Fr. WB: CANA and the ACN

Matt,
This is exactly what I’ve been arguing since CANA split from the Diocese of Virginia.

Matt, your link doesn’t work.  Try

http://anglicancatholic.blogspot.com/2007/05/cana-and-acn.html

I commend the discussion as well as the original post.

Id. and Matt - Neither link is working, so it is hard to follow the post. But if you are saying that there now may be agreement that CANA is attempting to set up a replacement province in the US, I think that Minns was very clear in his new conference that he is.

Matt, I think that the development of CANA is an important event in the development of a coalition of Anglican groupings in the U.S.  But I’m not so sure that +Duncan is being sidelined here.  Because we have heard little from the ACN bishops recently doen’t mean that they are a spent force.  I bet that there is a lot going on in the background to which we are not privy.  ACN has a much more complex task than the CANA and AmiA groups.  They involve ‘smallish’ and cohesive (for the most part) departures from ECUSA.
I think we will hear from ACN and see a lot of action over the end of that summer and early autumnl.  Conversely, I believe that the Windsor Bishops are a red herring and too tainted and diluted.  It’s value may be to draw in border line but fundamentally conservative dioceses with the hope that they will be moved by coming events.
But then, who am I?  Just a peon for Christ and not in the rarified heights in which you, Greg and Sarah walk.

Bill    

+Duncan has done a great service under trying circumstances.  The basic subject of “Now what do we do?” post-DES and the following meetings has been discussed here.  At present it amounts to ACN waiting some more until October 1st, just to make certain.  Really, really certain.  Given that CANA, AMiA, and to a lesser extent FACA are already moving, it is inevitable that there is at least the appearance that the ACN has lost momentum. 

That picture could change very quickly if the ACN were to make the definitive post-Easter statement which was reported earlier to be in the works.  Alternatively, a broadly based response from ACN, ++ABC, the GS, CANA, etc, released on or very shortly after October 1st, would sweep away much of the uncertainty.

From a historical standpoint, we are perhaps in a “Phony War,” which was the term for the period between the invasion of Poland and the invasion of France.  If so, those wanting ACN to do something may get their wish.

An association of these various entities with a “college of bishops” may be a suitable model.  Such an association could develop a common interface with the rest of the communion, while preserving individual legal boundaries.  This would enable each entity to grapple with their peculiar challenges faced during realignment.  For example, during realignment the Diocese of PGH will face legal/administrative/structural challenges that are quite different from that of a separately incorporated AMiA church plant.  Much is uncertain.  At some future point, the association would be able to plan for coalescence of these entities as a province.

Seems to me it might be helpful to take into account the age of Bishop Duncan, and the Bishops of CANA, ACN, AMiA, (and any others). My impression is that all are in their 60’s, so one supposes there is a natural limit on how long they can be expected to serve.  Perhaps it will be just long enough to let them work together to create a cooperative arrangement that will require fewer Bishops as the different branches of the Church are brought back together.

Odd that
anglicancatholic.blogspot.com/2007/05/cana-and-acn.html does not work, but if you go to anglicancatholic.blogspot.com and scroll down to the May 4th entry, you get exactly the same URL.

Matt, I’m not surprised at all by Fr. WB’s thoughts on the matter. In some sense I think Anglo-Catholics fell shoved out but revisionist and the evangelicals. This post (need to fix link) is merely an expression of their reservations.

I already said that I believe there is work that need to court all members of Common Cause. I believe your series of articles was a very important move in including Anglo-Catholics in the discussion.

This post is an expression of concerns. If those concerns are founded or not will become apparent in time. I often appreciate learning someone else’s fears, if they are baseless, I found it easy to bring reassurance in that area (I can be clueless, so knowing something helps me not act in a way that needlessly exasperates fears).

I’d read as serious reservations. Maybe unfounded, but +Minns and ++Akinola will just have to build relationships and trust. Maybe a group that not seen a lot of attention as of yet.

Try this link.

Matt, what does “insisting on Tract 90 type interpretations of the 39 Articles” mean?

Father WB also writes:

Also note that those carrying the day (the more vociferously orthodox) do seem to have cast aside the DeS Communique, and that it IS dividing the Primates. Note that whereas ++Williams and ++Akinola were on the same page at Dar es Salaam

I take exception to who is doing the casting aside the DeS communique. The response of Akinola:

Sadly we have seen no such respect from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church. Their most recent statement was both insulting and condescending and makes very clear that they have no intention of listening to the voice of the rest of the Communion.

merely states the obvious that the HoB has rejected it the third component of it and intend to reject the first two in September. Father WB complains that Akinola’s actions divides the primates. Rowan Williams has shown that his is willing to keep “all at the table” ad infinitum. There is clearly no hope of not not dividing Rowan Williams away from any position of endless banter. The primates are divided and need to be. So be it. There are the liberal usurpers, the orthodox and those (perhaps RW alone) who want to sit on the fence and prattle. The conservative base of North American Anglicanism which is rapidly vanishing daily.

I agree with Matt.  I am all in favor or returning to the doctrinal standards of the 39 Articles under which I was originally ordained.  These and the 1662 BCP and its Ordinal are foundational to our being a reformed Church.  What I fear is that once the “divorce” has really become a reality there may be a split between the more Evangelical wing and the more Catholic wing.  I see bits of this already in this article (can’t get the links to work either) as quoted. 

CANA represents the robust face of African and Anglican spirituality that can certainly be threatening to our more Anglo Catholic partners in this stand against the EC-USA apostasy of the moment.  The ACN reflects the more Anglo Catholic spirit that is more characteristic of our inherited north American Anglicanism.  The challenge is to hold, albeit in tension, these two seeming polarities.  In previous times we would simply split as between catholic and protestant.  The current struggle has made us allies and we will need to struggle to continue as allies and co-workers in Christ’s vineyard.

Beware of disdain!  If we give in to such towards our co-laborers in this struggle we simply follow the EC-USA leadership who have taken disdain to new levels of disrespect and hubris with respect to the rest of the Anglican world.

Check out anglicanfederation.org for this list of FACA members:

The Anglican Church in America (ACA)
The Anglican Mission in America (AMIA)
The Anglican Province of America (APA)
Episcopal Missionary Church (EMC)
The Reformed Episcopal Church (REC)

I don’t see it that way.  The “inside strategy” has always seemed to me to be the orthodox bishops and diocese - and they are far better protected from being deposed (though that could happen).  Those Windsor bishops can afford to wait a while.  CANA, and other “outside strategies” have helped those orthodox parishes in revisionist diocese. Those parishes were under threat every day of being reduced to mission status, having vestry deposed, doors locked and all the rest.  Or at best, just being waited out until orthodox rectors retired, and then being denied their choice of replacement.  Those parishes could not afford to wait.  Different strategies for different needs.  The two could still come together.  The DES communique called for that.  The covenant could do that.  Though at this point, who knows whether the DES communique or the covenant will ever be implemented in any form.

“These ‘unpleasant’ things for Fr. WB are the very reasons I am an Anglican.”

It seems a bit selective, though, to re-assert the parts of the Anglican tradition that Anglo-Catholics find “unpleasant” without also re-asserting the parts of the Anglican tradition that modern Evangelicals find “unpleasant”—specifically, the traditional Ordinal, which prohibits women’s ordination.

I supect most Anglo-Catholics would try to find a way to live with the 39 Articles if Evangelicals for their part would try to find a way to live with the Ordinal.

I’ll be much more comfortable with CANA if and when the parishes and diocese under ++Akinola’s care can be transferred to a direct primatial relationship with Canterbury, rather than this awkward indirect situation we have now. As I posted on Father Brown’s site, it seems duplicitous to me to tout Nigeria as an orthodox path to Canterbury—really the only appeal ++Abuja has over, say, existing continuing structures like the REC—when its very existence and stated intent undermines the ecclesiastical position of ++Canterbury. CANA obviously doesn’t have any more deep catholic loyalty to the ++ABC than 815 does. So at the end of the day, why CANA? If CANA/CAPA breaks with ++Canterbury—and there’s no reason to think it won’t even if TEC is “voluntarily excluded” —then the REC has better Anglican bona fides than ++Nigeria does.

Best case scenario: behind the scenes all the various acronyms actually are working together to unite and form a new province which the ++ABC recognizes at Lambeth, and once established, the African acronyms will relinquish their pastoral and episcopal claims to the parishes and diocese currently under their care, leaving a real North American primate under a direct relationship to Canterbury. The ACN “common cause” partners pull together, defy history and save Anglicanism for at least the next century.

Most likely scenario: the acronyms follow the established path of Anglican splinter groups over the past century, consecrating more bishops, splintering further and diluting their Anglican identity and connection to Canterbury until the very idea of “Anglicanism” becomes a curiosity. “Episcopal” structures in North America lose their catholic identity and become merely one polity among several.

allergic to fudge,

Not trying to be selective at all. I certainly would abide the ordinal in exchange for the articles.

What troubles me is the unspoken threat - and this may be just a construct created by our opponents - that CANA and/or Nigeria may, at some point, go its own way.  I don’t argue that, at some point, Canterbury itself having fallen away from the Faith as far as has ECUSA, that may be necessary.  But, if the Communion dissolves, that will (should) be a nearly fatal blow for Anglo-Catholics.

I believe real Catholic-minded Christians seek to be in the highest communion possible, with as many people as possible (though on a real basis of shared belief), not to exist in fragmented isolation.  In that context, I’ve mostly been pretty impressed with Bob Duncan’s speeeches and writings, and the work of the ACN in general.  So, I hope they are being quiet for a reason - probably because the threat environment from 815, drunk with the recklessness of the HOB’s actions, is high right now - and not because they are waning versus CANA.  Or, in other words, I hope Dave’s “best case scenario” is the actual scenario.

I don’t see CANA as a direct challenge to the ACN rather it seems to be operating in the same ‘space’ as the AMiA. As a Brit I still have a hard time seeing the rationale for CANA as a seperate entity to the AMiA. I know there is a slight difference in ethos between the two, and different financial arrangements, but functionally they are both Missions in America sponsored by other provinces and as such claiming to be fully part of the Communion. Would the Anglicanism in the US be any poorer if Truro and the Virginia churches plus the Nigerians had simply joined the AMiA? That said - I like Minns, and to be fair to him C.B. he was very clear at the press conference that CANA wants to be part of the soloution, is not the soloution, and is one of the building blocks hopefully leading with others to the founding of an orthodox province.

Not trying to be selective at all. I certainly would abide the ordinal in exchange for the articles.

Please accept my apology then for the incorrect suggestion that you were being selective with the tradition!

“I’ve made no secret of my agreeement with the “inside strategy.” I’m sorry to see that it seems to have been sidelined, and that its probably now a lost cause.”

Everyone would have prefered an “inside strategy” to work.  Believe me, no one who walked from their churches, or are embroiled in litigation over them, wanted that outcome.  But to the extent that the “inside strategy” means to effect internal reform within TEC and to bring it back into faithfulness, that strategy has been a lost cause for a while.  At best, it was a holding strategy until the rest of the world could understand that TEC’s trajectory was set.

The reluctance, or inability, of some to act more boldly created a vacuum, which CANA and other groups have filled.  Will the ACN continuing to be a rallying point? It depends on whether its Bishops have the will to act further.

On Tract 90, see

http://anglicanhistory.org/tracts/tract90/

This, however, merely gives the text without context.  If you are interested, you can see my take (worth no more than that) on the Articles in general as well as Tract 90 at

http://rathernot.classicalanglican.net/?p=160

But to the extent that the “inside strategy” means to effect internal reform within TEC and to bring it back into faithfulness, that strategy has been a lost cause for a while.

This was not the “inside strategy” as advocated by the ACI and the ++ABC. “Inside” in this case meant “inside” the Anglican Communion, consistent with the Windsor process and the recommendations of the Primates’ meetings, regardless of what TEC did. I think even the most patient voices, such as +Fr Martins or Ephraim Radner, lost any hope for TEC reform a long time ago, even if they weren’t so direct in stating it.

The problem with the links seems to be that “acn” in the final bit needs NOT to be capitalized.  Try this:

http://anglicancatholic.blogspot.com/2007/05/cana-and-acn.html

I HOPE for Dave’s “best case scenario.”

If, as Phil says, the Communion dissolves, it WILL be a problem for this Anglo-Catholic.  If I find myself no longer able to be in communion with the See of Augustine, I’m off to Rome or the East.  Not because I’m a huge fan of the current incumbent of Augustine’s chair, but because I believe the Holy Spirit inhabits the juridical stuff.  This too is why I’m still on board with what the ACI has been advocating (stick to the Communique, no matter what 815 or the HoB rejects or embraces).

I believe that the kind of ecclesiology folks like Dr. Radner are trying to construct (cf. http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/82/1/—this essay is fantastic, constructive, and one of the very few hopeful things going on right now in the Communion, theologically, to my mind) provides a glimmer of hope for evangelicals and catholics to live together in mutual submission within the Communion.  Liberals as crazy as those in charge of ECUSA, I’m afraid, are hopeless partners in this ecclesiological project.

Lastly, Fr Kennedy, you can keep the Articles if I can keep Tract 90.

Ah.  I now see the problem with the link.  Stand Firm seems automatically to capitalize “acn” wherever that phrase is found.  It must be in small caps for the link to work.

Matt,

“Not trying to be selective at all. I certainly would abide the ordinal in exchange for the articles.”

Your on, buddy.

John+

Sometimes on this blog, when we hear nothing from some quarter we begin assuming the worst and great speculation appears, sometimes with the wringing of hands and the knashing of teeth. That’s sort of what is happening here now.

I have it on excellent authority that ACN, CANA, AmiA and a number of other orthodox Anglican and Anglo-Catholic groups are working very closely and quietly together. And the indication was that we would see the results of their labors sooner than later.

For those concerned with CANA, I refer you to what +++Akinola told +++Rowan in his letter in response to +++Rowan’s letter asking that he reconsider installing Minns:

CANA is for the Communion and we are more than happy to surrender it to the Communion once the conditions that prompted our division have been overturned.

Be patient, ye of little faith; God is working to resolve this and when God gets involved, you can bet something is going to happen.

I tend to agree (hope springs eternal) with Been There… based on my very poor reading of the tea leaves.  As I mentioned above, to some extent, the notion of Akinola as renegade, off to start his own communion, is a creation of the progressive blogosphere.  Some of the facts support that hypothesis, of course, but, on deeper inspection, you see the types of things Been There… mentioned: that CANA is acknowledged as for the Communion and there’s no desire for long-term ownership, that Akinola showed up for and stayed at Dar-es-Salaam after all (despite predictions to the coontrary), etc.

If the discussion here is any indication of the sentiment among the orthodox actually involved in these organizations, there very well may have been a substantive disagreement over doing the installation at this time.  In that case, somebody got their way and somebody didn’t, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the team isn’t remaining united overall.  Let’s pray that is so.

Get in a boat.  Make sure it doesn’t sink from incoming fire and try not to sink each other.  But get in a boat.  These two have - different boats, same destination.

Great thing, boats.

bb

I understand the hope to be in an Anglican province in direct communion with Canterbury.  I no longer identify Canterbury as the abiding root of continuing global Anglicanism.  I may be wrong but am now unconvinced of the unbiased nature of ++Rowan’s direction and composition of the AC.  I think his hopes and actions are an attempt to bring the communion together in unity and to the Glory of Christ, but I think that this is tainted by his desperation to keep the communion together at any cost.
While I love the idea of Canterbury being the temporal center of Anglicanism and the Power of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, the spiritual heart of Christianity (and Anglicanism in particular), the former is of little consequence in comparison to the latter, the Heart of Christianity.
I do not believe that Anglicanism belongs to Canterbury, nor do I believe that it belongs to Nigeria (and I believe that ++Akinola would be the first to agree with that).
I am English and I love the British monarchy, despite the number of awful people who have sat on the throne or who have .  The monarchy has nevertheless give England, and in recent centuries -Britain, a strong thread of continuity.  There’s a parallel with the continuity that Canterbury provides (or Rome to the anglo-catholics amongst us) but the parallel fails when one considers that which far, far supercedes Canterbury. 
Canterbury is not where our hope lies.

On the Ordinal of 1662 and/or the 39 Articles…  Article 1 of the Church of Nigeria’s constitution specifically states the BCP and these two.  I have been looking over the draft covenant and they’re there too.  Can anyone tell me why the 1642 ordinal and articles are so special?  Clearly, for Nigeria, it’s not one or the other but both?  I’m not strong on this phase of British history.  I am thinking Cromwell, Roundheads and Puritans.  Not a partcularly good time in England….  But it has always seemed to me that there is an inherited tension from this time frame between the anglo-catholic and reformed.  It was Hooker who said: “John Calvin was one of the finest minds the FRENCH ever produced”  Yes, he was born in France, and, coming from a 17th century Englishman, what? praise? indeed?

I was fascinated by the discussion over on Fr. WB’s blog when I discovered it last night.  Lots of food for thought and prayer.  Quite a number of commenters echoed one of the growing concerns I’ve had: that there seems to be a real risk of a “repeat of the Continuum”—i.e. a splintering into many small fragments, and a tendency towards congregationalism or even, a chase after “purple.” 
As some have noted recently in other similar discussions, often the leadership needed for faithful “dissent” and opposition is not the leadership under which a new body can unite.  The giftings are often different, and it is easy to understand why and how there is such a risk of fragmentation and separation.  For years we orthodox have tended to focus our identity (perhaps without conscious intent) on what we’re opposed to, how we’re different from the reappraisers.  It takes a huge shift in thinking and energy to begin focusing on what unites us and how to move forward together…

As one who knows +Martyn & Angela Minns well, I am able to be hopeful about CANA. I know that in spite of his boldness and strong leadership, +Martyn is deeply humble and a true servant.  I saw him come to Truro and study and learn and pray for over a year in terms of seeking God’s vision for the parish, rather than immediately imposing his vision on the parish.  And I know he is an excellent team builder.

But I’m thankful Fr. WB started this discussion and for the excellent comment thread that ensued over at Fr. WB’s and here.  I think Fr. WB has raised real issues, important questions and concerns and these are things we need to be bringing before the Lord in prayer. 

I am praying that as +Martyn expressed, CANA will be a building block towards a new province or united orthodox Anglican body:

  “When asked whether CANA is the seed of a new Anglican province in the United States, [Minns] said, ‘I see ourselves as a building block for that.’ “

And I echo TexAnglican’s hope and desire as written in his comment over at Fr WB’s:
 

texanglican said…

  Indeed, the quote from Bishop Minns is excellent. I would be most surprised if there is not substantial unity between CANA, AMiA, and ACN (at least those portions of ACN who are able to act[i.e., have bishops who are courageous enough to act definitively and who are not intractable TEC institutioanlists at heart]), before March of 2008. But perhaps once a new province is actually up and running and is recognized by a dozen Primates as legitimate, even Bishops Stanton and Howe will come on board! Let us hope and pray it will be so.

But Dave, in his followup comment to TexAnglican gives an important dose of realism and the hurdles that will need to be overcome if such unity is to be achieved. 

It will be difficult enough to unite catholic and evangelical factions into new diocesan structures—if we have AMiA, CANA, ACN and the Communion itself all proposing their own versions of these structures, our definition of “substantial” unity may become a moving target.

Maybe one of the leaders in this collection of acronyms really does have a grand scheme in mind and the political clout and statemanship to unite these bodies into something genuinely Anglican. But so far this does not appear to be the case. I see no deliberate or visionary leadership among the ACN leaders, catholic OR evangelical, and the recent news of a potential 5-diocese block leaving en masse speaks to a fundamental division among the ACN leaders.

The developments of the last 4 months have trended towards more fragmentation, not less. This is just consistent with the history of Anglican groups that precipitously break with Canterbury.

May we keep our hope in Christ, not in fallible leaders, listen to His voice, and may what is built be for His glory and according to His design in His time.

Bill C said:

While I love the idea of Canterbury being the temporal center of Anglicanism and the Power of God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, the spiritual heart of Christianity (and Anglicanism in particular), the former is of little consequence in comparison to the latter, the Heart of Christianity.

Ephraim Radner’s most recent ACI essay “Vocation Deferred: The Necessary Challenge of Communion” addresses this question. Radner states:

In any case, to answer the question of whether or not it matters if the Anglican Communion survives one must at least have a clear idea of what “communion” itself might be, and why it is or is not important. And this question has been abandoned, wholly and shockingly, as if it were a leprous house. Some have quite deliberately let it drop, claiming…that “communion” is some kind of code-word for hierarchical oppression – “prelates”!—or that it expresses but the desperate worries of a threatened institutionalist agenda emanating from a frightened Canterbury.

Radner argues that the question of Communion is complicated, not resolved, by CANA, in ways that even the Windsor report does not address:

The Windsor Report, for one thing, does not note how the practice of autocephaly is unresolved at present, even practically, as Moscow and Constantinople, for example, remain at odds over who has the right to “grant” or recognize a self-governing church. Even the Anglican Consultative Council, in theory, has this authority for new provinces within the Communion. But, more like the Anglicanism of the present, the Report does not grapple with the still acrimonious overlapping Orthodox jurisdictions in America, furthermore, and the way that self-governance is disputed in a number of cases such as this within Orthodoxy. AMiA and CANA and Europe and other areas within Anglicanism represent the same challenge. Windsor does not point out how in these disputes, “autonomy” continues to trump constraint, in a way that indicates its all-too-human weaknesses as a principle for ecclesial self-identity.

Of course the Gospel itself does not depend on Anglicanism—but we care about Anglicanism because it represents a unique and important expression of the Gospel, one that will become diluted, confused and eventually wither away if we do not attend to the particulars that define it. ++Rowan put it this way:

The reason Anglicanism is worth bothering with is because it has tried to find a way of being a Church that is neither tightly centralised nor just a loose federation of essentially independent bodies – a Church that is seeking to be a coherent family of communities meeting to hear the Bible read, to break bread and share wine as guests of Jesus Christ, and to celebrate a unity in worldwide mission and ministry. That is what the word ‘Communion’ means for Anglicans, and it is a vision that has taken clearer shape in many of our ecumenical dialogues.

So let’s assume for the sake of argument that Anglicanism as a distinct expression of the Gospel is “worth bothering with”. If so, the elephant in the room, my fellow Anglicans of all stripes, is still the question posed by the ++ABC in his essay “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today.” Whether or not CANA and all the other Anglican Acronyms merge into one “orthodox” body after the dust settles, in 2008 or ever, does not address the most basic question of how we will keep our Anglican identity together in the long run. Whether or not the orthodox trust ++Williams at this point, he has succinctly stated the most basic issue better than anyone has to present, and to my mind all the enthusiasm for CANA and Minns’ consecration has distracted all of us from this most basic question, on which the whole future of Anglicanism hangs:

But what our Communion lacks is a set of adequately developed structures which is able to cope with the diversity of views that will inevitably arise in a world of rapid global communication and huge cultural variety. The tacit conventions between us need spelling out – not for the sake of some central mechanism of control but so that we have ways of being sure we’re still talking the same language, aware of belonging to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church of Christ.

In short, ++Rowan (and +NT Wright as well) has pointed out again and again that the present crisis has exposed a basic weakness in Anglicanism, that we lack sufficient structures to define ourselves when one province goes its own way. Dr. Radner’s essay, to me, convincingly demonstrates that a generic conception of “orthodoxy” is not an adequate basis to correct this deficiency. The current enthusiasm for CANA obscures this basic point.

If Anglicanism is to survive we must look to the development of real, substantive ecclesial and canonical structures that can define us together as Anglican. As as far as that goes, brother and sisters, and for the future of a coherent Anglicanism, ++Williams’ proposed Covenant is the only game in town.

This is the corrected link (I hope):

<a>http://anglicancatholic.blogspot.com/2007/05/cana-and-acn.html</a>

Sorry—the blog automatically re-capitalized “acn” and I coulndn’t make it show up as a link.

there very well may have been a substantive disagreement over doing the installation at this time.

Phil—

According to my source this was not an issue at all among those in the confederation…only for TEC and, in an interesting way, for +++Rowan. He sent the letter but he sent it so late that it arrived after +++Akinola had left.

In fact, my source indicated that the installation of Minns was actually viewed as a strong positive.

Someone indicated earlier that most of the perceived negativism is coming from progressives (revisionists?) and I thinnk this may be true.

Is it possible that +++Rowan sent the letter to give +++Akinola a platform for a response? He(+++Rowan) certainly didn’t send it to give +++Akinola time to change his mind about the installation of Minns since, according to +++Akinola, he did not receive the contents until after the installation was completed.

At this point, I think the players are working harmoniously to hammer out agreements and compromise on differences. That is not to say there have not been disagreements and I have to believe this must be a very stressful environment…especially when you consider the magnitude of the different groups who are participating besides ACN, CANA and AMiA. This thing is huge…much larger than a “tiny majority” who have just recently sought APO from the heresy of TEC.

But, it is amazing what can be accomplished when people work together in good faith and for the good of the order rather than attempting to accomplish self-serving personal agendae.

And, as I indicated earlier, when God gets involved, something good has got to happen.

Dave, let’s hope the proposed covenant is not the only game in town, since it is definitely not an ecclesial structure and may not even be a canonical one.  Even on its own merits, if we are to have something like that which has been proposed, we’re in very big trouble indeed, since it would have been unequal to the challenge of anything that’s happened over the last four years.

The difficulty we have today is that, to the reading of some, we’re not just dealing with a collection of provinces that are struggling to relate to one another in a fragmented age.  Rather, we very well may be dealing with one province, with outsized leverage due to the accidents of geography and its money, that’s willing, if necessary to have its own way, to wreck the Communion.

It’s said that a contract is worthless if the two parties don’t intend to abide by it in the first place.  Similarly, no piece of paper or sophisticated ACI analysis is going to solve our problems when we have a rogue ECUSA storming through the Canterbury China Shop, swinging three baseball bats over its head.  You can understand, if not excuse, the sentiments of those that are skeptical that the “can’t we all get along” approach will ultimately prevail.

I think that CANA should be looked upon as a building block for a new Province and +Minns statements that he intends to unite the tribes seems a wonderful start. There appears to be three engines or realignment FACA, CANA and the ACN.  According to the APA and REC websites they already have a Concordat with the Church of Nigeria and ++ Venebles is the sponsoring primate of FACA (though they welcome more) so I am uncertain as to why CANA does not also sign onto FACA - then there would only be the Federation outside and the ACN inside (plus smaller continuing churches that could also be made a part of FACA and churches alligned with the Southern Cone and Uganda which presumably would also be willing to enter into FACA if that is the shape the new Province ultimately takes). 
Assuming no change by TEC, after October 1 2007 the ACN needs to secede either independently, or join FACA or CANA (I think FACA is the way to go).  I think the best the ACN can hope for is a gentleman’s agreement from some of the GS primates that whatever they have collectively decided will be recognized by some of the GS as the legitamite owner of the Anglican Franchise in America.  As with countries - a de facto creation generally comes first with full dejure recognition recognizing the facts on the ground following.  I think the time is fast coming for a leap of faith - I would expect that should not be too large a challenge for Bishops. 
I think the best that is realistic is that in exchange for a negotiated peace - TEC stays in the Communion along side the New Province with the final terms of the Covenant deciding whether TEC decides to stay in the Communion.

I think WO is the stickiest issue.  Any departing ACN Bishop will feel honor bound to bring his female Priests with him (I assume many will not wish to come over).  I think the easy compromise is 1)each diocese (existing ones and the ones that will need to be created) decides the issue for itself (yes more fudge); 2) no female Bishops; 3) any Parish in a diocese that disagrees with its Bishop over the issue automatically is entitled to alternative pastoral oversight.

I think WO is the stickiest issue.  Any departing ACN Bishop will feel honor bound to bring his female Priests with him (I assume many will not wish to come over).  I think the easy compromise is 1)each diocese (existing ones and the ones that will need to be created) decides the issue for itself (yes more fudge); 2) no female Bishops; 3) any Parish in a diocese that disagrees with its Bishop over the issue automatically is entitled to alternative pastoral oversight.

Possibly still a bridge too far.  Better might be 1) no female bishops, priests or deacons for a season, say 40 years—-time to let the current controversy pass and let another generation deal with it, 2) grandfather in any women “priests” that come over, but they may only serve in those dioceses and parishes that permit them.  That may sound harsh, but it is in fact already more than many Anglicans will accept.

I think WO is the stickiest issue.  Any departing ACN Bishop will feel honor bound to bring his female Priests with him (I assume many will not wish to come over).

I agree.

I think the easy compromise is 1)each diocese (existing ones and the ones that will need to be created) decides the issue for itself (yes more fudge); 2) no female Bishops; 3) any Parish in a diocese that disagrees with its Bishop over the issue automatically is entitled to alternative pastoral oversight.

A better approach would be to agree to a moratorium on any new women entering the ordination process while the province went through a period of serious study and discernment.

It seems unwise for the new province uncritically to adopt the very batch of fudge (local option on women’s ordination) that many argue contributed to the current situation.

My wife (who is ordained and serves as my assistant) and I could easily agree to IRNS’ idea.

Similarly, no piece of paper or sophisticated ACI analysis is going to solve our problems when we have a rogue ECUSA storming through the Canterbury China Shop, swinging three baseball bats over its head.  You can understand, if not excuse, the sentiments of those that are skeptical that the “can’t we all get along” approach will ultimately prevail.

I don’t see where anyone is suggesting mere “analysis” or a piece of paper is the solution. Disbarrment from Lambeth, the ACC and the Primates’ Meeting on the other hand is substantive action, and part of the real consequences implied in the Covenant Process.

Surely we all must realize that at some point there will have to be a unifying document, call it canonical or what you will, that attends to the particulars of what it means to be Anglican. I’m amazed that so many think that a concept such as “Anglican Orthodoxy” is so easily resolved by the emergence of something like CANA.

Dylan Bruer’s recent attempt at defining “common beliefs” demonstrate the extent to which the language of orthodoxy is fluid and easily compromised—even the language CANA uses to define itself can be affirmed by an aggressive revisionist by the lights of his/her own definitions. This is exactly what Radner is pointing out: we cannot simply trust in abstractions to define our boundaries, much less something as generic as “Orthodoxy,” defined outside the context of an incarnational Church Catholic. When we no longer have TEC to tell us what we’re not what will we have as Anglicans to express what we are? And what concrete mechanism of enforcement will we have to ensure the integrity of those Communal boundaries? The existence of CANA or any of the Anglican Acronyms does not deal with this question.

I understand the hope to be in an Anglican province in direct communion with Canterbury.  I no longer identify Canterbury as the abiding root of continuing global Anglicanism.

Bill C—I totally agree with your entire comment. While Anglicanism was born in England, it no longer belongs to England other than through tradition. And, considering the direction the CofE seems to be moving, almost in lock-step with TEC, there may be another crisis forthcoming.

I would be my hope that as we work through the issues in the US, we will be creative in building a new and stronger Anglican Communion which may look at an elected temporal head of the church with a little more authority than the Archbishop of
Canmterbury has but certainly significantly less than does the Roman Pope.

We have no idea whom the monarch may appoint after +++Rowan but if it turns out to be an anti-orthodox liberal, it might well create a communion-wide crisis even worse than the one we are currently dealing with. An heretical ABC would make the TEC seem like a kindergarden picnic.

Therefore, the Communion must move forward with its covenant which will, in essence, define Angicanism and we must look at an organizational structure that enables us to deal with internal crises without challenging the very existance of the Communion.

Looking at the CofE, Canada, Scotland and parts of Australia, all moving in the direction of TEC, what must come out of this current crisis is the ability to deal with similar issues in the future without the angst that has been a part of this crisis…part of which was the result of not having defined who we are as Anglicans.

TEC recognized that and took advantage of it, attempting, I believe, to define the Communion in its own heretical and apostate image. The covenant will give us an identity which we had, in the past, presumed that we all had in common but found through this issue that we did not.

Hopefully, that covenant will be accepted by the vast majority of the Communion and those who find they cannot adhere to it can choose, as did TEC, to walk apart. But, in doing so, they will clearly know what they are departing from. Further, we should be able to avoid the debate, argument, pain and anger that has characterized this current crisis because we will know who we are and what we stand for.

I think this process is underway now as the Anglican groups in the US struggle to rectify the damage done by TEC and to protect itself from any similar attempts in the future.

Tract 90 was Cardinal Newman’s attempt to interpret the 39 Articles through an Anglo-Catholic lens while he was still an Anglican.  His move to the Roman Catholic Church came when he understood that his attempt in Tract 90 wasn’t an honest reading.

Some are seem advancing a circular argument, e.g, don’t leave TEC, but stay until until the covenant process is in place (2015?) because it is the best hope of sustaining Anglicanism while conceding that TEC and other Western allies will not agree to a covenant that could exclude them from the Communion.  The result? Either no covenant, one that is watered down or one that is ignored. 

Dave, if the “inside” strategy is not “inside” TEC but “inside” the Anglican Communion (with no hope of reforming TEC), why not join a GS church or structure?  What exactly is the “inside” strategy at this point?

I think Timothy’s last paragraph gets to it for me.  How, after all that’s happened, did we decide that ECUSA is the only way of being in the Communion?

Dave, you ask:

When we no longer have TEC to tell us what we’re not what will we have as Anglicans to express what we are? And what concrete mechanism of enforcement will we have to ensure the integrity of those Communal boundaries? The existence of CANA or any of the Anglican Acronyms does not deal with this question.

I don’t have the last-word answer for you, but neither do I really see your point.  The people in CANA and AMiA no longer have anything to do with ECUSA, but they seem to get along quite nicely being “for” something.  By the testimony of many I’ve read, they give not a thought to ECUSA, so they don’t appear to be defining themselves contra the 815 bogeyman.

I also don’t see why it’s important that “[t]he existence of CANA” deals with the question of the “integrity of those Communal boundaries.”  If you’re in CANA or AMiA, you’re in communion with Canterbury.  CANA and AMiA are also in communion with each other.  What’s the problem?  It seems like that’s the objective.

I’m sure you’re aware there are multiple autocephalous Orthodox churches within the United States, nearly all in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch and each other.  They acknowledge the need to migrate (practically speaking, probably over a long time) to a single American jurisdiction, but, for now, they confess a common Faith and avoid the destructive infighting that ECUSA has visited on itself.  It seems like this provides an indisputably Catholic model that works in just the way you say it can’t, with, if anything, less cohesive governance than we see vis-vis CANA, AMiA and the larger Communion.

The people in CANA and AMiA no longer have anything to do with ECUSA, but they seem to get along quite nicely being “for” something.

(sigh) I dunno. It seems patently obvious to you that unity and growth will follow inevitably from whatever Anglican structure we can put in place and the sooner the better as long as it’s not TEC. Are Radner+ and +++Rowan just making a big deal over nothing? Is it that easy to bring factions together under the generic notion of orthodoxy? We’re in the process of redefining Anglican ecclesiology in a way that hasn’t been attempted since Hooker and everybody seems to think the whole thing will be a walk in the park if we can just rid ourselves of 815. I hope you’re right, but the history of Anglicanism and the Church in general says otherwise in no uncertain terms.

The significance of Canterbury is more than museum-piece historic novelty, and is bigger than any one Archbishop. It is an ancient see with proximity to the patristic age that can’t be found anywhere outside of Rome or the East. Whatever abstract definition of “catholicity” you subscribe to, from a practical standpoint alone this historic position of Canterbury has been a rallying point for Anglicans for centuries. The catholic claims of Anglicanism have been admittedly under much stronger scrutiny and skepticism than that of the East or Rome (just ask Dr. Tighe or Al Kimel), but nevertheless they have been strong enough to command papal audience and centuries of Anglican loyalty. To depart from that, or treat it as if it were somehow totally ancillary to our apostolic heritage, rather than the physical embodiment of everything Anglicans mean when they say “Communion” is to walk down the same path that has plagued Anglican splinter groups for over a century. Whatever your personal theological convictions, Anglo-Catholic or Evangelical, the unifying effect of Canterbury, and the fractious history of the continuum cannot be taken for granted, no matter how enthused we may be for CANA at the moment. The ACI and Dr. Radner are not parsing these issues so carefully just to be pedantic. The danger of dissolution is real.

I’m sure you’re aware there are multiple autocephalous Orthodox churches within the United States, nearly all in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch and each other.

I suggest that EO is not an example to follow. We can neither duplicate the historic events that led to the current state of Eastern division/unity nor see that as a successful path. Not only is it a bad model, it just doesn’t apply to us in any way. It’s not even apples and oranges, it’s apples and motor oil. The Orthodox jurisdictions are totally bound up in cultural and national issues that have nothing to do with Anglicanism. Dr. Radner points this out as well—we cannot look to the East as an example of unity of all things, and I think most Orthodox parishioners (at least the ones I talk to) would probably tell you the same thing. They have their own fires to put out.

If you’re in CANA or AMiA, you’re in communion with Canterbury.  CANA and AMiA are also in communion with each other.  What’s the problem?  It seems like that’s the objective.

First, it is not foregone at all that CANA will remain in communion with Canterbury. CANA is defining for itself what significance (or not) communion with Canterbury holds for its parishes and diocese. Second, this idea of communion cannot be sustained if every province defines the significance of communion on its own terms. Anglicanism under that rubric becomes diluted and eventually meaningless. This is the basic problem I have with CANA—why market yourself as an orthodox path to Canterbury on the one hand, while on the other hand by your actions and statements marginalize the significance of Canterbury?

Is the REC any part of the realighnment? Any info would be helpful. If there is such a thing, what would you do if you had three or four small groups meeting? Would they combine into one church?

from a practical standpoint alone this historic position of Canterbury has been a rallying point for Anglicans for centuries.

Absolutely. But, things and times change. It would be a shame to lose Canterbury but it could happen. Everything you’ve said about history and tradition and ecclesiology are all true.

But TEC has visited upon us a plague from which we, this time, will survive. But what happens if the English monoarch, either by intent or by accident, appoints a heretic as ABC?

With ABC as the temporal head of the church, it could be devastating.

I would not want to lose ABC as the temporal head of church but we absolutely must be prepared for that eventuality. We have been naive in our presumption that Anglicanism is based on a common ecclesiolgy and theology. We have not had any communal guidelines that define what we have in common. We have just gone along, over the years, assuming that we were all together. And, it was so at one time. But, as the episcopal church began drifting away…and a planned drift at that…there were those who expressed concern, no one had the authority to say, “STOP;” not even ABC.

And yet, in reality, we had and have the Holy Bible and the Old and New Testaments to provide the guidelines. Somehow, TEC ignored those, even to the point of discrediting them.

So, TEC went merrily on its way, leaving devout and orthodox Christians in its wake and not really caring a twit about the average pewsitter who was left in limbo.

This must never happen again because, as with any war, the pewsitters (the civilians) are the casualties. As the TEC became more and more heretical, the orthodox in the pews started looking at each other, wondering what was happening to their church and, even more importantly, to them.

Many of the posters here are clergy whose lives are dependant upon how this situation works out. And, I hate to say it, but for you, it’s a job. You do what you have to do to survive.

It is the same in Corporate America. Except in Corporate America, souls are not on the line. And unfortunately, because you are human beings, you focus on your religiosity rather than your customers…those who sit in the pews and count on you for leadership. When you (the shepherd) are lost; your parishioners (the sheep) are lost also. And that’s where we’ve been for about 30+ years.

We now have an opportunity, with God’s blessing, to correct the assumptions and presumptions which led us to this current state. It is happening now. I urge you to be a little more patient. Soon, someone will come who will bring you the good news. And the good news will be a stronger, orthodox worldwide Anglican Church.

Been There ...

Your post is confirming many of the fear that was being posted Anglo-Catholic blogsite. I’m not sure you recognize that. It kind of sounds cavalier and already written off. I’m not sure you would have a legion of Anglo-Caths following your lead on this (on less of course you were talking big “O” othodox).

Been there - it’s not a job it’s a vocation (from the latin for calling).  I know of a priest who is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in pension benefits by leaving pecusa.  Many of us will lose lesser but not insignificant amounts.  Leaving pecusa is not a good career decision if it is based on compensation considerations.  Priests are leaving pecusa because pecusa has left the gospel and these priests wish to remain faithful to the gospel.

Your post is confirming many of the fear that was being posted Anglo-Catholic blogsite. I’m not sure you recognize that. It kind of sounds cavalier and already written off. I’m not sure you would have a legion of Anglo-Caths following your lead on this (on less of course you were talking big “O” othodox).

Hosea6—Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately, I have only espoused my own opinions as an uninformed and uneducated pewsitter. I am NOT looking for a following of orthodox Anglicans, orthodox Episcopalians, orthodox Anglo-Catholics or Orthodox Anglo-Catholics. I am simply looking for a church that follows Scripture and the Lord Jesus Christ. I am nobody. If Anglo-Catholics want to follow someone, let it be Jesus Christ and may we follow him together.

I know of a priest who is losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in pension benefits by leaving pecusa.  Many of us will lose lesser but not insignificant amounts.  Leaving pecusa is not a good career decision if it is based on compensation considerations.

TonyinCNY—No question about it. And age is an enormous factor. If you’re relatively young, you can afford to take the hit and stand up for what you believe. If you’re older, you’ve got to grit your teeth and go with the flow, not raising a ruckus that could have you called up by TEC.

I sympathize, empathise and pray for you every Sunday because you’re on the front lines of a battle that you had nothing to do with.
That is what war is all about.  But, in this war, as a priest, you must discern, agonize and finally decide where you stand.

Many have already made their choice and have moved away from TEC, taking whatever hits they must. In the case of my priests, it was nothing more than a bit of a hiccup because so many devout and orthodx people followed them. I suspect that their pension funds never realized that they had changed circumstances. It could easily have gone the other way. But, I believe that God supports and protects orthodox clergy.

In time, I truly believe there will be many openings in the Anglican Communion for orthodox clergy. And, I don’t think that time will be too long in coming. God IS working on this!

Maybe it’s time for you to leave New York and find how devout and orthodox the rest of country is. But, please believe me, I have been there in the secular world and I do know what you’re dealing with.

Good Luck!!!

Unfortunately, as I see it WO has been the greatest cause of the present disaster of ECUSA. It drove out many, many Anglo-Catholics and left the Evangelicals alone to fight the onslaught of liberalism within ECUSA. Had the Evangelicals joined with the Anglo-Catholics in opposing WO in the first place we would have had a stronger group to fight the revisionism within ECUSA.

But this is hindsight and that is always 20/20 vision. The problem now is to bring together the Evangelicals and the Anglo-Catholics to restore an orthodox Anglican presence in the USA.

How this can happen is beyond my limited abilities but in my heart I know that it can happen. I can remember back in the 60’s when we as Anglo-Catholic and Evangelical Anglicans managed to work together even though we had many differences. I pray to God that this can happen again. May God have mercy on us all.

Dave - I agree with you; but, CANA is in communion with Canterbury now.  Absolutely, if that changes, we have a different situation.  As it stands, though, you’re worried about things that haven’t happened, and may never happen.

Had the Evangelicals joined with the Anglo-Catholics in opposing WO in the first place we would have had a stronger group to fight the revisionism within ECUSA

FrRick—You’re dead on. But it’s hindsight. Had any of us realized 40, 30 or even 20 years ago what was happening to our church, we might have convened a revolution.

Nah…I was there. As a pewsitter, I politely questioned each each change…BCP, WO, gays, etc,, etc. and I was politely told by clergy: “Don’t worry about it. It’s no big deal.”

To some extent, I think we can blame clergy for not keeping us informed, but I suspect that clergy, themselves, at the parish level, knew no more than the pewsitters.

The theft of the Epsicopal Church USA was planned and executed at the very highest levels and parish-level priests were no more informed than were their parishioners.

And, if a priest questioned his Bishop, he was told, as was I, “don’t worry about it. It’s no big deal.”

It is unfortunate, but in most churches, not just the Anglican Church, many of the sheep attribute to the clergy an aura which they do not truly deserve. We look at our priests(or preachers)  as our link to Christ and God. The reality is that they are no more, and in some case less, devout than are the flock which they oversee. They are, however, more educated in divinity than we and that can be used as a huge hammer to keep us in line.

Once again hindsight is 20/20. But I truly believe that if devout and orthodox priests had, in the 1960s and ‘70s kept their congregations informed, there might have been an orthodox uprising very early that would have sent the heretics in another direction.

Unfortunately, in our Church, as well as in the Catholic Church, there is an hiearchy that places the pewsitter at the very bottom of the food chain. Yet, it was the pewsitters who first began questioning the direction ECUSA was moving. But, in many cases, because of their low level position within the church, they were ignored. So, some bided their time, some left. Probably more left than ECUSA was willing to admit…just as TEC refuses to accept its current losses.

But, in time, as the new Anglican Church emerges from this crisis, many of those who left over BCP and, even, Wo, will return to form a stronger and move devout charch than we have seen in our lifetimes.

I the short time I have remaining, I look forward to being a part of it.

Unfortunately, as I see it WO has been the greatest cause of the present disaster of ECUSA. It drove out many, many Anglo-Catholics and left the Evangelicals alone to fight the onslaught of liberalism within ECUSA. Had the Evangelicals joined with the Anglo-Catholics in opposing WO in the first place we would have had a stronger group to fight the revisionism within ECUSA.

Once again hindsight is 20/20. But I truly believe that if devout and orthodox priests had, in the 1960s and ‘70s kept their congregations informed, there might have been an orthodox uprising very early that would have sent the heretics in another direction.

I can personally attest that, in the 70s at least, everyone was informed of WO.  It was actively opposed.  And it did not make a bit of difference.

Only now do I see a few—-and I mean, few—-folks who supported WO questioning whether that was such a good thing after all.

On the other hand, I see a great many otherwise perfectly intelligent people—-including the leadership of the ACI, of whom so many, including Fr WB, think so highly—-still failing to see the link between what came before WO, WO, and what came after WO.

Forget 30 years ago.  30 years from now, the Primate of Uganda could be a partnered lesbian, and the ACI will still be arguing for an “inside” strategy.

Fr Rick suggests that, had Anglo-Catholics and evangelicals worked together in the past, the current crisis could have been avoided.  Maybe.  On the other hand, had Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals all left in the past, instead of going in dribs and drabs and then fragmenting into an alphabet soup, we might have done even better.  (And I am as guilty as the next man.)

I know for a fact that many evangelicals not only did not oppose WO, but thought it was a good chance to force out anglo-catholics and reinforce the “protestant” nature of ECUSA.

They got their wish.

Not sure which thread is the best to ask this question, but it has been mentioned in this one q

Looks like something happened in mid-question on my last try, but what I’m asking is this—does anyone know for sure what happens to clergy benefits—retirement, and so forth—if a priest leaves TEC after, say ,15 years of ordained service, and leaves in a decent and orderly manner?

L.i.T. asked:

“Is the REC any part of the realighnment? Any info would be helpful.”

Yes.  The REC is a member of FACA and is an < href=“http://www.acn-us.org/common-cause-partners/”>ACN Common Cause</a> partner.  I am in an AMiA church plant and we have had an REC deacon assist every so often.

j.a.t.

Federal law comes into play for pensions.  If a priest is fully vested, leaving TEC should be similar to leaving any other job.  Of course, if a priest moved into a lower paying position or one lacking retirement benefits, then the priest’s retirement would suffer - however, the earned TEC benefits would persist but with no further contribution.

Be very careful about assigning blame for WO to evangelicals in general. Many evangelical Anglicans were and are as opposed to it as anglo-catholics, but for different reasons.

Many evangelical Anglicans were and are as opposed to it as anglo-catholics, but for different reasons.

That would make an interesting article for StandFirm. It seems sometimes that we only hear the Anglo-Catholic reasons.

Another thing on CANA and AMiA contributing to the “alphabet soup,” to borrow a phrase from IRNS.

One very significant difference between these groups and other breakaways is precisely that they are part of the Communion.  They are under the authority of their respective primates, men who participate in the life of the Communion and its deliberations.  They are connected to a structure that provides a forum for discussing, negotiating and, eventually, dealing with CANA and AMiA in a more coherent way.

On the other hand, none of the Continuing Churches are amenable to any such process.  They are, instead, fragmented islands drifting off by themselves, with no interest in being in communion with Canterbury (APA possibly excepted by virtue of cooperating with the ACN; same with the REC, though it is not a “Continuing Church”).  So, of course they can’t be brought together.  Such is not the case with CANA/AMiA - in theory.

Phil—Those Continuing Churches which have combined under FACA
are under the patronage of ++Venables, and are therefore either restored to communion with Canterbury, or are on their way there.

In Newark - I recognized the APA, but did not realize the ACA was also part of FACA.  In any case, I disagree they are restored to Communion (though they may be “on their way there”).  “Patronage” is a carefully chosen word, which does not mean “authority.”  In fact, the ACA says it plainly on their website (caps theirs): “THE ACA IS NOT PART OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH USA OR THE CANTERBURY-BASED ANGLICAN COMMUNION.”  Also, keep in mind that their are a few more highly significant (relatively speaking) Continuing Churches out there, the Anglican Catholic Church and the Anglican Province of Christ the King being two notable ones.

Phil and Newark-
Regardless of the specifics (patronage v. authority, etc.), this show of unity by the REC and continuing churches is indeed a good sign, I think.  No doubt, some of the continuing churches are more comfortable out of the AC than in, but I would be surprised if we don’t see more of the continuing churches joining FACA as time goes on.  After all, over the last 30+ years, (if you subtract the Network and Windsor dioceses) more people have left TEC than remain in it.  If you could bring back a substantial number of the folks who have been disillusioned with TEC, add them to the Network, and bring away the 20-30% of current TEC pew-sitters in non-Windsor dioceses who are very much opposed to TEC’s current direction, you could end up with an orthodox province that is larger than TEC.

If what tjmcmahon is putting forth comes into reality and the Lord protects it from infighting that would go a long way in gaining the ABC’s ear as well as erode the current TEC ability to influence the Primates. Even TEC’s most avid supporters might back off a bit.

Oh, yeah, tjmcmahon and In Newark, just to clarify, I agree this is all for the good.

Be very careful about assigning blame for WO to evangelicals in general. Many evangelical Anglicans were and are as opposed to it as anglo-catholics, but for different reasons.

Agreed, Matt+.  I did not mean to paint with too broad a brush.  And believe it or not, the reasons are not always as different as some might suppose.

And if turnabout is fair play, then it is only fair to say that there have been any number of “anglo-catholics” who, either quietly or openly, have or had no problems with actively gay clergy, including some who opposed the “ordination” of women.  There is plenty of inconsistency to go around.