I have been alerted to a post at the Living Church which, interestingly, has no author's name beside it. May we assume that the thoughts expressed in a post entitled "Primatial Option for the Covenant" are the collective view of the Living Church? In the post it is argued that the Primates meeting in January 2016 should express a preferential option for the Covenant. In my view post's wishes towards such an outcome are at best fantastical (it is okay to fantasize about better futures) and at worst nonsensical (it is a worry if key understandings of reality are missing from otherwise laudable sentiments).
My own judgment is that this Living Church post is at the nonsensical end of things and that is for one simple reason. It overestimates the capacity of Primates to deliver on the Covenant and overlooks the decisive lack of commitment to the Covenant by General Synods/General Conventions. The article says the Covenant is still the only game in town. I say it is dead in the water.
But there is a germ of a good idea in the article, one which I firmly agree could be on ++Welby's agenda for the meeting, and that is the concept of "degrees of communion." Maybe our future as a global organisation is a mix of communion and federation (or, I saw the other day, "confederation" used), because our reality is that we have varying degrees of communion between provinces: the most intense communion is within GAFCON, the next most intense is within Global South, there are some degrees of communion between Australia and Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia (varying through the sporting seasons, depending on whether umpiring decisions go their way or ours), etc.
From a different perspective, "degrees of communion" is also about varying degrees of impairment of communion: the ordination of women as priests and bishops has impaired communion, though for most meetings of the formal Communion it does not stop people gathering in the same room, even around the same eucharistic table, but other matters have prevented people even meeting together.
Now, how a global Anglican organisation gives expression to "degrees of communion" as it moves forward towards (possibly) another Lambeth Conference, and whether it dare maintain the word "Communion" in its title if its reality is (con)federation, are matters which could be discussed at the January 2016 meeting of primates (or Primates' Meeting). We can be sure that each primate wishes there to be as many degrees of communion as possible within global Anglicanism. But I hesitate to predict how such expression to "degrees of communion" might be given except that here I predict that the Primates will not revive the Covenant in its present form as the means of that expression.
25 comments:
Peter,
Perhaps you could eke out a little more hope?
Zack Guiliano
Hi Zack
I am hopeful in the midst of realism.
Thus I am hopeful for a future for global Anglicanism but I am not hopeful for the future of the Covenant (as presently drafted).
"(it is a worry if key understandings of reality are missing from otherwise laudable sentiments)." - Dr. PeterCarrell -
Despite the fact of the next meeting of the ACC being scheduled, in Africa, I think talk of a new go at 'Anglican Covenant' under the initial proposal very doubtful indeed. However, it won't be the first time 'Living Church' has attempted to revive moribund theories.
Frankly, I see more hope in the prospect of the Pope's visit to Africa bearing positive fruit than I do of the prospect of GAFCON resuming Table Fellowship with anyone they have already excluded.
For me, a 'federation' of Anglican-style Churches would suffice - a sort of Uniate Church, with no interference in each other's polity.
Maran-tha. Come, Lord Jesus.
Actually, the other game in town is the liberal catholic Union of Utrecht--
http://www.utrechter-union.org/page/140/ibc
Anglican churches are already in full communion with these *Old Catholics*, so-called because they have rejected papal infallibility and the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. They remain a spiritual home for those restless spirits who fear doctrinal clarity but cherish sacramental order. By a special arrangement, The Episcopal Church is the Union's affiliate in North America, and has been commissioned by the Union to organise the Old Catholic diaspora here.
Bowman Walton
Bowman Walton
Degrees of communion? Again--
(a) Closer communion among those Anglican churches able to handle it would be a good thing, and the Covenant is a good draft for a revised agreement that would be for members to adopt, members to apply, and members to amend.
(b) Ecumenical association among churches with some historic connection with the Church of England, including Anglican churches, The Episcopal Church, Methodist churches, the Anglican Ordinariate, etc.
(c) Notwithstanding the difference between communion (a) and association (b), all episcopal churches in a given region should strive to be in ever-stronger communion and collaboration with their neighbours, Anglican and non-Anglican.
For example, The Episcopal Church. Its polity presumably disqualifies it for (a), but it obviously qualifies for (b). It should strive for closer communion, collaboration, and perhaps even merger with such episcopally-ordered churches as the ACNA, ELCA (Lutheran), and UMC (Methodist).
The main problems with the Anglican Communion Covenant reflect the circumstances in which it was introduced--
(d) It does not explicitly commit ownership of the Covenant to those who actually undertake it, and deny that any particular Anglican church is indispensible to it.
(e) It is clearer about how a church might be released from the Covenant than about how it might be accepted into the Covenant by those who undertake it.
(f) It does not fully address the roles with respect to the Covenant of the archbishop of Canterbury, other primates, other archbishops, and local synods.
Personally, I have low, but not pessimistic expectations for the called meeting of primates. It should be a useful exchange of views, but does not seem to be a logical forum for any of the foregoing. Missional communion can only emerge from an organic and rather decentralised process.
Bowman Walton
Two addenda.
(g) A smaller, better unified Communion could grow by incorporating compatible churches, dioceses, and parishes. Member churches of the Communion could conceivably agree to admit qualifying dioceses and parishes of non-member churches on the basis of the Lambeth Quadilateral. So imagine a charter Communion of, say, Ireland and Wales, Uganda and South Africa, South India and Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand, Chile and Brazil. Under God, and in apostolic order, these charter members would govern the Communion. And in time they could themselves admit to the Communion, say-- the Church of Finland; TEC dioceses in Central America; TEC dioceses in California, New York, Massachusetts, and Virginia; the CoE Dioceses of Durham and London; the Archdiocese of Nairobi; the Archdiocese of Utrecht; the Central Conference of the United Methodist Church (Africa); and certain house churches in China-- all provided that each fits the Lambeth Quadrilateral and has the unrestricted permission of its national church to follow the Communion's guidance in all things not directly pertaining to the governance of their national churches. So, the Communion could not tell Eastern Massachusetts how to vote in the TEC General Convention, but whatever TEC GC finally decided that it feels like believing about baptism and communion, Anglicans in Boston would follow the Communion norm. This is somewhat analogous to the relationship between the Catholic Church as somehow understood, the several Anglican churches, and the Anglo-Catholic dioceses and parishes that recognise one another around the globe.
(h) Only ecclesial realists can be in Communion. Full stop. If the Lambeth Quadrilateral is right, then apostolic order in the Church is real, and the task for Anglicans is, not to invent an organisation that they think all will agree to find inoffensive, but to rediscover and align around an arrangement already created by the Holy Spirit long ago. This can be detected in Canterbury, New Zealand as easily as in Canterbury, Kent, for there is nothing central or institutional or synodical about this rediscovery of, and realignment to, ecclesial reality. St John iii 8.
Bowman Walton
" It should strive for closer communion, collaboration, and perhaps even merger with such episcopally-ordered churches as the ACNA, ELCA (Lutheran), and UMC (Methodist)." - Bowman Walton -
In the light of ACNA's relationship with GAFCON (the local North American branch of that organisation); are you hopeful, Bowman, of any Table Fellowship between TEC and ACNA? That seems to me improbable. Also, there is the matter of intentional schismatic breakaway of ACNA from TEC. How could that be overcome - except by ACNA voluntarily resuming some sort of relationship again with TEC? And that's assuming TEC wants them back.
Hi Bowman
I like much of what you say, because it is realistic. Except in one aspect, you seem confident that dioceses can make choices about levels of communion. I am not so confident that this will be so. It might be the way things work out, but in some Anglican churches (at least) there would need to be a new ethos which released dioceses from obligations to their General Synods/Conventions.
Peter and Ron, your questions are reasonable as always.
The answers to them are closely linked. A truly illuminating account of that would take an OP in itself, but perhaps it is enough to recite once again that--
(a) Because there were no bishops in the American colonies, the Church of England did not found a church in America as they did elsewhere in what became the Anglican Communion.
(b) “The Protestant Episcopal Church” was improvised by laymen after a political revolution in which the *states* were understood to be allied sovereign republics.
(c) In the northern and southern regions of British America, Anglicans differed sharply in their churchmanship, but in a heady post-revolutionary era formed a single church as an expression of their new national identity.
(d) Reflecting the US Constitution and that difference in churchmanship, TEC’s constitution reserved power to dioceses (originally called “states”) that would startle Anglicans nearly everywhere else.
(e) For more than a century, the presiding bishop was simply the most senior bishop present at a meeting of bishops; there was no central administration for The Episcopal Church until the 1920s.
(f) The constitution written for the needs of thirteen former colonies now spans nine or more US cultural regions and several central American countries.
(g) With responsibility for such a territory, General Conventions are necessarily permissive, yet these triennial meetings are the only real authority above the myriad dioceses.
(h) Even so, the casual acceptance of irregularity can be startling. For example, one tiny TEC diocese decided several years ago to administer communion to the unbaptised, and presses every General Convention to change the canons to regularise their practice. It does not seem to be expected that will instead be told to comply with the canons.
The Anglican Communion Institute has defended this radically decentered order of things as the Fourth Rome. Katharine Jefferts-Schori struggled to lead this communion of cats as a unified church, relying as much on the rulings of Federal judges as on TEC’s own constitution and canons. Her efforts finally persuaded the Diocese of South Carolina that TEC had gone from dysfunctional to tyrannical. Now yes, all of these good souls were also arguing heatedly among themselves about sex and churchmanship as Anglicans do everywhere, and that is what the rest of the Anglican world notices. But the elephant is still in the room: TEC is... an anomaly.
cont'd
cont'd
Peter, the idea that American participation in the Anglican Communion should be at the provincial level or below has been kicked about TEC for half a century. Generally, the arguments are that (i) *the national principle* has only a weak ecclesiological warrant where a church is not established by law, and (j) the vastness that is TEC cannot help but misrepresent the actual regional and international diversity of Episcopalians. Were all Anglicans in Europe or in sub-saharan Africa represented as single continental unions, they too would be oddly misrepresented. As explained above, diocesan decisions about the Anglican Communion make local sense, but Anglicans elsewhere might prefer to deal with American provinces, which would then have something interesting to do. I like the way you put it-- "there would need to be a new ethos."
Ron, yes, under the condition that I describe, I can indeed imagine some of ACNA and some of TEC at the same third Table. As it is, I am not certain that there is no communion at first and second Tables, since some in TEC so admire ACNA’s energetic church-planting and some in ACNA speak so warmly about TEC’s many sound dioceses. On the other hand, a third Table governed by moderate Anglicans who are neither as wobbly with anomie as TEC, nor as balkanised by churchmanship as ACNA would be attractive to mere Anglicans in both.
Now to be sure, it would be great fun to hand some wicked schismatics over to the great demon swordsman in the eighth circle of Malebolge. He marches them all in an endless circle about the bolge, and as each of the damned pass by, his sword of poetic justice severs or slashes him in a way precisely befitting the division in the Church he caused. But I do not know whether he accepts souls from North America, where so many besides Anglicans have found church order challenging. The Orthodox, who have not met since 787, are meeting in a year or so to sort out their own messes here.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malebolge
Bowman Walton
Dear Bowman, I find your comments here - mainly on the origins and composition of The Epsicopal Church in North America et al (TEC) - most interesting. Yes, it must be admitted that the Episcopate in TEC came from the Scottish Episcopal Church and not from the provenance of the Church of England. However, since the time of the CHICAGO QUADRILATERAL, as quoted in a TEC communication (following) there has been a finite relationship - through successiuve Lambeth Conferences - not only with the Church of England but with all Churches founded by the post-Reformation Canterbury See:
"Statement of the four Anglican essentials for a reunited Christian Church. It concerns the scriptures, creeds, sacraments, and the historic episcopate. It was approved by the House of Bishops at the 1886 General Convention in Chicago, and subsequently approved with modifications by the bishops of the Anglican Communion at the Lambeth Conference of 1888."
Further to your discussion of TEC's deep variation in churchmanship, sometimes leading to different polity (e.g. Communion for all); even the Church of England contains within its own sodality more variations of litugical and spiritual discipline than - as we say in N.Z. - 'you could shake a stick at'.
In ACANZP, we also have variations - reaching from the Diocese of Nelson (sola-Scriptura), to the High Church Anglicanism of other dioceses. Even in our own diocese of Christchurch, we have strictly conservative Evangelical parishes (often with diocese of Sydney connections) as compared to my own parish of SMAA, with a liberal Anglo-Catholic heritage.
One thing that is new about the Church of England today, is that the very conservative parishes have been linked with another GAFCON-sponsored faux-Anglican 'church' (like ACNA in North America) called ACiE (Anglican Church in England) - which comes under the protection of the GAFCON Primates, as does the ACNA in North America.
Thank you, Ron. Of the points made in my 11:16 comment, (c) is useful as an explanation for TEC's very devolved structure, while (f), (g), and (h) are useful in explaining why the international overlay of Presiding Bishop and General Convention have been such a disappointment.
Bowman Walton
Bowman Walton
Postscript-- Ron, I had meant to thank you last night for your account of the present composition of ACANZP and Christchurch. I am always keen to hear more about churches down under.
In the beginning, ACNA was an antipodean Christchurch in which calvinists and catholics met on the common ground, not of New Zealand's engaging liberalism, but of America's leave-me-alone-to-cry-in-my-beer conservatism. It seemed to have all the weaknesses of any other syncretism in which enemies of an enemy try to be friends-- cranky antiquarianism, narcissism of small differences, and a spirituality that needed anger management training. That the church was bedeviled by personnel problems did not surprise me. My guess was that the unbridged chasm between the old Reformed Episcopal churches and the newer Anglo-Catholic had proven to be an obstacle to perichoresis as the Body. Just as has happened in more liberal milieux.
The ACNA's last archbishop, Robert Duncan, seems to have changed much of that. Brilliant enough to have impressed Pope Benedict, he easily commanded respect. Theologically, he had a foot on each side of the divide, having been a trustee for both the evangelical Trinity School for Ministry and the catholic Nashotah House. Most importantly, he counseled accommodation of ordained women, and empowered younger clergy with his dream of 1000 new parishes. ACNA now sees itself less as a refuge for TEC's persecuted prophets and more as a young Anglican church that smells evangelistic opportunity in TEC's dedication to a sparse niche constituency of upper middle class liberals. When Tom Wright came to the Harvard Divinity School to introoduce his big book on St Paul the really startling thing was to see candidates and clergy (admittedly young) from both churches getting lunch at the same tables. They may avoid meeting at the Table, but I doubt it.
Bowman Walton
"One thing that is new about the Church of England today, is that the very conservative parishes have been linked with another GAFCON-sponsored faux-Anglican 'church' (like ACNA in North America) called ACiE (Anglican Church in England) - which comes under the protection of the GAFCON Primates, as does the ACNA in North America."
Here we go again. So far as I am aware, there is NO such thing as ACIE.
This is (yet another) figment of Fr Ron Smith's imagination.
There is a thing called AMiE which is not remotely a church, and the "very conservative parishes" have NOT been linked with it (if you had even a basic understanding of the situation in England you would have known why they don't need to).
Learn the simple facts about a topic before writing in pontifical fashion about it.
Bowman is essentially correct about the early origins of the American Episcopal Church. The Episcopal Church has always been “an anomaly” in Anglicanism, and proud of it. In the eighteenth century, many British Anglicans (and not only Tories) viewed us as essentially Jacobean in nature. In fact, from the very beginning, TEC combined the liberal theology of the Latitudinarians such as Bishop William White, with the Catholic practice of High Churchmen such as Bishop Samuel Seabury. Evangelicals were largely absent from TEC, having split to form the Methodist Church led by Thomas Coke in 1784, the same year that Dr. Seabury was consecrated in Scotland. There were a few exceptions, though, such as Parson Devereux Jarratt of Virginia.
Church historian Dr. Frederick Cook Morehouse observed nearly a century ago: “It has always been a question whether the Oxford Movement was not in fact a New York Movement. Bishop [John Henry] Hobart's staunch High Churchmanship—we would call it Catholic Churchmanship today—is well known. Bishop Hobart had spent some time in England in 1823 and it is by no means impossible that his clear vision of Churchmanship may then have sown seeds that blossomed ten years and more afterward in the flower of the Oxford Movement. In any event, the condition of the Church in America began with Hobart's consecration in 1811 to take on that new and vigorous life which was delayed in the mother Church until another generation”.
So, you see, we were “an anomaly” even in Bishop Hobart’s time!
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
"Here we go again. So far as I am aware, there is NO such thing as ACIE. This is (yet another) figment of Fr Ron Smith's imagination.
There is a thing called AMiE which is not remotely a church..."
Here we go again; MichaelA, splitting hairs!!!
Of course, MichaelA is quite right when he points to my mis-quoting the acronym of the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE). Perhaps my mistake was compunded by the fact that its equivalent in North America is named ACNA - an entity also founded by miscellaneous conservative African Primates NOW kinown as GAFCON.
Nevertheless, AMiE has the very same function in the U.K. as that of ACNA in North America - the undermining of the local official ACC
Anglican Churches connected with Lambeth and the Canterbury See.
I guess that, when founding AMiE, the Primate of Kenya needed to be a bit more careful of ruffling the feathers of the Mother Church of England, who might object to him pretending to represent the Anglican Church of England on its home ground.
The forerunners of GAFCON had no such qualms, obviously, in calling their local missions in North America the 'Anglican Church in North America' (ACNA). Not only did they see this as their mission, but a replacement of the Churches they chose to undermine.
Hi Ron
It may be hair-splitting but surely getting historical facts correct is important to our truth-telling in the body of Christ?
ACNA was not a formation of "the forerunners of GAFCON." Some components of it were expressions of individual African provinces in North America (e.g. CANA) but the driving force for the formation of ACNA was North American dissatisfaction with ACCan and TEC decisions. They were glad, no doubt, of the support they found forthcoming from Nigeria etc, but ACNA would have been formed irrespective of external support.
" but ACNA would have been formed irrespective of external support."
- Dr. Peter Carrell -
So, Peter, you really do think that ACNA 'would have been formed irrespective of outside support' ?
Well, it may have actually begun, Peter. However, without the piracy of the African Provinces that DID form their own 'missionary churches' in North America, ACNA might never have received the whole-hearted support of GAFCON that now provkes the Archbishop of Canterbury into giving ACNA's 'Archbishop' a place at the January 2016 'Primates Meeting' - almost as though ACNA had some sort of right (through the GAFCON influence) to be there.
I suspect that support of people like Peter Jensen, earlier Chair of the GAFCON group, was at least a factor in the formation of ACNA. But I may be wrong!
Ron, as Kurt points out, several tiny splinters from the catholic and evangelical extremes of TEC are older than the ACNA umbrella. As Peter points out, they began to find each other before African intervention because they tended to have the same position on the ordination of women. In the broader American religious landscape, catholic-evangelical convergence among moderate traditionalists has been thriving, so even apart from Anglican Communion politics, I think that Anglicans in these traditions would have found each other.
Bowman Walton
Peter
Kurt's very brief account of TEC's origins is not factually incorrect as far as it goes, but it does exemplify the lack of a common narrative that I mentioned in Fulcrum a few months ago: evangelicals and southern churchmanship generally are represented by the "exception" of Devereux Jarratt. Looking at a map of the US dioceses, this seems to overlook both a rather large evangelical constituency in TEC and the part played by Episcopalians in the wider evangelical world. Conversely, one could read The Churchman and similar publications and never realise that there have been historic roots for Anglicans like Kurt. My point, here as before, is that a binocular vision for the whole Anglican story that was once commonplace has been lost.
Bowman Walton
Kurt
Thus far, although our accounts of TEC origins are differently weighted, our descriptions of TEC today seem similar. I wonder whether, history aside, you might agree to a further step toward phenomenology--
*TEC supports the corporate practise of a postmodern ritualism that influences the life of a Christian with relatively little explicit cognition. The ritual is experienced as pleasurable in itself, and gradually conforms the implicit mind to a cosmos which the virgin birth, Jesus's resurrection, etc are not dissonant. Outside its ritual world, TEC tacitly trusts Episcopalians to search US society for the best habitus and adapt to it without religious scruples. Therefore, TEC today does not actively support practises that-- reflect distrust of individual capabilities for knowing and doing good, require strenuous individual effort apart from corporate ritual, need careful explicit cognition as a condition of participation in that ritual, map the cosmos of the ritual onto the world of conventional knowlwdge, identify the believer's body with Christ's Body, or demand loyalty to Christ over against one's social peers.*
Neither praise nor blame is my objective here. Rather, it is to describe accurately, for comparison rather than judgement, the features that situate TEC in America and the Communion. Naturally, I would be indebted to you for any amendment or alternate statement that you could propose for that purpose.
Bowman Walton
“Of course, MichaelA is quite right when he points to my mis-quoting the acronym of the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE).”
You didn’t just misquote the acronym, Fr Ron, you misunderstood what AMIE does, and what it does not (and conversely you obviously don’t know about other groups who do these things – you think AMIE is the only game in town, and that’s not even close). AMiE actually is quite small and has a fairly limited function.
I suggest learning what groups like Church Society, Reform, Fellowship of Word and Spirit and the Latimer Trust are doing in England. But they won't fit your narrative because they are home-grown English, and you seem to want an African conspiracy.
“ACNA - an entity also founded by miscellaneous conservative African Primates NOW kinown as GAFCON.”
No, whether one agrees or disagrees with ACNA, this is simply not accurate. See below.
“Nevertheless, AMiE has the very same function in the U.K. as that of ACNA in North America - the undermining of the local official ACC Anglican Churches connected with Lambeth and the Canterbury See.”
This is factually wrong on several levels. Firstly, AMiE does not have the same function as ACNA. That’s like saying that the Crown Nominations Commission has the same function as the Church of England – they are different types of organisation. Secondly, calling the Church of England an “official ACC Anglican church” is absurd. The CofE and every other church in the Anglican Communion (and the Anglican Communion itself) long pre-date the existence of the ACC - they don't depend on the ACC for anything.
Thirdly, if by “undermining” you refer to establishing an alternative Anglican polity to CofE in England, yes that could indeed happen. But so far most of AMiE’s work has been involved with a small number of independent Anglican churches, most of whom long predate AMiE's existence. I am only aware of two congregations affiliated with AMiE that were founded after its existence. Most of the issues with Anglican dissidence in England derives from conservative churches that are in CofE and do not seem to have any intention of leaving.
“I guess that, when founding AMiE, the Primate of Kenya needed to be a bit more careful of ruffling the feathers of the Mother Church of England, who might object to him pretending to represent the Anglican Church of England on its home ground.”
Gafcon has never pretended to represent the CofE in England – that is the last thing they would want to do. Nor did they have any concern about ruffling feathers. But most importantly, they didn’t call it a “church” because it isn’t one and was never intended to be so.
“The forerunners of GAFCON had no such qualms, obviously, in calling their local missions in North America the 'Anglican Church in North America' (ACNA).”
No, they didn’t - where do you get these assertions from? ACNA was formed in 2009 from the Common Cause Partnership, which consisted of several groups, none of whom were ever called ACNA.
“TEC supports the corporate practise of a postmodern ritualism that influences the life of a Christian with relatively little explicit cognition.”—Bowman Walton
My own observation and experience would make me tend to disagree with this statement. I think that today the American Episcopal Church is adjusting not to a postmodern USA so much as a post-Christian one. So, certainly theological reflection on the traditions of the Church has changed somewhat given the new context. But you may be right, perhaps we don’t think enough about what we should be doing ceremonially and ritually these days.
When I was growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, going to church on Sundays was the norm. Not everyone did it, of course, but a great many families did. It seemed as if Americans religious organizations had dodged the secularization bullet which affected many of their counterparts in Europe. This “American exceptionalism” lasted into the 1970s. With the rise of the New Right and the politicization of many Evangelical and Fundamentalist denominations, things changed. Today, many young people associate all religious groups with bigotry, prejudice, anti-scientific ignorance, etc. Many young people raised in conservative Evangelical families during this era have grown up to reject all religion, even that of liberal denominations such as TEC, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) or United Church of Christ (UCC), etc. Maybe later in life they will come back to a more liberal faith tradition.
Within the transformed social context, there is a need to translate the old ceremonies and ritual into terms that today’s young people will find appealing. Generally speaking, TEC has historically been pretty good at this.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
Kurt, thank you for your perceptive observations to which I will respond later. To be clear, however, I did not intend my comment as a criticism of TEC worship.
I was (and am) trying to get at the experiences behind the stereotypical labels that fly back and forth. After many trials, many errors, and doubtless many criticisms, some descriptions may recall enough of their realities for an appreciative comparison.
Bowman Walton
"..calling the Church of England an “official ACC Anglican church” is absurd. The CofE and every other church in the Anglican Communion (and the Anglican Communion itself) long pre-date the existence of the ACC - they don't depend on the ACC for anything.' - MichaelA -
I won't be so tiresome as to list your mis-statements one by one, Michael - that's not my habit. However, I will ask you to try to see your statement (above) with an eye to common logic:
I maintain that the Church of England is officially known by every Anglican around the world (except, apparently, MichaelA) to be a constituent member of the world-wide Anglican Communion.
The fact that the Church of England, and many other Provinces of the Anglican Communion, had a life before the invention of the Communion makes no difference to the fact that each is now an official part of the anglican Communion.
However, how long that will obtain - before the expected breakup of the Communion after the January Meeting of Primates is wide open to conejcture. Whatever happens in that regard, I expect life in ACANZP will hardly change from its present missional direction.
(I don't look forward to MA's voluminous nit-picking response)
Post a Comment