Response to the Comments on the Camp Allen Article: Six Themes to Observe

Sarah,

A wonderful if depressing description of the state(s) of the Communion.  The mostly painful, because it is the most personal, is the one touching on someone who leaves, but may return later of there is a satisfactory product.  One needs to take a realistic look at one’s own skills and aptitudes, the situation in which you find yourself, and the chances of doing nothing but spin your wheels.  For instance, I find myself in a non-ACN diocese with a retiring Windsor bishop.  Due to vigorous political machinations, he will either not be replaced soon due to another hung election, resulting in rule by a firmly Beloved Moderate Standing Committee, or his replacement will be a Beloved Moderate.  My own parish is a very traditional one which I can and have recommended, but it has a militantly Beloved Moderate vestry which would need to have all the primary members replaced to begin something as honest as a simple education program or a parish meeting to discuss the situation.  Because they have been successful in building the church, both people and building, this will not be a high priority with the Beloved Moderate members.  The stated policy of the traditional Beloved Moderates, in private, is to keep on being traditional, and wait for the dust to settle resulting in an Enduring ECUSA, to use +Duncan’s phrase, to be handed to them.  Property intact, of course.

The real question is, can I make a bigger impact staying where I am, or elsewhere?  Over the time scale we are looking at, there is little I can do which would be effective as is.  We can’t all be Sarahs or Matts or Brads.  Working up the influence ladder, especially with people who don’t wish to be influenced that way, is slow and uncertain.  Moving to an ACN parish would make a statement, albeit negligible, but would at least put me in contact with people who are involved and with whom I could work with rather than around.  But ultimately, would it really matter?  Maybe.  Right now, it is looking more likely that a new structure will form from a nucleus completely outside TEC, with ACN and others joining it. 

It is an imperfect analogy, but I am reminded of the old military aviation truism.  You stay with a sick airplane as long as there is a chance of recovering it safely.  However, when that becomes unlikely, it is better to eject and give it back to the taxpayers, rather than ride it into the ground.  That way, at least you survive to fly and fight another day.  By early November, some things will be falling into place.  The future of diocese will be clear, or at least less murky.  Whatever questions there have been about ++Griswold, we will unambiguously have a new PB who is explicitly a neo-pagan, or a liturgical Unitarian, if you wish.  By then, it will be clearer, and more urgent, to decide whether to hit the road, or hit the silk.

Wow.  That’s a lot and deep.  Thanks for offering it and your transparency in doing so.  None of us should have been a passive observer to begin with.  There will come a time when even the freedom of this type of communication will be removed from us.

We (the L2) are working on our piece of action.  We currently belong to a “network” diocese under a Windsor bishop.  But have been under Swing and in Little Rock.  We’ve seen the current future and it’s never been of our choosing.  When we were in one not-to-be-named dicoese, the priest told us we didn’t have to worry about THAT here.  And never did they, nor do most even know what’s going on.  I know more that my priest even now. 

My problem is that our circumstances (B is a quadriplegic and J-me is the sole caregiver) limit what we can do.  So, Sarah, Matt, Greg and whoever - what can us little people do?  How do we help turn the tide, even when we face inertia in dioceses that know better?

L2,

Many years ago, I was confirmed at All Saints’ in Lakeland.  It was a wonderful place at the time, but then the whole Church was.  As someone who has also been a caregiver, my heart and prayers go out to you both.

Alan

I remain an Episcopalian at large, wandering among various church experiences, deriving inspiration from each.  In a blog posting, I have pointed out that the seven or eight dissenting U.S. bishops emphasize that they consider themselves still members of both the Anglican Communion and The (Protestant) Episcopal Church of the U.S.A.  “I mean to fight it out on this line, if it takes all summer,” said U.S. Grant.  It took a year, but he never gave up.  Neither should we.

<b>Good, the Bad and the Ugly <b>
<b>Good <b>–Overall, an excellent analysis.  Specific points:

“—I am amazed that people can depart ECUSA for another mainline denomination, thus buying a temporary lull in an inevitable battle within the newly chosen denomination and it is my belief that one must truly love a denomination to enter into the battle”. 

Amen! I am particularly amazed at those joining PCUSA. The Methodists are heading in the same direction, albeit slower, and at some point in the next few years its Confessing Movement will have to make some serious decisions.  Same with the Lutherans. Why would anyone voluntarily put themselves in this same position twice?

“I believe that Rowan is desperate for further delay and that delay was the focus, endpoint, and modus operandi from beginning to end, for the past three years.”

Agreed!. But that doesn’t mean that it didn’t make sense to push him toward a decision (see “Bad” below).

““Orthodox ECUSA rectors announce that their parishes are “growing in mission and ministry” and urge their parishioners to “focus on the gospel” and “not be concerned about national issues”; in effect—become more of a congregationalist. They do this in order to deny the clear consequences of what is happening within ECUSA.

Right on. Go to the web sites of the larger so called moderate or orthodox parishes in your Diocese and you will see these statements. It’s the “feel good” statement for those in a state of denial.

“I [do] not believe that ECUSA as a national entity will be saved or reformed…”

Agreed. I wonder if anyone really believes it can be reformed anymore.
<b>Bad<b>

“I should note, though, that I have not changed my opinion about the Camp Allen statement.”

Earlier, you said that the AOC’s main goal is to delay. A powerful CA statement would have made it more difficult for him to do so. As Matt pointed out, it was a lost opportunity.

“So I will choose the most discipling, evangelizing, thoughtful, culture engaging congregational church, and submit my services and heart to it. Yet my theology will continue on as an Anglican. That is what I believe and is what I am.”

Don’t speak too soon! Over time, your church may impact your theology, precisely because you are the type of person that commits your heart to whatever church you are in. All the more reason to consider one of the pseudo Anglican parishes you decry:>
<b>Ugly<b>

“In the meantime, clergy and parishes and laypeople who have left ECUSA announce that they are “still in the Anglican Communion. They do this in order to deny the clear consequences of what is happening within the Anglican Communion.”

Why do you say that? These congregations, which have given up millions in assets (or paid millions in ransom), endured broken personal relationships and, in many cases, endured the indignity (for an Episcopalian:>) of worshiping in uncomfortable folding chairs well know “what is happening in the Anglican Communion.” While you disagree that they can legally call themselves members of the Anglican Communion they are doing so with some giants in the Communion, such as Akinola++, Orombi++ and Venable++. I don’t want to restart a legal argument about national provinces, etc., but to suggest they are making the claim out of a sense of denial is wrong and demeans their sacrifice.

“But the vast majority [of departures from ECUSA] have gone to other non-Anglican entities—and that trend will continue, I believe.”

Perhaps Gallup or Barna organizations should give up the scientific polling method and simply count the emails in your inbox! :> Of those leaving due to the lack of orthodoxy, have you added up the congregations that have left as a whole, including Plano, Overland Park, Tallahassee, Birmingham, Montgomery, Atlanta, Raleigh (fill in the blank further in a few weeks?  Plano itself is larger than the Diocese of Nevada, and it certainly went to another Anglican entity. Should we get each of its members to send you an email to change the outcome of your poll?:> I suspect that the congregations that have left have strong internal leadership and are much less likely to be peppering these sites, or your email address, with anguish or pleas for help.
Your repeated assertions that the new Anglican churches arent winning the battle for the hearts and minds of departing Episcopalians reminds me of a Colt fan claiming before Super Bowl III that the AFL jets didn’t deserve to be on the same field with an NFL Colts. 
But overall, great column.

Timothy,

RE: “Earlier, you said that the AOC’s main goal is to delay. A powerful CA statement would have made it more difficult for him to do so. As Matt pointed out, it was a lost opportunity.”

Sure—and a statement by 19 Global South Primates that they will be leaving the Anglican Communion at the end of November if the ABC has not disciplined ECUSA would have pushed the ABC as well . . . but for some strange reason, no one is bleating about it being a “lost opportunity”.  ; > )

Re: “Don’t speak too soon!”

It has taken me three years to examine closely and to decide where I will go in the event of an Anglican Communion fracture.  I am unlikely to change my mind about that.

Re: “. . . to suggest they are making the claim [that parishes are members of the Anglican Communion when they leave ECUSA] out of a sense of denial is wrong and demeans their sacrifice.”

It in no way “demeans their sacrifice” to tell the truth.  What I said was baldly factual, and acknowledges their sacrifice, as for many, it was extremely painful to decide to leave the Anglican Communion.  To tell the truth is not demeaning, it is merely truthful. 

Re: “Of those leaving due to the lack of orthodoxy, have you added up the congregations that have left as a whole, including Plano, Overland Park, Tallahassee, Birmingham, Montgomery, Atlanta, Raleigh (fill in the blank further in a few weeks?”

Yes, Timothy. I did.  And those who have left for other non-Anglican denominations overwhelm those numbers. 

RE: “Your repeated assertions that the new Anglican churches arent winning the battle for the hearts and minds of departing Episcopalians . . . “

Obviously, they are winning the battle for some hearts and minds, but I do not believe most.  You are, of course, welcome to believe otherwise.

But if you were to come to believe that most people leaving ECUSA are in fact leaving for other non-Anglican entities, Timothy, what would that mean for you?  I made a statement about what I believe to be true, and in the absence of polling data from Barna can only state what I have observed anecdotally and what I *know* about me and my choices for the future.  So why so defensive?  I merely state what I personally have observed and experience.

Good stuff.  I’m certainly with you in the ‘in, but not of’ argument regarding ECUSA/ACC membership.  What informs me in all this has always been this:

http://theagetocome.wordpress.com/2006/09/13/ichabod/

How that works out is going to be a little different for each person…..

Sarah -
Thank you. This spoke to me directly as I have been struggling the past few months on what I should do inside my othodox church (in a reappraising diocese). As one who *hates* confrontation, I have reached the point (and this article confirms it—praying for discernment leads one to some interesting places!) where I realize that saying little or nothing is no longer an option. Thinking through what I should do and who I should talk to is nerve-wracking for me, but your thoughts have helped me work through what my actions should be.

And, because I have children to consider, depending on the answer over the next few months, we may have to leave for a new Anglican plant in our area.

Thank you, Sarah.  Another fine essay.  I appreciate your statements about hierarchy of values.  I think this is an important piece in the differences among the orthodox, and I would guess any group.  As far as the discipline of ecusa goes, it will soon be who cares time when ecusa has been formally recognized by those who matter to have walked apart.  I am not optimistic that Rowan wants to admit this, but there will come a point when he will either have to acknowledge that ecusa has separated herself from the body or his leadership will be sidelined.

Sarah,
1. Where are the people going (other than your inbox)?
By my quick count if you add up the membership of just the larger of the new Anglican churches (admittedly, not centrally reported, audited numbers) your get in excess of 10,000 former TEC members. If you add the smaller parishes that have been formed since GC2003 I guess AMIA you can probally double that number.  You have information of more than 20,000 people that have left for matters of orthodoxy over the last two years and have gone to other denominations? In any event, perhaps the best comparison is to look at where people went in those communities where there was a viable Anglican alternative. 
2. Anglican Communion Good Housekeeping Seal- “What I said was baldly factual…to tell the truth is not demeaning, it is merely truthful.   But Sarah, you didn’t simply make a factual statement, you ascribed a motive to the departing Anglican parishes claim of AC membership “They do this in order to deny…”  I contend the parishes are doing this because, along with their GS Bishops and Archbishops they believe it to be true. I also join those Archbishops that proclaim these parishes to be part of their Provinces and, through such Provinces, a member of the AC.  And I am certain that the Bishops in charge of these US parishes (with the possible exception of Minns and the AMIA parishes++) will be invited to Lambeth. Whether they choose to attend is, of course, is a whole other ball of wax, which may depend on what happens in Feb.

Sarah, forgot to answer what it would mean to me if I were to come to believe that most people leaving ECUSA are in fact leaving for other non-Anglican entities.  If they were going to growing, solidly orthodox denominations or congregational churches I would not be worried, in fact I am happy for them.  If they are going to a so-called mainline denomination,  I would be worried.  I would also be worried if they are going to small splinter parishes that are unlikely to address the needs of modern family.
The reason I am concern over the possible loss of an orthodox Anglican presence in the US is because I believe the Anglican church can attract and disciple a segment of our society that might not otherwise develop a deep relationship with our Lord.  I am not at all concerned about other faithful churches filling the void.

Re: “But Sarah, you didn’t simply make a factual statement, you ascribed a motive . . “

Yes, I did.  Sort of like the motives I ascribed to all the other statements and actions that I listed in that same section.  ; > )

Re: Where are they all going?

Good question.  The common trend that I have noticed all over the US is . . . *large churches with already established programs for youth*.  The denominations that most predominate seem to be 1) non-denominational, contemporary churches [shockingly], 2) PCA, 3) Rome.

In other words, as others have predicted, people deal with the staggering loss of ecclesial discipline in Anglicanism by either 1) adding more hierarchical authority [ROME] or 2) going more congregational.

It’s been a surprise to me—fascinating stuff.

Thanks Tony, for the kind words.  I am certainly eager to be made optimistic about the Archbishop of Canterbury!  ; > )

But even Matt has not been able to convince me yet . . .

APB,

I am curious about something that you say: “My own parish is a very traditional one which I can and have recommended, but it has a militantly Beloved Moderate vestry which would need to have all the primary members replaced . . . “

So . . . why not replace them via elections.  ; > )

Curiously,

Sarah

Dear The Lakeland Two,

First, my hat is off to you that you are interested in being involved, particularly given your challenging situations.  All of us are troubled by our own difficult circumstances—thank you for being so open about what must be challenging.  Blessings to you!

As to what you can do . . . it sounds to me as if you both may spend a lot of time at home [but maybe not].

Why not establish an email newsletter for fellow Episcopalians, first in your parish, then spreading out in your diocese?  You would be shocked at how much people who don’t spend time surfing the web come to rely on the bits of news that people forward them.  And the “forwarding” rate of such emails is quite high—often 3 to 1.  Sometimes much more . . .

I cover in this article here on Strategery 101 how to connect with and meet with those of like mind in your diocese:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1125/

A number of these ideas may suit your schedule and circumstances . . .

Here are links to the whole series—though I’m working on another addition:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1185/

Sarah,  I watched my parents, with 10 other people, leave their ECUSA church 20 years ago and found a new “Anglican” church….not officially recognized I guess, but the Truth was preached there.  That church, which I dubbed, “St. Mary’s of the Folding Chairs,” quickly grew and in a few years they had a much larger congregation and a beautiful new sanctuary (with lovely pews).  It is a great church, and has since come under the Anglican Province of America, which about a year ago joined in covenant with the REC and the Church of Nigeria.

I remain in my (new) AAC/ACN church, which is on its own in a big city in a big (non-orthodox) ECUSA diocses.  I used to be very upset about all this, but after much prayer, the Lord has removed my fear and I am waiting with great anticipation to see what will come next and where He wants me (and my family) to be.  The fact is, that at age 47, this mess has taken up the great majority of my life, and it will only be in the middle of my life and maybe the end, that I will be able to be a part of the birth of a stronger communion…..It’s coming…...Look at what the Lord is doing in Africa and other parts of the Global South.  It is hard for us as Americans to see others taking the lead, I guess….but perhaps a good experience for us as Christians to be in submission to the Lord and perhaps under the leadership of those we have always seen as followers and not necessarily leaders.

My mother now lives in your city, her hometown, and because she cannot drive, went with a friend to your church for the first year or so she was back…This is her former church from many years ago.  She said the focus of her friends, as “conservative” as they may be, is more on bricks and mortar than theology…..just as my old church was.  That is discouraging…especially when it is a beautiful, big church, full of lovely people.  Keep the faith, Sister Sarah!  (PS.  My mom said everyone she knows at that church LOVES you…..“She is SO SMART!!!”  I agree!!)

Thank you for the great report, Liz.  I’m not sure that everyone at my church loves me, though . . . ; > )

But I guess that’s okay.

Although the APA is not recognized as a part of the Anglican Communion, I need to say that that does not make them any less Anglican.  Plus, neither the APA nor the REC makes those claims, and probably wouldn’t want to be anyway!!!  Still, the APA and REC are making great strides—it seems to this outsider—in dealing with their own internal challenges.  And certainly no member of ECUSA can feel smug about anyone else, considering our own mess!!!

Liz, Thanks for your testimony of your journey. I think there is an huge portion of the Anglican Communion that could be a comfortable home for APA and REC if the Holy Spirit wills it. Certainly ECUSA is not presently part of that comfort zone (duh). I pray this turmoil will produce a new definition of the catholic and faithful branch known as Anglican. I even have hopes that that Anglican branch could eventually reunite with the Roman and Orthodox branches - probably not in my time but maybe for my great-grandchilden (that I eagerly hope for soon).

It’s funny…..but Anglican really means little more to be than based out of England at this point.  You could almost call it the English Communion I suppose.  I think we are going to see the Christian Communion be born out of all this, and I am taking my vitamins and exercising so I can stay in good health and be a part of that.  I want my children, grandchildren and so on to have Common Prayer, a Liturgical Worship format…and most of all, personal (scriptural) relationship with their Savior.

Having said that, the Lord has given you, Greg, Matt, Kendall, et al, a much bigger job than I have at this point…and it is discouraging sometimes, I know….but the Joy of the Lord is our strength, and what I joy getting to “know” all of you through the internet !!

Oops!  Typo!  “little more to me than…..”  Should be “me” and not “be.” 

Sarah: Nice analysis of ECUSA/TEC and explanation of your perspective.

One rabbit trail - certainly not essential to your main point - concerns whether the AMiA, in particular, is among those who expect certain individuals/parishes from TEC to join them. 

I attended the last AMiA winter conference last year and was a bit surprised that the focus was on the disconnected/unchurched without reference to ECUSA.  This focus was so strong that I noticed one distressed priest from TEC who was quite concerned that he would not be welcomed / received into the AMiA.

This is not to say that there are not groups out there that do expect what you have described.

Good job!

Sarah,

“Why not replace them with elections?”  Good question.  First, there is a nominating committee which consists of, well, you can guess who!  However, getting to run really isn’t the problem.  The real reason is that while the parish is traditional, the traditionalists are mostly Beloved Moderates.  To quote a wise theologian, “Beloved Moderates will, in general, depart under no circumstances at all.”  Given that they are ok, for now, and have already perhaps moved from a revisionist parish, they are not interrested in change.  Hence the head in the sand approach which pervades everything. 

APB

Sarah,

Thanks for the info.  My next stop is the links.  Yes, we are at home almost always.  Currently B’s immune system is very challenged so we don’t get to church very often.  You’ve given us some ideas. 

I’ve felt for years that discussing this should have been done at church…if not in announcements, then an after-service info meeting.  But it has seemed in recent years - let’s not talk about it and it will go away.  One of the reasons I’ve been hitting various sites is that I WANT to know and not be ignorant.  I realize I’m a babe (even at 49!!) and am sitting at the feet of some giants - even if y’all don’t think you are. 

But what I want is what God wants.  And one of our contributions is praying for all of you who are visible, and those not so.  Praying for the Windsor Bishops, and even the other ones.  That God’s voice will be the loudest and not one of His sheep is lost.  Matt’s story about the German car really does point it out.  I’ve felt for so long as the wife.  This whole mess has torn my heart.

I’ve been in great churches that glorify God, have great teaching and worship.  Two of them in this diocese have left.  I’ve seen and KNOW how great our worship of God can be.  Watching it being ripped up and apart is so awful.  But not being able to do anything feels even worse.

To APB:  Not a member of All Saint’s, though I plan on a drop-in some day in the future.  Fr. Jenkins sounds Windsor. 

To all, thanks for your prayers.  Being in our situation is hard.  But God uses us to reach many people because of our situation - especially in the medical field.  I’ve been told multiple times that we are a powerful witness for God and marriages because of our walk.  I’ve been told several times to divorce B and “get on with my life”.  When we got married, we meant our vows and decided divorce would not be an option.  We chose and never looked back. 

Then I’m asked where we go to church.  That’s not too hard until I get to the “Episcopal” part.  So you can see where I’m coming from!!!!!!

Keep the faith and know that each of you is bringing light into darkness.  We may not all agree on every point, but I think it’s healthy that we are examining ourselves and our church.

Well, let me tell you about an election that had nothing to do with any of this.. Just a power grab by the senior Warden (for his own reasons I guess).. I was nominated for membership on the vestry, and no one seemed to object.  I also found a candidate that would make a great candidate.  I sought the advice of the Priest, he was delighted,and approved, I asked the person if he would accept, he agreed (and was indeed honored), and turned the name in to the committee.

At the congregational meeting, the names of candidates was read, but this person was not named.  Since there could be nominations from the floor, I asked about my candidate.. Oh, said the Sr. Warden, yes there’s XXXXX. I knew he had not forgotten, just tried to pull a fast one. So finally my candidate was included, and he and I got the majority of the votes. 
A month later, the Sr. Warden resigned (probably a good thing, now that I think about it), but he had been pushing a candidate , and had tried to rig the election so that there were only TWO nominations for two seats. I don’t guess he ever forgave me.

This long story has nothing to to with reappraiser/reasserter issues, but indeed is indicative of how difficult it is to get good people elected when someone in “power’ wants it otherwise.

Blessings,
Grannie Gloria

Answer to tired:
I am part of an AMIA church begun by former Episcopalians who left their former churches because of the increasing apostasy of ECUSA. We now have members from 12 of the 13 Episcopal churches in the city. We also have members who are ex-Roman Catholics, ex-Presbyterians, and ex-Adventists. I myself am an ex-Baptist. We came to Anglicanism, rather than fleeing it. I did not get to attend Winter Conference but I can tell you that the focus you noted was consciously intended to avoid having the AMIA get bogged down in the continuing disintegration of ECUSA. We are a mission, not just a fragment of ECUSA. We want to move on and not be mesmerized by its death throes. Sarah is right-it is dying and there is absolutely no chance of saving it. Therefore, we say “Let it go” and are moving on. Having said that, I can assure you that we welcome all the Episcopal refugees we can get! We need strong, experienced believers. Most of the AMIA churches were either started by or have many former Episcopal members. Your priest need not be distressed, he would be welcome. We are growing so fast that we need good priests badly. Actually, I remember hearing that the AMIA’s credentialing department is backed up with applications from former Episcopal priests. We are working as fast as we can! It takes time, as, with so many apostate Episcopal clergy wandering around, we have to insure that the clergy we accept are in fact orthodox. We do not want to repeat the mistakes that have destroyed ECUSA.

A general comment.
The AMIA is a mission of and under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Rwanda. Unles the Rwandan Church has suddenly been thrown out of the communion, I do not see how you can say that we are not part of the Anglican Communion? We do not deny that the Communion is in grave danger, we hope to be at least a part of the remedy.
The communion may well split. It certainly cannot continue as a house divided. In that event, everyone, Worthy Opponents, Beloved Moderates and Roistering Episcopal Adventurers, will have to decide where they will stand. Yes, many will go elsewhere, I think more out of sheer disgust than anything-and will find the same battle they left raging in their new place. The continual delay, delay, delay is a prime cause of this falling away. It would appear, however, that the delay may be drawing to a close. The conservative Global South primates are finally pushing the Archbishop of Canterbury into a position where he will have to act, like it or not. It should not be too hard to figure out what he will eventually do-he will go the way that keeps as much of the communion together as possible, rather than be pushed aside as an irrelevancy, even though it will probably split the Church of England, even though it may stick in his throat to do it. He will, of course, drag his heels as long as possible, but I do not think he will be able to do so much longer. The communion will eventually purge itself of apostasy, even though it may leave behind a fragment that calls itself Anglican, though it is not. ECUSA will be expelled, and eventually (maybe sooner than anyone thinks) a new Anglican province in the US will be born to replace it. I believe most of the orthodox fragments will eventually unite in it, once it is officially recognised as part of the communion. Certainly, the fragments that have come under the authority of other Anglican primates will do so. A leaner but stronger Anglican Communion will emerge from all this, but it will wear a different look than its previous one. It will be no longer dominated by the English church, but become a truly world-wide communion.
God will, once again, bring good out of evil.

cannyscot

Hi Cannyscot,

When the AMiA was formed, the then Archbishop of Canterbury did not recognize the new bishops as bishops of the Anglican Communion.  Recognition by Canterbury is integral to the current definition of the Anglican Communion, though certainly some would like for that to change.  I believe that the ABC did not recognize those bishops because he was still functioning under the Lambeth resolutions [1988, 1998] that state that there will—typically—only be one representative entity within a geographic region that is recognized as a member entity of the Anglican Communion.  That entity within the US is ECUSA.

Here are the two communications from the ABC—2000, 2001—that refer to all of this:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/carey/releases/000217.htm
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/carey/releases/010619.htm

I suppose if those bishops are invited to Lambeth as participant bishops, then we will know that the current ABC has changed the policy.

It should be noted that most people in AMiA care not a whit about any of this!  ; > )

Your point #2 is the best argument for a split now rather than later and the rational behind our “Worthy Opponent’s” desire for more dialogue (read delay).  If we “dialogue” much longer there will be too few left to depart in the critical mass required to survive as a church entity.  I think that is why ++Duncan and ++Iker are done with meetings and ready for action.

Sarah,

Doesn’t your understanding of being “in” communion with Canterbury conflict with the implicit assumption of dromantine: that cross jurisdictional relationships are permitted so long as they are initiated by a parish? The ABC himself was party to this decision which, at the very least, challenges the idea that there can ONLY be one episcopal authority per area. Our current circumstances may, in fact, not be ideal, but the parishes involved in the sort of cross border relationships between parishes and provinces permitted by Dromantine do have communion standing. Unless, you too would like to ignore the DC?

I realize this is mildly off topic, however my husband has repeatedly asked about the English bishops refusing to educate/consecrate the priests after the revolution in America.  He and I are interested in understanding the parallel and divergent paths in regard to modern interpretations of consecrations (legal episcopate) and the Anglican communion.  Is there a parallel here?

Thanks,
Elizabeth

Re: “Sarah,

Doesn’t your understanding of being “in” communion with Canterbury conflict with the implicit assumption of dromantine: that cross jurisdictional relationships are permitted so long as they are initiated by a parish?”

No.

Dromantine states that bishops *will* move into other regions, if asked.  It says precisely zero about whether such non-geographic relationships mean that parishes or regions are in communion with Canterbury.  Creating such relationships will not force the ABC’s hand in creating another province, Matt, as much as people would like for it to do.  Which is why, of course, people would like the Kigali statement to be implemented—so that such a province may be created.

Unless you, too, would like to be in denial about consequences of actions.  ; > )

“Dromantine states that bishops *will* move into other regions, if asked.  It says precisely zero about whether such non-geographic relationships mean that parishes or regions are in communion with Canterbury.”

So, the ABC’s signed recognition of such relationships and at the very least, his refusal to delegitimize them, means nothing with regard to their communion status?

Do you at least recognise that he has decidedly NOT done what ++Carey did with regard to the AMiA consecrations. ++Carey went out of his way to delegitimize them.

The ABC has at least tacitly approved the relationships currently enjoyed by those parishes in the 7th.

Do you see any difference between the two cases with regard to communion status? and if so, would you be willing to articultate that difference?

I would argue the opposite.

Matt,

I believe just what I have stated in my article above and what I have stated for the past years.  I know that you would argue—and have argued—the opposite; remember, neither of our analyses or articles should be at all surprising, they are rather predictable based on the six themes above.

I continue to believe that no amount of creating the entity that you would like and then after the fact manipulating/demanding/pretending/guilttripping/forcing-the-hand-of/various-other-contortions will actually get what you want—a new province in the US, recognized by Canterbury.

There may end up being a new province in the US, recognized by Canterbury.  But it hasn’t happened yet, though certainly people are free to pretend otherwise.

I find it interesting that, so far, my article describes exactly what has happened on a few instances in the comment thread.

It is sad.

I will not change my mind about this.

Not trying to change your mind. Would never think to do such a thing…I am trying to find out whether you see any degree of difference between the two situations I described above. If you do not (which seems to be the implication of your reply) I think perhaps you may have slipped the pretending shoes onto the wrong set of feet.

Matt,

So far, I have not noticed the 7th Convocation of the Network attempt to consecrate any bishops.  So the two situations are not comparable.

The only consecration has been the CANA bishop consecration.  I suppose we’ll have to wait and see if Bishop Minns is seated at Lambeth as a participant.

Well, no, the 7th is not the AMiA. But the question was, given the ABC’s tacit permission for relationships like those charactarizing 7th convocation parishes, do you see a distinction in communion standing between the two?

I suppose you will say (because you have said it before) that the test will be when/if the Network makes a similar move: ie consecrates a bishop.

True, but irrelevant. That has not happened. What has happened is that the ABC has allowed for standing cross jurisdictional relationships between parishes and provinces.

That seems a pretty good case (with no pretending) for the current communion legitimacy of 7th convocation parishes.

Re: “That seems a pretty good case (with no pretending) for the current communion legitimacy of 7th convocation parishes.”

That’s cool, Matt—that means, then, that it is terribly strange that the Kigali statement asked for something that you believe is already arrived.  ; > )  What a TOTAL waste of time that statement was since there is no need of a new Province or action by Canterbury/Primates.

If you are content with the 7th convocation status, then why so distressed over the Camp Allen statement?  No worries, Matt.  All is well!!!

Your responses continue to highlight Theme #4.  Some people [but certainly not all] will continue to leave ECUSA, the recognized province of the Communion, and deny the consequences of those departures, and further declare that what they hope for—indeed what they are vociferously fighting for—has already happened.  While of course, continue to vociferously fight for something . . .  while of course declaring it has already happened . . .  while continuing to vociferously fight for it . . . while declaring it has already happened . . .

Matt—you will continue to assert what you wish, and I also.  I suspect that the commenters and readers of this blog also have their own opinions and I am confident that I have defended my position.

So confident, that you are welcome to the last word on your position here on this thread.  ; > )

There are a couple of good points in the original article here, but it’s beyond verbose and goes on forever….a good caveat for all of us is, “never say in 100 words what you could say in 10”...

Plus, when you get over 100 words, you should start wondering if you’re spending entirely too much time on one subject. 

In a nutshell, this looks like a horrible tempest in a teapot. 

In my view, the Camp Allen statement was largely insignificant and will have almost no effect on the events unfolding on the world stage. 

The Anglican environment as we know it will largely change, and for the better. 

“Delay” could be Williams’s middle name, but he’s running out of time for that.  2/07 and 8/08 are fast approaching and these issues will be dealt with, significantly, either at or before that time. 

Underestimating the “law of gross tonnage” is overly negative and rather foolhardy….friends, the Global South is driving this bus and Rowan knows it.  Were they to get tired of current events and walk out with their 40 million to create another See, Dr. Wales would end up looking like the biggest putz on Earth, and he knows that, too. 

He came to Dromantine with an agenda, probably of delay, and the Global South whisked that right off the table.  I heard that from a reliable, honest source who was there, and has worked tirelessly, deliberately, and consistently for traditional Anglicans in America.  Said person should be canonized. 

Archbishop Malango said it entirely correctly at “Hope and a Future” last year—it is the Primates’ Meeting, and then Lambeth, who will decide the fate and structure of the Communion. 

I have no illusions regarding the perfection of the Global South, but they always start with God and True Faith and that is the only way to succeed at anything. 

2/07 will probably start out as a bloodbath, but ECUSA will have to answer for its actions and I believe Traditional Anglicanism will wind up in a good place. 

A question for all, especially the author of this endless piece—how good for your mental health is it to spend more time with “Church” than you do with God? 

In Christ,

Jen

Hi Lakeland Two,

Glad that you have some ideas now . . .

I really appreciate your witness in regards to your marriage.

May God pour out on you both His generous gifts of love, joy, and peace.

“you are welcome to the last word on your position here on this thread”

Why thank you.

The answer is that indeed the ABC has recognized the communion legitimacy of those 7th convocation parishes or he could not stand by Dromantine. But that does not meet that their present status isn’t in flux.

What the ABC ultimately decides with regard to ECUSA will determine whether the 7th is the beginning of a new provincial framework as articulated by the Moderator in July or whether they simply remain as they are: validly and legitimately tied to Canterbury but highly irregular.

PS—I said to a friend two years ago that a lot of these problems could largely be solved by eliminating geographical boundaries.  I’ve since heard that point reiterated by Bishop Duncan, and, eventually, I would not be surprised if that’s a crucial issue addressed by both the Primates’ meeting and Lambeth. 

PRAY PRAY PRAY

In Christ,

Jen

Jen,

Though I disagree alot with this piece, I found it an absolute joy to read (as I do with all of Sarah’s writings). And since you don’t know Sarah, there is no need or reason to question her faith or her time with the Lord. It may come as a shock but some people can write long substantive articles and still work hard and pray daily. It’s called discipline.

Re: “There are a couple of good points in the original article here, but it’s beyond verbose and goes on forever….a good caveat for all of us is, “never say in 100 words what you could say in 10”...

Yes, it is lengthy.  My articles will continue to be lengthy.  Thankfully, the articles by each writer are clearly marked by name, so people who prefer to read 100 word articles will know in advance not to click on the link with my name by it.  ; > )  In fact, anyone who decides to click on an article with my name by it should immediately go 1) brew a large cup of tea or coffee, 2) put the dinner on, and 3) get comfortable.  It should be an automatic reaction . . . like a Pavlovian thing!! ; > )  Those who like short articles will not have to go through any of those steps, they can just avoid clicking.

Re: “A question for all, especially the author of this endless piece—how good for your mental health is it to spend more time with “Church” than you do with God?”

Why do you believe that spending time with church, Jen, is not spending time with God? 

And—if I were to accept your theology of balkanization of life into “spending time with God, good”, “spending time with [other matters], not good”, which I don’t—how do you know how much time that I “spend with God”?  Maybe I’m one of those people who spend hours every day on her knees in spiritual prayer and scripture study.  Or maybe I write exceptionally fast!!! ; > )

And a final question . . . why ask so peevish and personal a question of someone who merely wrote an article?

Regarding all of your predictions—I hope that you are 100% correct!
; > )

Matt,

Let us “reach out the right paw of friendship” to one another and agree together on Theme #6.

; > )

Not to be nitpicky but Jen’s article has 370 words (1,727 characters not counting spaces or closing).

Since most of you know that I pull very few punches I have a couple of comments for observers of this blog.  First Jen if you have not yet done so, get to know Sarah, you will be touched by her.

Because Sarah’s church has come up I do have a comment.  It could have and still can make an international difference much like Plano and St. Andrews, etc.  I have been waiting for leadership from Sarah’s church (not just Sarah) and sadly it has sat on the sidelines.  My challenge to Christ Church in Greenville (clergy and laypeople) is to take the leadership role you have been given by God and do something with it!

oh yes, on number 6 we agree completely!

Well Done Sarah! I will pray that Lee Parker’s encouragement to Christ Church, Greenville South Carolina to get off of the sidelines will immediately take effect. Christ Church is fortunate to have you as an active Christian Soldier ( even Pro Tempore).

May the Lord Bless You!

STAN

Rowan now turns his eyes to the covenant, which buys another two years.

This seems overly optimistic.  I think the covenant buys at least 12 years.  I think a proposed covenant will be presented to Lambeth 2008, and probably accepted.  Then there will be a 10 year “reception” period during which various provinces will have a chance to sign onto it.  At the end of this 10 years, the first group of constituent members will be defined, and the covenant-based Anglican Communion will continue forward.  For the Episcopal Church, it may be even longer.  I think the Episcopal Church is going to fight tooth and nail to delay, derail and defeat any meaningful covenant.

The only way I think this process would be shortened would be if Rowan retires during this time.  It’s the “conservatives’” turn at the ABC next, and it seems likely a conservative will try to make things more decisive sooner.

...the consequences for one or both sides will reach the level of what I like to call “Shrieking Pain”.

This description is so colorful, vivid and… realistic I don’t know whether to laugh or shriek!

For me personally, I would not reach a level of Shrieking Pain until either my church got a reappraising rector, or our Bishop started actively persecuting us, or a reasserting rector began bending to the will of a reappraising bishop or reappraisers in the congregation.

Randy,

I’ve always tried to tell people that I’m actually an optimist—and no one ever believes me . . . I hope that your words will be a lesson to others that I am actually a “moderate” in my pessimism concerning Rowan Williams.  ; > )

I disagree about Rowan’s retiring being good.  He is probably hoping to put off decisions until that time . . . but any archbishop after Rowan will be more liberal, because the Crown appoints ABCs based on recommendations of the Prime Minister, who bases his recommendation on a very stacked committee that is appointed.

Think about our Executive Council—and that is how stacked any ABC committee will be and in fact was when it recommended Rowan Williams.  The only choices that will come out of such a committee will be “Very Liberal” and “Shrieking Liberal” [since you liked that word so much].  ; > )

I had actually meant “Shrieking Pain” to be applied to the two sides within the international arena—the “delay” side and the “decision” side.

I believe that the level that will reach Shrieking Pain for the ABC is probably a level that the Global South will not be willing to inflict—their departure from the Anglican Communion.  I do believe that if Rowan Williams believed that departure by a good chunk of Global South Primates was imminent, he would take an action, reluctantly. 

But I do not believe that Rowan Williams believes that.

Sarah,

Brilliant!  Well done!  Well reasoned analysis.  Kudos.

Sarah,

I had not read +++Carey’s statements before. Being new to Anglicanism, I have not been through all the fireworks you have. Actually, one reason, among many, that I came to Anglicanism is that I wanted to be on the front line with those who are fighting those who would destroy the faith. Yes, I’m that stubborn. It’s my Scottish ancestry. I have sat on the sidelines long enough.
My reaction to +++Carey’s statements is that now, after all that has happened since they were made, that they are now outdated and no longer reflect current reality, even though they have not been officially reversed. The Anglican Communion is going to eventually have to get over this territoriality thing, at least when dealing with a crisis. As you say, I guess we will see at Lambeth-if it happens.
I do not think that any effort to persuade the GS primates to not play hardball will succeed. I see the Kigali statement as a shot across the bows-to both ECUSA and the ABC. I think they would love to hand the ABC a fait accompli and tell him to get on board or else. I do not think the Camp Allen meeting will make much difference. Yes, the Camp Allen statement could have been better written and an opportunity was lost. The ABC does not need any excuses to delay as long as possible. The GS primates are about as fed up with him as with ECUSA-and some of them think he is nearly as apostate as Schori. They would like to know why he has not enforced orthodox belief in the Church of England, despite the pressures, as they have in their own provinces. They also want him to tell them he is of orthodox belief-and they are tired of his squirming out of their questions on that one. I think they are waiting on, if anything, for the Network bishops to start the ball rolling, as some have said here. What came out of New York was good, but not quite what they needed. Camp Allen could have produced it, especially with the ABC’s representatives there, but then most of the Windsor lot would have chickened out. Who knows how many of them will actually have the guts to make a move when pushed to a choice. What the GS primates need to know is that the Network bishops will stick to their guns before they begin a potentially communion breaking move. If ++Iker and ++Duncan issue a “to Hell with ECUSA, we want a new province” statement in the immediate future, things could start moving faster than we could follow them and it might all be settled except the fireworks and the messy details by the primates meeting. Actually, if something like this does not happen, the primates meeting will get very messy. The GS primates will have nothing to do with Schori, partly because she is female, mostly because she is an apostate. At this point, I do not think there is any way the ABC could broker a compromise-and he is going to look like an idiot if he goes running back and forth between groups trying. One thing I am quite sure of-+++Williams is a pragmatist at heart and he will do whatever he has to, however distasteful he may find it personally, to remain head of the communion, even if it means telling the revisionists goodbye. If he does so, the real question will be what the British government, which seems to have gone almost entirely anti-Christian, will do. +++Williams may indeed be out of a job at that point. God only knows who his successor may be. I heard a rumor that ++Wright of Durham might be next. Interesting?

Answer to Elizabeth:
There is no real parallel. The only reason the British bishops would not consecrate the first American bishops is that they were bound by law not to consecrate anyone who would not swear loyalty to the British crown-which the Americans could not do. The law was soon changed and later post-Revolution bishops were consecrated by their British counterparts, until we had enogh bishops to consecrate our own. The resort to the non-juring Scottish bishops was to get around the law. The Scottish bishops were not bound, having themselves refused to swear. The Scottish Episcopal Church, unlike the English one, was not an established church. The Kirk, or Church of Scotland (Presbyterian), was the established church in Scotland. They spent nearly a century in intermittent civil war before that got settled.

cannyscot

Sarah,
One thing I forgot in my post. Don’t worry about the long posts. Write what God has laid on your heart.

cannyscot

Sarah is right; COE politics have long been trending “left” and Williams successor will likely be more liberal than he is. Further, unless the COE abolishes its historic state ties, the ceremonial head will eventually be King Charles, not exactly a force for orthodoxy.  The conservatives in the COE are in a pickle, even more constrained by asset issues than those in the US and by nature much more cautious.  Talk to them, they are way behind the curve in terms of having a game plan. (Unlike us US cowboys)
A prediction- in the not too distant future we will hear about a new group of so called (but not really) Windsor Bishops, a group that will label itself as both orthodox and committed to avoiding schism. They will propose some half measures in an effort to stave off a mass exodus and keep the checks rolling in. They will oppose efforts by the GS to force decisive action, and will try to provide the AOC with cover for a further delay.  They may even get a web page.  Stay tuned.

Sarah, you said…

Now, let me be clear. Should the AC fail to discipline ECUSA and achieve instead a massive fracture—there will be a massive exodus of Roistering Episcopal Adventurers. But that exodus will not, by and large, depart to alternate Anglican entities or a reconstituted communion.

... and I have to heartily agree. I became a Christian in 1981 (my wife followed in 1982) through the ministry of a strongly Evangelical/Charasmatic parish (that is part of the Network now). I’m a Jew and she was raised UU. We moved away in 1984 and over the subsequent 22 years we have lived in three different dioceses -  one orthodox, one apostate, one indifferent. Over the years I have seen fewer and fewer ECUSA congregations that are growing explosively. (Possibly since I newer had the chance to live in the South ).

I have roistered for years, but the institution has ratcheted down from faith to apostasy. It seems that everytime a rector or bishop retires (or a vestry member or standing committee member finishes his/her term) the replacement is less committed to the Faith. We’ve been supporters of Trinity School for Ministry since 1981 and have seen both God’s blessing on the graduates and ECUSA’s refusal in most dioceses to receive the blessing. Many of the “traditional” parishes don’t have a real heart for evangelism and are often lukewarm (cf. Laodicea). They talk a good game, but when it comes to sharing the Gospel they dodge, delay, or simply do good works. Once “traditional” Episcopalians became ashamed of Jesus’ words (”...we don’t proselytize like the (shudder) Baptists”) it’s not too surprising that we left ourselves open to being infiltrated by those that ceased to believe or never believed the skandelon of the Gospel.

In the Pacific Northwest where we now live (near Portland, OR) there isn’t a vibrant Anglican presence. The explosive growth is with the theologically orthodox non-denoms.

Not surprisingly, after GC2006 we decided to leave TEC. The Great Commission isn’t to build stone buildings, upgrade the pipe organ, or refurbish the vestments. It’s to share the Good News, make disciples, and Baptize those who come to faith in Jesus. I always considered the Apostolic Succession a gift from God to ensure individual congregations don’t go off the rails. It always saddened us whenever we saw a Bishop who was actively diverting and derailing. We just have to remember that (just like He did with Paul) it’s God who picks Apostles in the end. I’m not a Donatist, but significant numbers of the ordained and consecrated are due for pruning and burning.

So, where are we going? We considered swimming the Tiber or Bosporus, but with our upbringing (Jew and UU, remember) the Extreme Liturgical Churches are a little too alien. Not surprisingly, we’ve opted for a vibrant non-denom which focuses on studying the Word, breaking bread together, and sharing the Good News. Additionally, I’m spending the couple of hours per week I used to spend in Choir practice doing street evangelism with Jews for Jesus. Much more satisfying!

So, Sarah, I have to agree - when a split comes, a lot of the folks who leave ECUSA are not going to hang around the AC. The Network doesn’t have the geographical reach to cover the US in time - and you can only plant churches where the “sponsoring parent” is close enough to provide guidance and oversight. Some regions where there is a sufficient concentration of faithful Anglicans can coelesce into a new Anglican presence; in regions where there isn’t a critical mass, the faithful will move to other parts of Christ’s Body. In those areas, ECUSA will continue to burn through the dead people’s money and gutter out.

I pray that you continue to receive guidance and succor day-by-day and that you will know when to stand at your post and when to melt into the fields to fight on another field of battle. God bless you!

Doug,

I really appreciate the story of your faith journey.  Believe me—though I am not close to leaving my Episcopal church—I often scout around and the two places where I see the emphasis on the culture-engaging gospel of Jesus are the PCA denomination and certain seeker churches.  Interestingly enough, I’m not reformed enough for a PCA church and I dislike contemporary worship.  But I will probably be in the latter sort of church should the Anglican Communion fracture and the ABC choose not to discipline ECUSA.

One of the things you said I would like to highlight: “Some regions where there is a sufficient concentration of faithful Anglicans can coelesce into a new Anglican presence; in regions where there isn’t a critical mass, the faithful will move to other parts of Christ’s Body.”

That’s what I’ve seen with church plants.  In areas where there is already a strong traditional Episcopal parish—there seems to be a sufficient concentration of “Anglicanism” to successfully plant another, say, Network or AMiA parish.  And once a new parish “gains roots” it becomes easier to reach out and evangelize the lost and the seeking.

But when there aren’t those strong parishes—and thus a concentration of people embued with the “Anglican way”—planting new parishes is quite difficult. 

I think this is the “rural/urban” principle said in a different way.

The areas where there are smaller Episcopal parishes in rural settings find it far more difficult to plant new non-ECUSA Anglican parishes.  But in urban areas like Raleigh—let the games begin!!!  Episcopalians who would like to leave ECUSA have their choice of 5-6 different Anglican parishes that are non-ECUSA.

Of further interest to me . . . the members of ECUSA in rural areas seem much more willing and interested in “fighting for their parish [or diocese].  Why?  Because “they got no place to go” . . .

Doug Said,

“Many of the “traditional” parishes don’t have a real heart for evangelism and are often lukewarm (cf. Laodicea). They talk a good game, but when it comes to sharing the Gospel they dodge, delay, or simply do good works. Once “traditional” Episcopalians became ashamed of Jesus’ words (”...we don’t proselytize like the (shudder) Baptists”) it’s not too surprising that we left ourselves open to being infiltrated by those that ceased to believe or never believed the skandelon of the Gospel.”

I agree. This is the major concern that I have about whether Anglicanism can really survive in modern America. There is, literally and thankfully, too much competition for those who are lukewarm. In my town, the continuing churches seem too interested in tradition and staying small, rather than taking the risk of evangelizing and offering their blessings to the community as a gift for all to see.

Organizations which are not growing are dying. I realize that some will make the excuse of demographics, but if a church is offering good teaching and warm fellowship, it should grow, however slowly, in any soil. As Sarah has said in the past, the problem is not really with the liberals, it is with the orthodox who allowed such rot to set in. Blaming the liberals for taking advantage of the situation is like blaming the fungus that rots your ceiling when you wouldn’t fix the leaky roof.

Let me add to Sarah’s comments as I am one of those who is on the journey.  I do not attend an Episcopal church and it is very doubtful I will ever again.  I remain a member of the church primarily to “help” if I can in the future.  I have narrowed church attendance to two church buildings.  Interestingly it is the same church decision as Sarah’s but I have primarily selected the PCA church due to its location and to its scholarly and excellent ministers.

Like Sarah it is a bit too reformed for me and at times I struggle with the grace component as the congregation is not as eclectic as the non denominational (Eastlake) church which I also recommend. 

This is where the network is tragically losing folks like my family.  I am beginning to understand less and less the “inside” strategy but because so many bright people are behind it I still support it and it doesn’t matter whether I do or not.

It is the outside strategy where the network and related entities are missing the boat.  If Seacoast and Eastlake can do what they have done surely there is an Anglican expression which can be successful.  There are two maybe three keys here:

1) Develop an outside strategy that will transcend boundaries

2) encourage exits by large parishes who can make a difference

3) put your egos in the closet

And no, I am not saying that liberals are “fungus”. They are just as valuable and important as anyone else, even if their tactics somtimes mimic these simple organisms.

I agree with Sarah too in that the liberal “march-on” is not solely to blame for our current situation; the “inertia of the mob”, thus far, has been very hard to sway. 

I was hoping that organizations like LEAC, not to mention devout, astute rectors with a gift for education, would be able to debunk a lot of the revisionist myths and angling but I’m not sure how much “headway” has been made in that department—a lot of the clergy are just as bad with the head-in-the-sand routine as the laity.  I don’t expect everyone to do it but it’s amazing in 2006 how many people neglect to use or read the internet news.  We had a recent “news update” by the rector in our church and I was thoroughly surprised by the number of oooo’s, aaaah’s, can’t believe it’s”, and “didn’t know that’s”.  This stuff is no different than world news and politics, folks, with probably even more at stake—-to quote a friend of mine, it’s a horribly bad idea to degenerate into the temporarily safe but ultimately dangerous realm of the “functionally illiterate”....

Jack, I try real hard to lay off the name-calling but if I were you, I wouldn’t feel too bad about the “fungus” comment.  I’m only one person but I understood you.  Plus, I no longer have the exact quote and I don’t remember the medium I saw it in, but somewhere, somebody had made some crack to Schori regarding her oceanographic background and the retort was along the lines of the benefits of already having had experience working with “bottom-dwellers” or something along that line(which I took as a snide reference to the traditionals).  I was about as enthralled with it, and found it just as flattering to its deliverer as “this isn’t your grandmother’s church anymore”...but, it pays to keep a thick skin and let that kind of stuff roll off your back. 

I’d counsel everyone to remember what Bishop Duncan said—we are not building “microwave church” here—the solutions are not quick, and evangelism and construction do not happen overnight.  To wit, the old cliche that Rome was not built in a day, either.  In my view, things are going to get better, but it will take time, and will always be ongoing.  In essence, an improved, Scripturally-based version of “God’s truth revealed”....   

ATB,

Jen

There exists one overriding theme about which little has been said in all this thread. The source of this blog’s name contains that theme:

Eph 6:12 ... our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens. 6:13 For this reason, take up the full armor of God so that you may be able to stand your ground on the evil day, and having done everything, to stand. 6:14 Stand firm therefore ...

The theme to which I am referring is not that we should stand firm, although that is of course true. The theme is that “our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavens.” There are battles going on that we cannot see. Some of the Lord’s victories in these battles will percolate into events in our Anglican struggle that we do see. Some of the victories will be completely unknown to us. Most importantly with this particular theme, more of the battles’ coordination than we sometimes like to admit is occurring “in the heavens”. We do need to keep battling for the heart of the church at whatever locus we find ourselves, but we need to remember, and be encouraged, that there is a much larger battle going on of which we are only a small component. I recently reread Sarah’s 6/22 posting, “Little Stone Bridges & Why We Fight for Them”

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

It provides one perspective on the battle being larger than we realize, but if Eph 6:12 is to be believed, then the battle in this post-modern era and in the midst of the TEC mess is only the visible part of a much bigger, much more fearsome struggle. Some may be called to realign toward the faithful Anglican Global South. Others may find it necessary to continue the struggle in non-Anglican congregations. But we all need to continue to fight the good fight (1 Tim 1:18).

Often in high profile secular fights, the adverse parties begin to develop a symbiotic relationship.  They are defined and consumed by the fight itself, rather than achievable objective. I hope that is not happening here.

Re: “I hope that is not happening here.”

Timothy—how would you know?  A number of times over the past year or so that you have been posting comments here, you have expressed strong opinions about what can happen or has or has not happened with reform of parishes and dioceses.  Those opinions seem to indicate that you simply are unaware of most if not all of the reforming actions that have and are taking place and about which I receive floods of emails and phone calls.

I understand your not being aware now—why track stuff when you are safely and happily elsewhere?

But were you at all involved in resistance/renewal efforts—on a political strategic basis—in the Episcopal church before you left?  I’m genuinely curious about what all you were involved with in ECUSA, in regards to the actual political work that it takes to renew small parts of this big entity, ECUSA.

Re: “This is the major concern that I have about whether Anglicanism can really survive in modern America. There is, literally and thankfully, too much competition for those who are lukewarm. In my town, the continuing churches seem too interested in tradition and staying small, rather than taking the risk of evangelizing and offering their blessings to the community as a gift for all to see.:”

Capn’ Jack Sparrow—I’m curious about something [nice handle by the way!].

Did you investigate the continuing churches in your area?  Can you chart, a bit, your church journey these days?

I’m interested in the “staying small” part of your comment . . .

Sarah- Your analysis of the current situation is, as the British say, “spot on.”  As you noted, many more orthodox Anglicans are leaving for non-Anglican churches than is commonly acknowledged.  As one who is in the process of swimming the Tiber, I found your discussion of where you stood interesting.  Yout stated that

  “it is my belief that one must truly love a denomination to enter into the battle [in my case, Anglicanism is what I love]—and I am unable, theologically, to affirm the truth of some central tenets of Roman Catholic or Eastern theology. So I will choose the most discipling, evangelizing, thoughtful, culture engaging congregational church, and submit my services and heart to it. Yet my theology will continue on as an Anglican. That is what I believe and is what I am.”

The conclusion that I’ve come to is that it is precisely our view as Protestants that each of us reserves the right to judge whether we can, as you put it, “affirm” a particular theology as a condition as to whether we can belong to a church that has lead to the mess we find ourselves in.  Both orthodox and progressive Anglicans take this view. However, for Catholics (and, I believe the Orthodox), the real world, bricks and motar, institutional church is the entity that decides what “theology” is true and therefore our choice is limited to whether we trust that church, acting in accordance with Christ, will get it right or not.  It has not been easy to lay down my Protestant view and accept this, but increasing both my mind and my heart tell me that it is true.  Nonetheless, I have found that in investigating the claims of the Catholic church, that we Protestants have, to put it charitably, “misunderstood” what the Catholic church actually teaches (especially, as opposed to what is practiced by some Catholics).  One book I found especially useful was “Catholic and Christian” by Alan Schreck, a convert from the Presbyterian church I believe.  He does a great job in laying out the Scriptural basis for many of the Catholic doctrines that cause us Protestants so much heartburn.  (BTW, so does the new Catholic Catechism).  Although it was not determinative, it has provided a source of “comfort” with my decision.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond.  I wish you well wherever you go.

Re: “The conclusion that I’ve come to is that it is precisely our view as Protestants that each of us reserves the right to judge whether we can, as you put it, “affirm” a particular theology as a condition as to whether we can belong to a church that has lead to the mess we find ourselves in.  Both orthodox and progressive Anglicans take this view. However, for Catholics (and, I believe the Orthodox), the real world, bricks and motar, institutional church is the entity that decides what “theology” is true and therefore our choice is limited to whether we trust that church, acting in accordance with Christ, will get it right or not.”

Bernie—believe me, everwhere I turn, people are crossing the Tiber from Anglicanism, so I know what you mean—those are the three churches that I see people going to: RC, PCA, and non-denominational. 

You say something interesting here: you say that in the RC and Orthodox churches the “institutional church is the entity that decides what “theology” is true”.

But . . . that is actually a “truth statement” that individuals must affirm before they can be a part of the Roman Catholic church.

In other words, in order for you to become Roman Catholic [or me, too] you individually must decide that that theology is in fact correct, before you submit yourself to it.

I’m not knocking on the Roman Catholic church, believe me.  And if there had been a way for me to actually believe the claims of the Roman Catholic church—in the face of a spectacular meltdown in authority in Anglicanism—I would have done so.  But after further investigation, I simply did not believe that what the Roman Catholic church claims to be true about itself [and many other theological beliefs] were Truth.

On the other hand, I can say thank you to the Roman Catholic church for “holding down the fort” in the culture during this particular time in church history, because frankly I don’t see any other denomination currently doing that.  Kudos to your new church . . .

And don’t rest too long on the banks of the Tiber!!!  ; > )

Sarah,

Since you asked about my “journey”, Cap’n Jack has sailed the high seas for several years now, as a man without a country, religiously speaking. Come to think of it, that IS a bit like a pirate? His answer is in two parts, to preserve the feelings of those who have expressed concern with YOUR extended posts. First, you will hear about how we left our ECUSA parish. Then you will hear about WHY we stay where we are now.

Actually, I have no sympathy for pirates whatsoever, whether they in a religious sense or of the seafaring variety. What both hold in common is disdain for order, law, loyalty etc. They refuse to hoist the colors, so to speak, of any nation or party except their own immediate interest.

I am a confirmed Episcopalian, with two young children, one of whom was baptized by my rector. While not a “cradle” Episcopalian, I have always had deep respect for the liturgy of the prayer book. Later in life, I have come to respect the balanced theology of Cranmer and Hooker, who were willing to take the best of Rome, while avoiding the extreme separatist developments within Puritanism. Anglicanism at its best proposes a unity and authority which is more than the sum of the individual members. The AOC provides that focus, but the reality is of a mutual submission and councilor authority. This is in contrast to the polity of the other Protestants, who essentially believe that the only authority of the church is that granted by the votes of the laity. In other words, the power derives from the people, who vote to elect their leader and then vote to align with whatever denomination or structure best suits their interests. In contrast, the AC has provided the only Protestant manifestation of this concept of shared and dispersed authority, beyond that of the mere “priesthood of all believers” which has essentially become a law unto itself. The liberals have taken advantage of this liberty within unity. Unfortunately, the AC immune system appears to be too slow to fight this new infection in its midst.

Essentially, when GC 03 happened, our rector (reappraiser) was conveniently on vacation. While he was gone for several weeks the laity were very upset and asking difficult questions. I took that opportunity, as a layperson and not holding any office such as vestryman, to distribute materials by the AAC, to those who were interested in taking them.

When the rector got back in town, he called an impromptu parish meeting. At that meeting, he carefully pointed out that the NH election was all done in good order and that it was perfectly legal. The GC actually HAD to consent to Robinson, because after all, he was baptized and had been duly elected by the people of NH. I asked if GC had ever NOT confirmed a duly elected candidate, and he said something about the 1930’s when they rejected someone who was thought to be too Anglo-Catholic. I pointed out that this means that Convention DOES have the authority to reject a candidate over theological issues.

I was surprised that the laity, normally very vocal and forceful, would not speak up in the meeting. Only me and one other person spoke up against the “new thing”. One other person on the vestry expressed worry that we might loose the building if we said anything. Mind you, this was a very small country parish, ASA about 35. All the laity were orthodox, but some were moderate in political approach. This was, originally, a ‘28 prayer book parish.

After the meeting, in private, the rector took me aside and told me that he felt undermined by me and that I should have talked to him first before handing out the pamphlets. I reassured him that I was not leading a rebellion and that I was quite supportive of his leadership. Actually, I was more supportive of his leadership than many of those who silently sat through the meeting. We had a good talk, for about an hour.

I realized that we had to leave the church, because the rector had cast the struggle as a personal one between he and I, when actually the whole parish was against the “new thing”. However, my family decided to leave the parish, not primarily because of the rector, but because of the laity. They were prepared to let me swing in the wind, wanting me to “lead” them, but became wet dishrags in the rector’s presence.

Oddly enough, our leaving the parish did more to strengthen the resolve of those who stayed. They cut off their pledge to the diocese. The rector left in disgust. About 10 of the parishioners went to the Baptist church, about 5 more became RC, ALL the families with young children left. They have been unable to call a priest because the Bishop won’t allow anyone orthodox into the diocese. The Warden has asked me several times since to bring back my family, saying that I would be promptly elected to the vestry, but my answer is always the same.

Sarah,

Now for part two of the voyage of Cap’n Jack Sparrow—“Any port in a storm”

We joined a middle size moderately conservative Presbyterian church which has an orderly and reverential worship, formerly PCUSA but now in a “safe” denomination. The community there is functional and welcoming and the teaching is balanced and of uniformly good quality. Occasionally, they borrow from the BCP and hope springs up—I almost expect to see the cross being processed and the one cup offered, but alas I’m brought back with a start, to the Regulative Principle . I recently found out that the music minister chafes under a restriction that all the words must be in English, even if a translation is provided. The only exception is “Gloria in Excelsis” at Christmas, for reasons which gall me in their inconsistency. Still, the leadership pattern is stable.  I don’t bring my children to church to fight, but to worship in a community of faith and accountability and where I don’t have to worry about what they are hearing in Sunday school.

The ideal of real authority and of one world communion where a worshipper in Kenya is truly attending the same church that I attend in the US is wonderful and laudable, but not at the expense of threatening my children’s spiritual health.

At this time, there is only one continuing church in our area, an RE variety with ASA about 25. We attended there for about one year, but realized that the church was populated with such quirky and extremely introverted people, that they did not know how to welcome new folks. When we tried to be friendly, they would merely look at us blankly and mumble something. Their theology was sound, but they seemed to have their heads in books for the most part. Frankly, they did not do the liturgy very well either. They were really worried about becoming too high church or spending any money on proper furniture, vestments, etc. I actually think they were really Presbyterians with 28 BCP’s in hand. I don’t remember ever being invited to anyone’s home. The minister was so fearful of being accused of “sheep stealing” that even an add in the newspaper was a source of consternation, much more so any outreach efforts.

I hold out hope that Anglicanism can be reestablished in North America, but am in some ways resigned to the end of an era. My hope is that Protestants will someday discover anew the treasures of the early reformers and realize the error of following too much in the path of the separatists, who have left us with the chaos we now have.

I grieve for the loss of a viable Anglican culture. Perhaps that is how the South felt after loosing the Civil War. Perhaps that is how the American Indians felt about Manifest Destiny. Perhaps that is how the Romans felt at the invasion of the barbarians.

The silver lining in the breakup of the Episcopal church is that like the alabaster box which was broken to anoint the feet of Jesus, the aroma of God-centered reverent worship is filling the room of Christendom. The brokenness of our tradition is actually allowing others to see its glories, and hopefully reestablish its best attributes. I think that there is an increasing longing for liturgy and reverent worship, especially among the young. It is the baby boomers who are still rebelling against the cold formality of their parents, which explains why on every street corner another church is trying the worn out “casual worship” hook, competing for an ever smaller share of that dwindling market. The proof that liturgy and reverence can still be successful is shown in the Roman church. The Anglican version of Reformed theology is needed to balance and round out the Presbyterian version of that, as well as the Armenian tendencies of the Baptist/Congregationalist and extreme low church folks. I think that real authority probably cannot be reestablished, beyond the local church or perhaps regionally.

So, in a sense, Cap’n Jack is less like a pirate now and more like a privateer with a Letter of Marque. He is prepared to serve where he finds himself, but solely because of the functioning local church to which he is now attached.  He is, in a sense, beginning his own Reasserting movement among the Presbyterians. The first thing that needs to go is that pesky, unbiblical Regulative Principle!

Re: “I was surprised that the laity, normally very vocal and forceful, would not speak up in the meeting. . . . However, my family decided to leave the parish, not primarily because of the rector, but because of the laity. They were prepared to let me swing in the wind, wanting me to “lead” them, but became wet dishrags in the rector’s presence.”

Ah yes . . . there is nothing like realizing that your allies have hung you out to dry.

I’ve said it a lot of times before, but it really is “our fault” more than some vast heretical conspiracy that the Episcopal church is where it is.  We simply did not show up on the playing field, and the other side did—therefore they won.

And so much of time in the Episcopal church, for a reasserter, is spent in steadily becoming very discouraged with one’s own allies.

My heart goes out to you, Cap’n Jack, and I appreciate your being willing to share your story here.

. . . What a mess we are in.

You know Cap’n Jack the longer this goes on the more I believe there is a legitimate outside strategy which will get organized.  My story is similar to yours and I will not bore you with it.  Every day I identify more with people like you, Akinola, AMIA etc. and less with Canterbury.  The biggest loss in all of this is the loss of you and your family and I truly believe that an outside strategy supported by the network could do something about it.

To my friend Sarah:
“I’ve said it a lot of times before, but it really is “our fault” more than some vast heretical conspiracy that the Episcopal church is where it is.  We simply did not show up on the playing field, and the other side did—therefore they won.”

1) I think it is a conspiracy sponsored in part by political lobbies and clergy and it is pretty vast

2) Courage is not in significant supply within ECUSA especially with the “men” in the denomination

So, in a sense, Cap’n Jack is less like a pirate now and more like a privateer with a Letter of Marque. He is prepared to serve where he finds himself, but solely because of the functioning local church to which he is now attached.  He is, in a sense, beginning his own Reasserting movement among the Presbyterians. The first thing that needs to go is that pesky, unbiblical Regulative Principle!

Nah, that’s reappraising…but it’s good to start some peer pressure the other way…;-)

Good luck, Capt J.  I got hung out to dry the other day too, but since my family are just about all grown, I’m sticking with the fight until they throw me out. 

Cheers,

Phil H

Sarah- You are exactly correct.  Becoming RC turns on whether you can believe the Church’s claims about itself.  If, after examination, you simply can’t, then swimming the Tiber is not for you.  In fact the priest we talked to told us that he’s rejected Protestants who want to convert solely because they are running away from the mess in their church and find the RC’s orthodoxy attractive.  (Of course, he also told us that if we had come to accept the authority of the Church, then as a matter of integrity we had to convert.)  The RC’s teaching authority is not a easy theology to accept, especially for us independently-minded Protestant Americans, but it does simplify things.  BTW, if you ever change your mind, I’m not sure where in Upper SC you live, but St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Greenville, SC, is highly thought of and is pastored by a former Episcopalian, Fr. Jay Scott Newman.

CryptoCatholic,

You are so right!!!!  It is clear that Cap’n Jack Sparrow is a reappraiser of the worst sort. 

I hope that the Presbyterians cast him into outer darkness quickly, before the tides of creeping revisionism swamp his church.

Re: “You know Cap’n Jack the longer this goes on the more I believe there is a legitimate outside strategy which will get organized.”

But Lee Parker—it appears to me that Cap’n Jack had an opportunity to attend the local alternate-Anglican entity—the REC parish—and opted out of that possibility. 

The “outside strategy” was not sufficient for Cap’n Jack.

And now he is in a Presbyterian church, as so many others I know are.

I’m back from my mini vacation.  Sarah, The REC is not the answer.  It may be part of the new experiment but in my opinion the Network needs to support a consortium of churches from Texas, SC, NC, NY, Fl. etc which are willing to cross boundaries and evangelize.  Moreover we are looking at Europe the wrong way.  We need to evangelize there as well.  Let the ultimate goal be to join the network again whether inside or outside but lets not lose these wonderful folks to other reformed denominations and non denominational churches.

The inside strategy is commendable but even with discipline by Canterbury the political structure of ECUSA is a mess.  This structure must be overhauled as well because it is a big part of the problem.  Needless to say, the inside strategy is a long term process even if it is successful.  Too much will be lost without an organized outside strategy as well.  So my answer is to give Cap’n Jack’s family an Anglican style church on fire with its love for the lord Jesus which has the long term opportunity of joining again with the Network and with the majority of Anglicans.  Thant would be an ... kicking church.

Re: “So my answer is to give Cap’n Jack’s family an Anglican style church on fire with its love for the lord Jesus which has the long term opportunity of joining again with the Network and with the majority of Anglicans.  Thant would be an ... kicking church.”

But Lee, the REC church *is* an Anglican church. 

And it is a Common Cause partner with the Network.

So it fits your criteria, yet Cap’n Jack did not choose it.

Sarah, I believe this discussion is important and it might be more appropriate on another thread.  Anyway, here it goes.  The REC is not what I’m suggesting.  If Plano, St. Andrews in Charleston etc are growing like they are they must have a formula for this growth.  Moreover, look at Seacoast and Eastlake.  Even more significantly, look at the PCA church which is exploding in my home town.  What do they have in common?
1)  They are on fire for the lord
2)  They are orthodox
3)  They believe in the inerrant/authority of scripture
4)  They are seeker oriented
5)  They have dynamic clergy who preach about scripture and every day life
6)    They have little interests in pointy hats

What if we had an outside strategy combined with an inside strategy (new school and old school) which led rather than followed?

Now here’s a somewhat bold statement thrown out there for discussion.  We need to protect our network bishops but beyond that I have had nothing but bad experiences with non network bishop(s).  Lets think through what this new structure might look like because the status quo is not working.

Nice comment Sara.
=========================
Karen Walter
<a >camper trailer</a>

well done Sarah, I have emailed it to many who never read blogs…for a better understanding of life in the Episcopal church today

Thanks for post. It’s really informative stuff.
I really like to read.Hope to learn a lot and have a nice experience here! my best regards guys
camper trailers—camper trailers

Have you ever considered adding more videos to your blog posts to keep the readers more entertained? I mean I just read through the entire article of yoursand it was quite good but since I’m more of a visual learner,I found that to be more helpful well let me know how it turns out! I love what you guys are always up too. Such clever work and reporting! Keep up the great works guys I’ve added you guys to my blogroll. This is a great article thanks for sharing this informative information.. I will visit your blog regularly for some latest post.anti keylogger|antikeylogger