flock together so when Christ asks us where all of the sheep entrusted to us are, we don’t stutter something like, “Well, Jesus, I left those you mentioned just now behind because they were sinners; it was unbearable for me to have them near me.”  Catholicity means striving to live in the unity in Christ in spite of all the things that make it so hard.  I think this commitment to catholicity is what animates the ACI proposal.  I don’t in any way suggest that catholicity is rational or practical.  i only claim it’s part of faithfulness.

Craig,

I’m not sure that I used the word apostasy, but I certainly think it applies. I think we will end up disagreeing with on another on this. The give and take above regarding the proper “meantime” strategy is consistent with the catholic/evangelical ecclesiological divide I wrote about here:

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/ecclesiology_the_achilles_heel_of_orthodox_anglicanism/

We disagree because we understand the words Church and catholicity very differently

Yeah, Matt, i remember that article.  As i recall, you spoke of funding apostasy.  Note that I don’t dispute that characterization.  I merely point out that, if we embrace the understandings of ecclesiology and Church that are in the Windsor Report and Dromantine, we delay judgment, because they both use the understandings of Church and ecclesiology that I have hinted at here.

Craig,

I believe there are several difficulties with this proposal. But chiefly, I do not think it right for believers to fund, in even a limited way, an ecclesial organization that actively leads people deeper into sin and further away from Christ.

I understand that this ultimately boils down to the question of what it means to be catholic. Since TEC as an institution remains, for the moment, a full member of the Anglican Communion it is still part of the church catholic.

However, if our definition of catholicity permits funding an organization that causes deadly spiritual harm, then let me suggest that there is something wrong with our definition.

“Yet Another Interim Solution” however it’s particular operational intricacies are described, will not be acceptable for many of us. If our parishes or dioceses do not disconnect from TEC’s apostasy, we will do so as individuals and families. I can, of course, only commit “for me and my household”, but if our congregation does not disconnect from TEC’s apostate leadership, we will. Although diocesan issues of realignment are different from congregational realignment in many details, it is not fundamentally different in kind - separation from apostasy. Again, I cannot speak with any certainty beyond my own household, but my expectation is that any orthodox diocese that stays indefinitely attached to the TEC apostate leadership, even with any flavor of interim solution, will shrink and die due to the individual departure of orthodox households and even orthodox congregations.

Incidentally, I have intentionally not used the T19 characterizations of reappraiser and reasserter. I and my household are not re-doing anything. Since my conversion in 1976, I have always been orthodox in my beliefs, so I am not reasserting anything. I am merely continuing to assert the faith and doctrine that I have asserted since I became a Christian. And I find that describing the current TEC leadership as “reappraisers” is much too ambiguous. They are apostate, as has been well documented for KJS on this forum.

Matt,
I am not endorsing the continued funding idea, but simply trying to contemplate how reasonable persons, like the ACI fellows, might have viewed it.  So my comments have been aimed at “understanding the other” so that there is a basis of fruitful engagement.  I imagine many to whom this proposal was sent would have responded similarly to us for whom that feature of the proposal stands out as problematic. 

I wonder if you are aware of the history of this document.  I am inferring, from its close fit with the Camp Allen chronology and subsequent statements of our leaders, that this document was formulated perhaps in August or early September, and that it has influenced some of the strategy executed before and after Camp Allen.  So, given that inference, I presume that we are beginning to see it’s more hopeful assumptions unraveling already, particularly in light of the recent more aggressive interactions between our leaders and 815.  Since ACI gave this to you, did they say whether or not this is a recent proposal, or might my inference be in the ballpark?

Craig,

Good and fascinating question. I was not told when it was written. It was sent last night. I asked whether it could be published. I was given to understand that sooner would be better than later.

This is the weakest thing I’ve read from ACI.  The only thing new here is the idea that faithful dioceses and parishes agree to pay protection money to ECUSA.  That’s a non-starter, especially since “continue to give” misunderstands that, in many cases, the money got cut off after GC03.  The reality is “restart,” and that would be after three years of ECUSA’s worst abuses.  I’m not sure how they let such an inane idea get out the door, frankly.

As to the rest of it, substitute “Network” for “College:” been there, done that.  The structure is in place, and what ACI proposes is exactly what the ACN has been trying to do for three years.  Unfortunately, we already know ECUSA’s answer to that, and, as far as negotiating with “TEC-815-HOB,” well, read the newspapers over the last couple of days.  ECUSA thinks good faith is negotiating with itself.

Hanging our hats on some future covenant is foolish, which is demonstrated by the expectation that the process will take years or even a decade, despite mountains of historical sources on Anglican belief and real-time global communication.  On this timescale, there won’t be any faithful Christians left in ECUSA by the time it’s all over, and/or ECUSA will have fatally corrupted the whole covenant.  And, if it hasn’t succeeded at that, it will just vote to approve it anyway, with every intention of ignoring every last word.  Since when has honesty been a hallmark of this organization?

Sarah Hey is right: ECUSA must be seriously disciplined, in the very near future, or those remaining are just playing Charlie Brown to ECUSA’s Lucy.  Only from this point of consequences, and not talk, can ECUSA make a real decision whether it intends to reform itself to be a faithful member of the Anglican Communion, or decisively move off into Unitarian Universalism.

This proposal is DOA for me.  Sorry ACI, but a split is inevitable in February.  Start working on solutions to bring that about.  The interim solution is complete separation from ECUSA with true APO no later than February.  The final solution is a new North American Anglican Church with its own primate at Lambeth 08.  February is the drop dead that I am giving the ACN, AAC, ACI, primates and AbC.  If something serious is not done then.  I’m gone.  It is about time the ACI and AbC start waking up to the reality that any solution that leaves “us” in communion with “them” is unacceptable.  Ecumenical dialog with ECUSA is over and can resume once they show signs of repentance and not before. 

Here, here, Spencer.  I concur.  February, hopefull will be the birthday of a new Communion.

A few points with respect to the ACI proposal:

1. Property issues - The proposal says that “issues of property should be put on hold until such final resolution is accomplished (through reconciliation or major realignment).” We know that reconciliation won’t happen, so the real question is what would be the effect of this proposal on property issues when the realignment happens in 2-5 years from now.  Folks - although this proposal says that property issues will be put on hold, this very agreement will - I believe - significantly improve the legal outlook for orthodox parishes in hostile TEC dioceses.  Think of it - TEC’s legal argument is not based on title deeds (in most cases) but on the Dennis Canon.  The Dennis Canon depends on TEC being considered a heirarchical church and as the ONLY heirarchical body with jurisdiction.  Under this proposal, though, TEC is agreeing that it is not that.  I might be wrong, but this proposal would certainly weaken any Dennis Canon claim TEC might have.

2. The issue of payment to TEC.  Yes, this is a troubling aspect.  But, let’s be honest, the concept of paying Danegeld to buy temporary respite from violence is not new.  The money would NOT be buying TEC’s legitimacy, on the contrary, it would be buying TEC’s eventual expulsion from the Anglican Communion.  It would be buying the orderly withdrawl of faithful people, parishes and clergy from TEC.
If your boat full of people was sinking and a Nazi warship pulled alongside and offered to rescue your people for relatively modest fee, would you pay it?  You probably would.  Especially if, unknown to the Nazis, you had aboard your ship the Allies’ master spy whose survival would virtually assure the Nazi defeat.  I see the ACI proposal as the same thing. 

The ACI proposal virtually ensures a continued unified orthodox Anglican presence in North America and the eventual expulsion of TEC.  It purports to say nothing about property, but would appear to set some serious precedent that would undercut the Dennis Canon.  Money flowing to TEC under this deal would represent payment for TEC’s eventual disappearance.  Not perfect, but I think it would get the job done.

“Those provinces currently “holding” departed parishes (ie group (4)) would need to give the college their full support and transfer their parishes to the college for them to exercise jurisdiction and arrange oversight in the manner described above. They would refuse to “receive” any other parishes and instead direct them to affiliation with the college.”

I’m not convinced that they have investigated the legal implications.  Will such a college be fully independent of the canons of TEC?  Who in TEC is authorized to “waive” application of the canons? 

If the college is a separate association/corporation - it appears more like the new entity that ACI is seeking to avoid. 

At any rate, a more reasonable arrangement for group 4 is to use FACA or a similar structure into which such parishes (including CANA and AMiA) could be placed pending resolution of the status of those within TEC.  Otherwise, if the college is subject to the canons of TEC, then each entity returning to TEC via the college would be required to create a legal structure to avoid application of the canons.  For example, a church in California may have to transfer its property and staff to a separate non-profit corporation to avoid subjecting the property to the canons of TEC.  For those churches that have left, what does it look like to return, subjecting itself to the canons?  That is not evidence I would create lightly.

Further, some states have laws addressing church splits.  I would suggest analysis of such laws prior to effecting such a proposal; it is possible that this could greatly prejudice such churches under those statutes (e.g., vitiating the definition of a split under the statute.)

...my 2 cents…

I disagree that this is the best alternative for the orthodox. 
There have already been several instances of conservative congregations leaving conservative dioceses because the diocese was either reluctant or too slow to take definitive action. 

If a clean separation and APO is not accomplished in February, then I believe you will see the cohesion of the orthodox split.  It is possible and perhaps likely that some dioceses like Ft Worth and San Joaquin might leave as a unit and join AMiA or Martyn Minns, while the remaining ACN might split parish by parish.  Many orthodox will just get fed up with ACN letting them down once more, and so will leave individually for other folds.  The parishes that leave could easily also become affiliated with these other “extra-Anglican” groups.  Individuals who leave could form their own church plants and make the same affiliation. 

If that happens, and it is very credible scenario, there will be parallel jurisdictions, only they will be between orthodox who are “in” and orthodox who are “out”.  Do I need to remind anyone that this scenario has already been played out before?  Something to think long and hard about… 

This will only further aggravate the Common Cause to the point that there will very likely never be a unified Anglican church in North America again.  Some may not agree, but it is certainly a plausible scenario. 

All I can tell you is that come February, one way or another, I will not be “yoked” to the apostate ECUSA.  I hope I have an Anglican expression to remain in; if not, there are other flocks.  For me, this plan is totally DOA.  For me, clear separation by February is non-negotiable. Period.  I am not alone in feeling this way.  This fact makes my scenario very plausible and therefore IMHO makes the ACI proposal the absolute worse thing that the orthodox could do. 

By now, it should be intuitively obvious for even most dense minded that any sort of an “inside-strategy” is utterly doomed.  One would think the bright minds at ACI could see this.

Following up on Matt’s comment regarding paying tribute to TEC, here the words of the late Lee Buck: “Some parishes which claim to be “orthodox” are still sending money to a Diocese which espouses something other than the gospel of Jesus Christ. Without equivocation, this means that these parishes are funding revisionism, the denigration of scripture, and often outright heresy. Please think about that statement for a moment. If your children were being led astray by a man who is a sexual pervert, would you knowingly send money to that man for his living expenses? Frankly, the “old man” inside of me, who went into two shooting wars would rise up, and I would do something which would be violent and tragic. Dear ones, the life we live here is short and often tenuous, but the day is coming when we must stand before a Judge who will separate the sheep from the goats. Do you believe that? I do, because my scriptures tell me it is so.  Those of us who are believers must stand for what we believe and that belief centers around the Word of God. That courage or lack of it will one day be on trial. ”

Dave G, I agree.

Before I went with a new Anglican parish, I went through all the derivations regarding Diocisian funding; “earmarking pledges”, working with my parish to “earmark” or otherwise limit Diocisian funding, etc.  For a while I felt better by earmarking a contributions to my parish, but becasue money is fungible I knew as long as I was contributing money to a parish that is, in turn, contributing money to the Diocese, I was simply displacing funds that were then availble to fund Diocisian pledge. The same held true for “earmarked” giving from my parish to a Diocese.

The only way to be faithful was for my parish to eliminate Diocisian giving and give directly to the supported ministries from the parish without coordination with the Diocese (and therefore relieving it from its funding obligation thus freeing up money for it to send to 815).  For most parishes, certainly the large ones, such an absolute cut off can only be sustained as an interim step.  Do it, and you better be prepared to leave.

For me, I was convicted never to send another penny to the denomination, directly or indirectly, when I saw the Episocpal Church leaders in DC marching near the White House against a ban against late term, live birth abortions.  I realized there was blood on my hands.

Folks - there is always room to fine tune this.  In the Diocese of Northern California, there is an agreement that parishioners can designate their parish pledges as “conscience restricted.”  When parishes figure out the apportionment payable to the diocese, they figure first, the apportionment on non-restricted pledges.  That amount is taxed to the diocese as usual.  Then they figure what the apportionment would be on restricted pledges.  That money is then sent (with diocesan approval) to one of a mutually agreed upon list of Anglican ministries (including Trinity and Nashotah seminaries, the Church of Uganda and others).  This agreement allows me to give to my parish, but be assured that my gift will NOT be used as the basis for calculating apportionment to fund the diocese or TEC.

There is no reason at all why there couldn’t be an agreement directing that apportionment money going from the College to TEC be limited to specific ministries.

I agree with Matt though, that the best solution would be to keep the money payments out of it.

Craig, I appreciate your desire for catholicity as it is my desire as well.  I wholeheartedly affirm and believe in one holy, catholic church.

The problem is TEC is might not be holy anymore with its promulgation of same-sex blessings, marriages or hooking up.  It most certainly could not claim holiness (at least to many others who affirm the teachings of the holy, catholic church) as it affirms and supports killing of unborn babies as a moral decision fully in line with the teachings of Jesus.  This is a strange application of Jesus’ words in Matthew 19 to “let the little children come unto Me.”

But I believe and am convinced that Jesus’ words still must be true when He prayed that we all may be one.  I would hate to think that Jesus’ great high priestly prayer is has gone unanswered for 2000 years.

I am encouraged by Scriptural teaching that refers the Church as the body of Christ and then speaks of the gifts in the body using imagery of hands, feet, eyes, etc.  Though we are many, we are one, united in one purpose under one Lord, one baptism, one faith.

The definition of catholic is here, not organizationally, and I think that’s where the ACI authors are making a mistake.  They are trying to preserve an organization that is at best Spirit-led but walking on clay feet.  At worst it is apostate and no church at all.

If catholicity means being one organization, we need to abandon this Anglican thing and get thee hence to the Orthodox.  But if not, our definition of catholicity needs to be found outside of organizational structures.  I don’t think that is free church thinking, although it could be, as I will readily admit.

I do think the way Scripture defines catholicity is outside of organizations, but that freedom and definition has been abused for the whole life of the church.  We are too quick to leave authority we don’t like behind because we are sinful rebels against God’s authority and that works itself out inside of our churches.

That is not American Revolutionary thinking, BTW, it is worldwide as I have witnessed and any trip through the history of the church will reveal.

JamesW,
If Bp Lee cannot honor his commitments, then what revisionist will?  What is there to “fine tune”?  We are talking about totally different gospels.  We can only fine tune that that which is in general agreement to start with.
The premise that there exists something that could be fine tuned seems dubious at best.

Rom 1:16,
Hear Hear!

Rom,
Thanks for your comments.  I appreciate the pathos that you and many have expressed here as they have agonized through the disintegration of the church they have loved for much of their lifetime. Tonight’s release of the letter from Bishop Lee surely adds to the pain, and will be received by many as confirmation that all hope for reconciliation is lost. It certainly feels that way tonight.

I think Matt rightly points to his article on the differences in ecclesiology that Anglicans have somehow held in tension for the last few centuries, usually well.  The idea that holiness is something we need to protect by separating ourselves from the unholy certainly has a long history.  I continue to emphasize the other view - that Windsor commends-  that Truth is found only in unity. But right now, as I imagine a Godly man like John Yates receiving such a sinful letter from a man he has trusted, I am reminded that Matthew 18 teaches about binding and loosing of each other for a reason.  Perhaps this is the season for loosing. It certainly feels that way tonight.  How tragic.

Craig,

It is indeed a sad day.  It’s been a sad week watching all of these events and threatening letters from a very long distance away.  I’m watching schism happen in front of my eyes and it’s not taking just a couple of pages as it does in my history books.

Your statement

The idea that holiness is something we need to protect by separating ourselves from the unholy certainly has a long history.  I continue to emphasize the other view - that Windsor commends- that Truth is found only in unity.

is sort of what I was trying to get at in my poor thinking.  I don’t see holiness, truth and unity as being separable.

For a church to be holy she must hold on to the Truth (not just the name of Jesus but the received doctrinal propositions that have been revealed about Jesus).  At the same time she must work to maintain unity that comes from having one faith, by teaching and not wavering from the Truth received. 

I don’t think Scripture allows us to separate the two sides.  Certainly the Creeds as faithful representations of Scriptural teaching don’t allow it.

Thanks for interacting with me on this issue.  I need the sharpening and I have appreciated your irenic spirit.