News out today, from ACNA, that the House of Bishops of the Province of South Sudan and the Sudan is formalising ties with ACNA and cutting ties with TEC. This is December 2015. The Primates meet in January 2016, with TEC and ACNA represented at the meeting. By the end of January 2016 will we see the current form of the Anglican Communion in a threefold split according to "recognition" of TEC or ACNA or both?
If other provinces follow South Sudan with the Sudan's lead and start cutting ties with TEC in favour of formal recognition of ACNA, we can be sure that other provinces will confirm that they are not cutting ties with TEC. Within that group there may be some who wish to also recognise ACNA and some who will not. That's three groups. Anglican trainspotters can have fun seeing into which groups various member provinces of GAFCON and Global South fall.
The serious question is whether whatever drafted plan for the future is being worked out between the ABC and the ACO is going to be by-passed by this kind of unilateral provincial declaration. Of course no other province may follow South Sudan and the Sudan. But that province may have charted a way for new alignment to occur on a for/against ACNA/TEC/both decision. Pay attention,dear readers,to Anglican news in the coming weeks.
No wonder ++Justin has invited ++Foley Beach of ACNA to be present for some of the Primates' Meeting. By the end of January 2016 there might be more provinces recognising ACNA than TEC as a province of the Communion.
It will be an interesting meeting!
39 comments:
"No wonder ++Justin has invited ++Foley Beach of ACNA to be present for some of the Primates' Meeting. By the end of January 2016 there might be more provinces recognising ACNA than TEC as a province of the Communion." - Dr. Peter Carrell -
And now, Peter, O'll add my pognositcations:
1: ACNA & GAFCON break off at the beginning of Primates 2016 and retire to Lyons Corner House for pow-wow om their future together. The parting, however, will be noisy and full of nasty rhetoric from the Gafcon Primates.
2: Provinces loyal to Canterbury (including South Africa, TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada and, hopefully, ACANZP) will remain at Canterbury for Prawn Cocktails and a Celebratory Mass and Agape Meal - before embarking on plans for the continuing Mission of God's Mercy and Love to everyone in our various jurisdictions, regardless of race, ethnic origins, social class, gender or sexual-orientation.
3. The Rest (including some Global South Provinces) will cavil and dither their way through a meeting to discuss, and then separate on; the grounds of which 'Gospel Banner' to follow - that of Canterbury, or that of GAFCON.
(By the way, my opi9nion, FWIW, is that ++Justin made a grave mistake inviting Foley Beach (faux ++), who is not even a member of the ACC.)
Hi Ron
I am letting your "faux ++" pass this once, partly because it is of a piece with your analysis of the Communion; but in future leave such descriptions out of comments (this applies to others too).
1. It is poor etiquette.
2. Once we go down the road of "faux" ministries/offices then we may as well invite Roman Catholics to continually remind us of all the Anglican ministries/offices they think are "faux"; and then we might have a go at all the Protestant ministries/offices we think are "faux" (e.g. Presbyterian and Methodist ordained ministers whom we still refuse to have preside over our eucharists!) ... No. Let's not go there.
Peter
I shall have to leave the trainspotting to others for a few weeks. When I return to these threads, I hope that we can discuss the ethos that you mentioned earlier. Until then--
(a) Just because TEC is such an anomaly, a church's decision about TEC is not necessarily its decision about the Anglican Communion as a whole.
(b) Sober trainspotters in TEC, ACNA, and the SS&S diaspora in the US have been expecting these decisions. SS&S bishops had already explained the consequences of a TEC move to same sex marriage because they had something at stake-- SS&S diaspora congregations in the care of some TEC dioceses. Although their decision on TEC was inevitable, they could not formally take it without also taking a position on ACNA and getting Foley Beach's commitment to take their people in.
(c) Put another way, SS&S bishops literally had skin in the game that compelled them to make thoughtful decisions about TEC and ACNA. Churches with[out] an organised diaspora presence here may feel [little] analogous pressure to make similar decisions.
(d) Historically, the relations of foreign churches with churches on American (English and Australian?) soil have been driven by two forces that confound simple theological considerations-- money and diaspora communities. Despite following the same *one bishop in each place* canon that Anglicans do, the Orthodox patriarchs have been far more "schismatic" (as Ron puts it) than the African reorganizers of ACNA. In the global village of the C21, it is probably more helpful to formulate an ecclesiology that accommodates forced migrations, complex humanitarian emergencies, repatriation of funds,etc than to fault churches for not being better citizens of the Roman Empire.
(e) In the cold light of consequences, we see that TEC's actions implicitly prioritise the concerns of some people over others. One can faithfully agree with those priorities or not, of course. But if TEC is free to make them, then other Anglican churches are equally free to respond to them. Absent an explicit covenant that says otherwise, loyalty to Canterbury has nothing to do with this.
(f) Even if you dance poorly and do not speak a word of Dinga, if you ever get a change to worship with the SS&S, do it.
Bowman Walton
Hi Bowman
All points noted!
The only "recognition" that matters, Bowman, is that of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Everything else, ACNA, GAFCON, etc. is hot air. How many American Episcopalians (or British Anglicans, or Down Under Anglicans for that matter) care if they are "recognized" by the poohbahs of South Sudan, Nigeria, Uganda, etc? Many Westerners would be hard pressed to find these countries on wall maps. Why should we care what they do or don’t do? Is it because such groups allegedly "have a lot of members?" (Recent findings have shown, however, their inflated membership claims are open to question . Besides, by the criteria these Global South fundamentalists use to determine their "membership", TEC's membership could be claimed at over 5 million today).
Anyway, you might be interested in the letter sent to my bishop from a diocese in South Sudan not even six months ago. I doubt very much that the folks in Torit give two scoops of doggy-doo what the hot air contingent in GAFCON has to say about American Episcopalians. They are happy for the support that my TEC diocese gives them. And they have never returned a penny in aid because it was in some way “tainted.” I very much doubt that they will begin now.--Kurt Hill, Brooklyn, NY
Message from Bishop Bernard of the Diocese Long Island’s Companion Diocese in South Sudan, the Diocese of Torit.
Posted Jul 15th, 2015
To: Bishop Lawrence Provenzano
Re: To assure you of our safety
Dear Brother Bishop Larry,
Greetings.
Be informed that the sad news being heard about South Sudan has not affected us.
God heard your prayers.
We are at peace and we celebrated the 4th anniversary of our independence peacefully.
I also write to thank you for the support which made it possible for us to do many things; to finish the office construction which could not be finished before this.
We are also working on the Cathedral and a guest house.
Although things are very expensive, God is helping us to progress gradually.
Greet all for us.
Regards,
Your brother,
+Bernard
The Right Rev. Bernard Oringa Balmoi,
Bishop of The Diocese of Torit
in the Episcopal Church of Sudan
Thanks, Kurt, for your report on the Letter from +Bernard (EC Sudan) to your TEC Bishop Larry. This supports the understanding that not all bishops in the Gafcon Provinces are ahppy with the fundamentalism of their provincial Primates. I guess the problem is that the Gafcon Primates are given nmuch more attention than they really deserve - in their decision to boycott TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada.
The practical help given by certain dioceses of TEC - without strings attached - is the measure of wehat might be called 'Unity in diversity' - a quality of Christian Fellowship that is called for in the Gospel.
Kurt
Other writing is calling me as noted, but I could not pass up a chance to say hello.
My impression-- if it is false, a link to the CoE canons, please?-- is that the General Synod decides which churches are in communion with Canterbury, and that only the synod could alter the CoE's sacramental relations with TEC and ACNA. Obviously, the primate has a most reverend voice in such decisions, but it is not certain to prevail if they engage the passions of significant blocs in the synod as both TEC and ACNA do. The ABC has more freedom with respect to invitations of all kinds (eg Foley Beach), and recognition of Anglican dioceses extraprovincial to Canterbury (eg Diocese of South Carolina). But the ABC's dependence on the General Synod in sacramental relations has been cited by critics of TEC as an obstacle to viewing the ABC as the patriarch (in the sense of Apostolic Canon #35) that an effective communion needs. If those limitations are not actually canonical, it would be important to know this from evidence.
Thank you for an Exhibit A in support of (d) above.
I hope that the generous donors of Long Island will keep up their generosity and visit that guest house in good weather.
Blessings,
Bowman Walton
"The only "recognition" that matters, Bowman, is that of the Archbishop of Canterbury."
Says who, Kurt? Unless you can find someone else to agree with you on that, then its just something you have made up for yourself.
"Diocese [of] Long Island"
This would be the same diocese of Long Island that has had one of its parishes walk out and join ACNA, in the last week?
"Many Westerners would be hard pressed to find these countries on wall maps."
I don't doubt you - that says a great deal about those westerners and their standard of education.
"I guess the problem is that the Gafcon Primates are given nmuch more attention than they really deserve - in their decision to boycott TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada."
Once again, Fr Ron, you write something that is patently untrue. You have written the same thing many times before, and been called out on it many times. How many times is enough for you to continue writing the same untruths?
Do you really expect the Lord to honour that sort of witness?
Anyway, it gives me the opportunity once again to set the record straight for others:
It was not "their" (i.e. Gafcon's) decision to boycott TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. The decision to declare themselves to be in impaired communion with TEC (not "boycott") was taken by many provinces long before Gafcon existed. And most of the provinces that have taken that step are not in Gafcon now.
The same goes for parts of provinces - for example, many LIBERAL dioceses in Australia have never lifted their declarations of impaired communion with TEC, so far as I am aware.
Hi, Bowman. Thank you for your input.
Both the American Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada (ACofC) were instrumental in forming the Anglican Communion. The process began in the 1820s, and culminated organizationally nearly a half century later. If initiatives had not been taken by the North American Anglicans, it is unlikely that there would be an AC today.
As most folks who have visited this site over the past several years know, I have an expansive attitude about membership in the Anglican Communion. In English-speaking North America, for example, there are more than 30 Anglican denominations, including the ACNA, which are not currently affiliated with the A C. (Only TEC and ACofC are full, voting members of the AC). But folks know that I—and many other American and Canadian Anglicans—are quite willing to allow for—let’s call them associate memberships—for all of these groups (even for the Anglican Ordinariate in North America). Of course they would have to meet certain minimum conditions. In my view that means they must be willing to practice Table Fellowship with TEC, ACofC, and each other.
That some full, voting members of the Anglican Communion are insistent on recognizing a Continuing Anglican denomination like ACNA rather than the historic North American Churches is unfortunate but it is not necessarily fatal to the AC as a project. A much looser Anglican Communion would be all for the good, in my opinion. Indeed, 150 years ago no one would have predicted that some Anglicans would begin to view the Communion as a “World Church” rather than an association of independent national Churches united by ties of history and sentiment to Canterbury.
Frankly, in viewing current developments, one would think that the GAFCON Churches would be more self-aware and reflective than they appear to be. They all have their own fault lines which could easily be stoked by the more liberal Anglican provinces of the West. Thus far TEC and ACofC have not encouraged or materially supported such breakaways, but that stance might change in the near future. It should be clearly understood that any precedents made regarding the North American Churches with ACNA can—and probably will be— ultimately used for the recognition of minority schisms in the Churches of Nigeria, Uganda and South Sudan, etc., and the acceptance of these schisms as associate members of the Anglican Communion, too.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
"The same goes for parts of provinces - for example, many LIBERAL dioceses in Australia have never lifted their declarations of impaired communion with TEC, so far as I am aware.
Please list these "liberal" Australian dioceses, Michael.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
"This would be the same diocese of Long Island that has had one of its parishes walk out and join ACNA, in the last week?"
If so,this is the first that I have heard of it. Please name the parishes that allegedly have "walked out" of Long Island to join ACNA.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
Is anyone under the impression that the uppermost concern of bishops from places like Singapore, Buenos Aires, or Durban is which side of a culture war in the US they wish to fight for?
Perhaps they cannot contain their excitement at every development in the saga of ACNA v TEC, even though there is nothing that they can do about what either is and has done. Or perhaps, after all these years, they still prefer to watch rugby. Either way, it seems possible that, in the near future, they might simply want a path out of the North America's quagmire and toward partnerships that are concretely and locally missional. (I can think of at least one archbishop in England who might sympathise with that sentiment.)
Indeed, they may, just like those here and everyone else, get exactly what they want-- a wide and undemanding association for those who want an Anglican identity, a deeper communion of like-minded and reliable partners in mission, and regional connexions that somewhat blur the line. All will be called by someone, somewhere the one truly Anglican Communion.
And that's alright. But rugby is more fun to watch.
Back to work...
Bowman Walton
[The following is a slightly edited comment from Ron in response to Michael A. The editing removes inaccurate over-estimation of the role the Archbishop of Sydney played in the establishment of GAFCON, as well as removing the wrongly named aforesaid Archbishop at the time!]
"It was not "their" (i.e. Gafcon's) decision to boycott TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. The decision to declare themselves to be in impaired communion with TEC (not "boycott") was taken by many provinces long before Gafcon existed. And most of the provinces that have taken that step are not in Gafcon now. The same goes for parts of provinces - for example, many LIBERAL dioceses in Australia have never lifted their declarations of impaired communion with TEC, so far as I am aware." - MichaelA -
I think most of us are quite aware of your tendency to split hairs, Michael, on what you find difficult to come to terms with. When you criticise my use of the expletive 'GAFCON' to label those provinces that have fallen out of relationship with TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada; the provinces concerned are the very same as those who - even before GAFCON was officially formed (...)- plotted (with the help of their dissident partners in North America) to make their presence felt in North America by sending their missionaries to undermine the mission of both TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada.
As the leopard does not change its spots neither do those S.Scriptura conservative provinces that acted against TEC and the A.C. of Canada, even before ... herded them to the first GAFCON Meeting.
Further, contesting your own theory about parts of the Anglican Church in Australia that you say have officially declared themselves out of communion with TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. Exactly who are these people - apart from bishops of the Sydney diocese? In any case, the Anglican Province of Australia has never declared itself as being out of communion with the official Communion Churches on North America (TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada) - Unless the rest of it missed the announcement. Please check your own veracity!
Your phrasing; "so far as I am aware" does not cut the mustard here - according to your own valuation of any body else's statements.
Kurt and Ron,
This is old news. When VG Robinson’s consecration was announced, more than half the bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia sent a letter to ECUSA warning that they would be in impaired communion with ECUSA if it proceeded. The maths alone will tell you that most of them were liberal.
So far as I am aware, none of them have ever changed that.
That is why, when PB Schori of ECUSA visited Australia and New Zealand in 2010, she was only given ONE speaking engagement in Australia (at a parish church), and was not invited to communion in any diocese.
And no Kurt, I couldn't be bothered tracking down precisely which ones they were: the letter will be online somewhere. The point is that even liberal Anglicans in Australia aren't impressed with the way ECUSA went about the consecration of VGR, even if they agree with ECUSA's theology.
No fr Ron, I am not "splitting hairs" and you know it. I am calling you out yet again on your factually inaccurate statements, where you imply that impaired communion with TEC is due to Gafcon. It isn't, and it never was.
Have a look at just this article for starters:
http://www.anglicannews.org/news/2004/02/thirteen-global-primates-state-ecusa-has-separated-itself.aspx
Of the 12 provinces in this article in early 2004, a majority (Sudan, West Indies, Pakistan, South India, South East Asia, Central Africa and Philippines) did not become part of Gafcon when it was formed six years later.
Then there were other provinces who, after giving TEC time to repent, also announced themselves to be in broken or impaired communion with TEC before Gafcon was formed in 2009. These provinces never became part of Gafcon either. They include Indian Ocean, Jerusalem & Middle East, and Myanmar.
By 2015 there are very few provinces that are NOT in impaired communion with TEC – even the more liberal GS provinces like Southern Africa and Burundi have made their position clear. Since only six provinces are represented in Gafcon, simple maths should tell you that the opposition to being in communion with TEC does not derive from Gafcon.
"the provinces concerned are the very same as those who - even before GAFCON was officially formed (...)- plotted (with the help of their dissident partners in North America) to make their presence felt in North America by sending their missionaries"
Fr Ron, I have to call you out yet again for factual inaccuracy, because this is simply not correct.
First of all, as I pointed out above, the list of provinces who declared themselves to be in broken or impaired communion during the period 2003-2005, long before Gafcon existed, and never became part of Gafcon, is very long.
Secondly, you now raise a new point which is not accurate either: Many provinces have been involved in providing alternative oversight to orthodox members of TEC/ECUSA who were oppressed by its liberal leadership, and a number of these did not become part of Gafcon when it was formed in 2009. For example, are you really unaware that the first two missionary bishops who went on to found AMIA were consecrated in 2001 by five bishops led by the Primate of South East Asia? You are also apparently unaware of the alternative oversight provided at different times by the Primates of West Indies and Central Africa. None of these ever became part of Gafcon. You simply do not know your facts.
“In any case, the Anglican Province of Australia has never declared itself as being out of communion ...”
Who said it did? Check your own veracity! (I am not sure that it could do so anyway - each of the dioceses of ACA are independent in most things).
“Your phrasing; "so far as I am aware" does not cut the mustard here - according to your own valuation of any body else's statements.”
On the contrary – it is right on point, and very fair. I am saying that I have never heard that the 14 or so Australian dioceses who declared themselves in impaired communion in 2004 have made any statement resiling from that. If you are aware of such a statement then I am inviting you to put it forward.
Michael A
Given all that you say about impaired communion, what do you think of Peter's OP above? It sounds as though you disagree, believing that, while a few churches may remain in unimpaired communion with TEC, the main blocs will be those not in communion with any American church and those in communion with ACNA. Is that your view?
Bowman Walton
"Many provinces have been involved in providing alternative oversight to orthodox members of TEC/ECUSA who were oppressed by its liberal leadership" - MichaelA -
For someone so obsessed with literal accuracy from others, I find this statement to be a little puzzling, to say the very least. How can anyone - let alone 'orthodox' members of TEC/ECUSA - be 'oppressed' by anyone's liberality. Surely that's another oxymoron?
Anyway, MA, you still haven';t provided names of dioceses (apart from Sydney) that has declared themselves 'out of Communion' with TEC/Anglican Church of Canada. Certainly - despite your protestations - the Anglican Church in Australia (except, as I say the Sydney Fundies) has not declarecx itself 'in communion' with ACNA, and 'out of Communion with TEC ot the Anglican Church of Canada.
Mind you, the Sydney Diocese is so out of kilter with the rest of the Australian Province that Anglicans outside of it may, sometimes, (for instance, on the matters of Women Clergy and Lay Administration of the Eucharist) hardly feel they are in the same ecclesial community. Of course, there are a few bright spots - Christchurch St. Laurence and Saint James in the heart of Sydney that do bring a more liberal light into the face of local Anglicanism.
I'm pleased to say that no ACANZP diocese, as yet, has declared itself out of communion with TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada. There may be a few individuals who would like there to be a formal break, but they have not yet put their heads above the parapet.
I disagree Fr Ron – YOU are the one who is obsessed with “literal accuracy” and “hair-splitting”. Hence why I am surprised at the way you repeatedly make mistakes on this topic, some of which are substantial.
In relation to Australian dioceses that are in a state of impaired communion with TEC, it may now be all of them. As I mentioned above, when the Presiding Bishop of TEC toured Australia and New Zealand in 2010, she could only find one speaking (not Eucharistic) engagement in a parish church in Brisbane. Normally a visit by a Primate of the Anglican Communion would be a huge deal (and I believe her visit in NZ was so) but this time she was shunned.
You live in your fantasy world where the evil Sydney Diocese is utterly estranged from all the other heroic liberal dioceses, but it is just that – a fantasy. The dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia largely agree on a great many things, and one of them is that TEC’s behaviour in 2003 was needlessly schismatic. Its not that they disagree with TEC theologically – most of them don’t. But they disagree with the manner in which TEC split the Communion.
Also there is at least one other diocese besides Sydney that has announced itself in communion with ACNA, perhaps two. Its early days yet, I expect we will see many more, but let's wait and see.
Hi Bowman, I'm not sure what you mean by a disagreement between myself and Peter - I don't read his article as expressing an opinion about the likely size of any "bloc", and neither am I. Also, I didn't read Peter as stating that there will be a three-way split, but that there might be, and querying whether actions like Sudan's might run counter to whatever agreement the Primates and ABC will make in January. He could be right for all I know.
The purpose of my posts was mainly to respond to Fr Ron's continual assertions that the Gafcon provinces are the only ones in impaired communion with TEC - in fact there are more non-Gafcon provinces in this state than Gafcon provinces, and for most of them this state of affairs occurred before Gafcon existed.
I suggest also that we need to view this issue of "cutting communion ties" in context - this report by another kiwi, David Virtue, indicates that there is more nuance to the Sudan position: http://www.virtueonline.org/juba-sudan-episcopal-church-sudan-severs-ties-us-episcopal-church-over-gay-marriage-passage. Although the Sudanese do refer to "severing ties", note these two paragraphs:
"The House of Bishops said they were encouraged by the 18 TEC Bishops who issued a minority report dissenting to the TEC resolutions. "We encourage these Bishops to stand firm on their position as well as those parishes within the TEC who disagree with TEC resolutions but abide with the Biblical understanding that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."
"Because of the position taken by TEC over marriage, the Sudanese House of Bishops recommend to their Provincial Synod to sever relationships with TEC and any other Provinces or Dioceses that approves liturgy for blessing same sex relationship. We will make exception to the dioceses of the 18 TEC Bishops who issued the minority letter of objections to TEC Convention resolutions," they wrote."
That to me sounds more like impaired communion than cutting of communion. It doesn't include all of TEC.
Ron, I agree.
Michael's "oppressed" was a somewhat heavy choice of words. "Gradual marginalisation" is less emotive, more descriptive, and less accusatory.
But we have no reason to doubt the fact to which he points. Observers in and out of TEC have long agreed that it no longer includes evangelicals on equal terms as it formerly did and as eg the CoE still does.
One could debate--
(a) how this came to be the case (eg Freud's narcissism of small differences, Haidt's righteous mind, Fischer's cultural regions, Turner's postmodern ritualism, Niebuhr's social denominationalism, "stadium effect" among liberals, etc);
(b) whether it is a good thing for America, TEC, or evangelicals (cf Pew Report on the American Religious Landscape); and
(c) what it portends for TEC's place in a global Communion in which most churches are led by some variety of evangelical (Durham, Nairobi, or Sydney) and some have diaspora communities in the US.
Indeed, I am surprised that informed debate on these implications is so rare.
But if it had not been clear that traditionalists were irreversibly marginalised in TEC, a syncretism of evangelicals and catholics like ACNA could not have even have been attempted.
Bowman Walton
Thank you so much, Michael.
My interest in your observations is strictly ecclesiological and canonical.
As you doubtless know, your observation that some dioceses are responding to actions of TEC dioceses has many implications. Were one or more of the TEC provinces to take positions on the TEC General Convention actions, it would be interesting to see how other churches responded to that.
The Anglican idea of "impaired communion" is not clear, as indeed the idea of "communion" is less clear than many had thought. Sometimes it suggests scrutiny of transactions with TEC that might otherwise have been a matter of trust. In other usage, it suggests a withdrawal from communion with TEC per se, but not necessarily from communion with parts of TEC. As Ron insists, the sacramental logic of this is hard to construe.
In the wider world, the closest analogy is Constantinople's refusal to add the name of the Orthodox Church of America to its diptychs (ie the list of churches for whom prayers are offered in St George's Cathedral in the Fener). Members and clergy of the OCA are recognised as Orthodox, and OCA bishops are recognised as canonically consecrated, but their jurisdictions are not recognised as valid or exclusive.
Bowman Walton
" The dioceses of the Anglican Church of Australia largely agree on a great many things, and one of them is that TEC’s behaviour in 2003 was needlessly schismatic. Its not that they disagree with TEC theologically – most of them don’t. But they disagree with the manner in which TEC split the Communion." - MichaelA -
Once again, MichaelA, I question your veracity is bluntly stasting that the diocese of Australia 'largely agree' ...that TEC's behaviour in 2003 was 'heedlessly scismatic'
I think you've actually chosen the wrong word here for what you really are trying to say, which, in your argument would rather be 'heretical' than 'schismatic'. For that is what you really believe.
Schismatics are those who actually 'break fellowship' with a particular sodality; which neither TEC nor the A.C. of Canada never at any time did! The Schismatics, were those who, of their own volition, broke fellowship and left TEC and the A. C. of Canada.
If you must contend on a particular subject - at least get your terminoligy right. Remember 'heresy' not 'schism' (but that is your opinion - a bit like your opinion on exactly who in the Australian Church agrees with you, on the matter of heresy).
No, The Schismatics were--
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a6jhlLY4Www
And The Heretics--
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NOHeB-P4Drw
Absent agreed definitions...
“This would be the same diocese of Long Island that has had one of its parishes walk out and join ACNA, in the last week?"—Michael
“And no Kurt, I couldn't be bothered tracking down precisely which ones they were: the letter will be online somewhere.”—Michael
I attended the ordination to the priesthood of a candidate sponsored by our parish at the Diocese of Long Island’s cathedral this past weekend. I was not able to corner Bishop Larry (he was busy with photographs, families, etc.). However, I did talk to the new Dean of the cathedral, and to many other clergy that I know. Everyone I asked about a parish that had “walked out” to “join ACNA in the last week” told me that no such event had occurred to their knowledge. (Perhaps it is a “secret” or modest defection, one without the usual ACNA bombast and bulls**t. One which only the “elect” know about..?) A deacon friend of mine did say that a parish (St. James) had split eight or ten years ago, and a minority of the congregation had drifted to ACNA (as well as to other denominations.)
So, Michael, tell us all where are you getting this squirrely “information” on what’s taking place in my diocese?
That you apparently don’t know what you are talking about regarding happenings on Long Island, makes me suspect that you don’t know what you are talking about regarding what “more than half the bishops in the Anglican Church of Australia” said or did not say regarding our Province. Instead of issuing your own hot air proclamations on the matter, how about just giving us a link to the complete text? That way we all can appreciate any of the nuances, inconsistencies and other icings on the (probable) conventional fudge.
Or, can’t you “be bothered” to do that, either…?
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
“But we have no reason to doubt the fact to which he [Michael] points. Observers in and out of TEC have long agreed that it no longer includes evangelicals on equal terms as it formerly did and as e.g. the CoE still does.”—Bowman
I have explained on this blogsite several times that even from its origins as an independent Anglican province the American Episcopal Church was essentially a fusion of liberal Latitudinarian theology with High Church Catholic practice. That we do not mirror the CofE regarding the “inclusion” of Evangelicals has historically been largely the fault of the Evangelicals themselves.
The participants in the local Methodist chapels throughout our country were perfectly aware of the Rev. Dr. William White’s provocative tract, “The Case of The Episcopal Churches in the United States Considered “ (1782), which suggested that TEC be organized on a Presbyterian basis until (in the vague future) bishops in the historic succession could be provided. Rather than participate in the local Anglican conventions–even around a church polity so comfortable to them—the Methodist societies in TEC decided to go it alone. This Evangelical schism was consummated in 1784 when Thomas Coke arrived in America from England. Two months later in Scotland the Rev. Dr. Samuel Seabury was consecrated a bishop in the Church Catholic. (This is how the High Church in America reacted to White’s proposal!)
Beginning around 1810 the Evangelical trend in TEC began to grow again. They argued, successfully, that Evangelicals should have the same consideration and respect that the Low Church Latitudinarians and High Church Catholics enjoyed. Unfortunately, once the Evangelical wing achieved a certain measure of power and influence in TEC, their thoughts turned away from tolerance. The tipping point to their outright persecution of other views—particularly High Church views—came after 1840 and the first publication in this country of the central writings of the “Tracts for the Times.” The alienation of the Evangelicals from their own Church’s history and traditions culminated in 1873 with the Cummins Schism which created the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC). Be it noted, the Evangelicals were not “persecuted,” or “hounded out” of the Church. Again they left of their own accord. What was left of the TEC Evangelicals, by and large, was absorbed in to the Broad Church (Latitudinarians) or into the rising Anglo Catholic (High Church) parties.
In the 1960s and 1970s, Evangelicalism, particularly under the label of “Charismatics,” began to be felt as a force again in the Episcopal Church. In 1975 the Trinity School for Ministry was established in western Pennsylvania, the first Evangelical-oriented seminary operating in modern times (Virginia Seminary having become more Broad Church by 1900). The brouhaha around the Prayer Book of 1979, opposition to women in the priesthood and episcopate, and the disgust with the Gay Liberation Movement served as excuses for the latest Evangelical schisms from TEC. Again, Evangelicals were not “persecuted,” or “harassed,” or “forced to leave,” etc. Again, they wanted split and many of them went on to form ACNA.
The American Episcopal Church has always historically been short on Evangelicals because Evangelical culture in the USA has historically been short on us.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
I must say that I would rather credit the information given by someone actually on the ground in TEC; about the polity of his own faith community, than that of anyone living in another jurisdiction. In the very same way that my own prognostications about 'other' places are often rejected by MichaelA and others.
Kurt, in my experience, is a thinking Episcopalian loyal to his Church and to the Anglican ethos he has gathered over his time in that Church. I admire his tenacity of faith and commitment to the freedom of the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.
Of your charity, please pray for Preesiding Bishop of TEC, ++Michael Curry, presently in hospital in the U.S.
Thank you, Kurt, for your confirming narrative of the past two centuries of TEC. You realise, I suppose, that somebody far from New York threw his tablet across the room when he read it, but the firmer facts of the account are what they are, and perspectives are not easily negotiated online.
To be clear, I myself do not care about the relative guilt or innocence of the various churchly tribes, however classified and labeled. There are a few sides to every story (eg the secession to form Trinity School of Ministry) and *tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner.* More importantly, I do care that, in the future, the whole of Anglican identity be available everywhere on earth, and that in America, some Anglican church be effective in all of our nation's cultural regions and social classes as well as a reliable partner in a Communion that is largely evangelical and in many places engaging pentecostalism. So my lens for thinking about Anglican evangelicalism in TEC is straightforwardly missional.
Hypothetically, there have been five sources for it. As you note, the Methodist revival might have mediated a helpful Wesleyan influence, but did not. The Edward VI Anglicanism exemplified by William Meade of Virginia was a template for much of the South. Apart from direct Anglican influence, evangelicalism thrives in several regions of the American inland where TEC has dioceses. For that reason perhaps, a dilute evangelicalism is often the spiritual language of the poor and of young immigrants. And finally, something evangelical sometimes washes ashore from England (eg Tom Wright).
All have had the Bebbington Quadrilateral of conversionism, activism, biblicism, and crucicentrism. Some continue to evolve, of course--
http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_122_3_Harris.pdf
The departures of evangelicals that you mention from the REC schism down to the sex wars did happen, of course. But none has been quite like the Great Ejection. They do not account for a weaker presence of evangelicals in TEC than in CoE. Given the evangelical ethos of much of the US and the secular ethos of the UK, we should have expected just the opposite to be the case. While there is no evil conspiracy to drive evangelicals out of TEC, neither have evangelicals been losing interest and wandering off. Thus far, the most persuasive hypotheses that I have seen have been, not theological, but psychological and social.
Bowman Walton
“The departures of evangelicals that you mention from the REC schism down to the sex wars did happen, of course. But none has been quite like the Great Ejection. They do not account for a weaker presence of evangelicals in TEC than in CoE. Given the evangelical ethos of much of the US and the secular ethos of the UK, we should have expected just the opposite to be the case. While there is no evil conspiracy to drive evangelicals out of TEC, neither have evangelicals been losing interest and wandering off. Thus far, the most persuasive hypotheses that I have seen have been, not theological, but psychological and social.”—Bowman Walton
You raise a number of very interesting points, Bowman.
The 1662 excommunication of the most uncompromising Calvinist clergy was, I believe, a necessary act of Catholic self-defense for the Church of England in the aftermath of the religious and social disaster that was the Protestant Commonwealth experiment.
In America, however, the situation has always been much different. There was no such excommunication of Evangelicals in the American Episcopal Church in 1784, in 1873 or in 2008. The three periods of Evangelical growth here were followed by schisms in the Episcopal Church orchestrated by the Evangelicals themselves. For some reason—your theory is as good as mine— TEC Evangelicals keep shooting themselves in the foot.
Let’s parse this out a bit. Sociologically I think that you have the social situation reversed, Bowman. It is precisely because the broader American religious culture has historically had an Evangelical ethos that the American Episcopal Church historically is more theologically liberal and more liturgically ceremonial than the surrounding religious culture. Our very differentness attracts many people. It’s true, though as you have noted, that this situation helps to create the psychological and social barriers to Evangelicals—even theologically more liberal ones— which discourage them from affiliating with us. We Anglicans are simultaneously both familiar and foreign to them, and this can be disconcerting to some people.
You see, to be an Anglican in America has always been to be religiously counter-cultural to the general society. This was true in most places in this country from the very beginnings of church plantings here. (Think about the post-1722 growth of the Church in Connecticut, for example). Even today I’ve heard of one estimate that stated that nearly 70 percent of TEC membership is made up of people who have joined us from other denominations.
There are one or two exceptions to this, of course; Virginia comes to mind. Anglicans were the pro forma majority there for a long time. I’ve been to the Old Dominion several times, and many of the Episcopal parishes there strike me as more Low Church Latitudinarian (Broad Church) than Charismatic/Evangelical. I’ve been told that this has been true since about 1900.
And one must remember that the Evangelical Bishop William Meade was not the only Southern prelate of stature who helped to mold Low Church Episcopalianism in the South and elsewhere. Others, such as Bishop Quintard of Tennessee (1865-1898), a central founder of the University of the South, were far more Broad Church in spirit. In fact, it appears that many of the areas that you regard as Evangelical, I’d label Low Church/Broad Church.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
Mr Speaker: I rise to propose a Division of the Question. With many who have been enlightened by the remarks of our reverend and honourable friends in this House, I have come to see the Question whether there are circumstances justifying a province in planting missions in another province as different from the Question whether there are circumstances justifying a province in leaving the whole of the Communion for a part of it. That is, our judgments about ACNA and GAFCON may reasonably differ.
Bowman Walton
“So, Michael, tell us all where are you getting this squirrely “information” on what’s taking place in my diocese?”
Hi Kurt, I asked a simple question above, and I note that you appear to be now frothing at the mouth and gnashing your teeth over it. I was referring to a report on VOL: http://www.virtueonline.org/sudanese-anglicans-break-us-episcopal-church-large-tec-parish-flees-li-episcopal-diocese-cana. According to the official stats of TEC, your diocese lost 2,378 members or 5.1% of its membership during the year 2013-2014, so why are you getting so excited over one parish of 120 people anyway?
“Again, Evangelicals were not “persecuted,” or “harassed,” or “forced to leave,” etc.”
On the contrary Kurt, evangelicals and anglo-catholics were persecuted, harassed, and forced to leave. Large numbers of clergy were deposed, and the law suits against parishes and dioceses have made TEC and ACoC an object of derision around the Communion.
“Once again, MichaelA, I question your veracity is bluntly stasting that the diocese [sic] of Australia 'largely agree' ...that TEC's behaviour in 2003 was 'heedlessly [sic] schismatic [sic]'”
All that means, Fr Ron, is that you don’t like what I am saying, not that you have any objective reason to doubt it.
“I think you've actually chosen the wrong word here for what you really are trying to say, which, in your argument would rather be 'heretical' than 'schismatic'. For that is what you really believe.”
No, Fr Ron, once again you have responded to a post without reading it. I was not referring to my beliefs, but to those of liberal dioceses in Australia (which is most of them) and whom I doubt have any real disagreement with TEC on doctrine. What they appear to disagree with is TEC’s unilateral actions which have caused division in the Communion. That is why the then Primate ++Carnley (one of the most liberal clerics in Australia) announced in 2004 that +V. G. Robinson would not be welcome in any Australian Anglican church, and why PB Schori was shunned on her visit here a few years ago.
"The 1662 excommunication of the most uncompromising Calvinist clergy was, I believe, a necessary act of Catholic self-defense for the Church of England in the aftermath of the religious and social disaster that was the Protestant Commonwealth experiment."
Really?
Firstly, it wasn't "an excommunication" - do you really not know what that term means?
But more to the point, the whole problem with the 1662 Ejection was that it went far beyond "the most uncompromising Calvinist clergy". If that had been all, the Church of England would have survived as the dominant force in English religion. But a much greater number of moderates such as Richard Baxter were also forced out due to the foolish inflexibility of incompetent English bishops.
This gave non-conformism a huge boost and they grew in a way that they would never have done otherwise. From being less than 20% of the population, by 1850 their numbers equalled those of the Anglicans, despite being banned from meeting together, imprisoned, fined, and in some cases even sold into slavery. The success of the non-conformist movement in England in the 17th and 18th centuries was a monument to inept episcopal leadership of the CofE.
"In fact, it appears that many of the areas that you regard as Evangelical, I’d label Low Church/Broad Church. ... [etc]"
And in the end, why does any of this matter? TEC has halved in size since the 1960s when its leadership openly compromised with liberalism, although the population of the USA doubled over that same period. And the steepness of the loss rose significantly after the consecration of V. G. Robinson. Its a worse decline than most other denominations.
That's not a matter of low church, high church, evangelical, anglo-catholic or other buzz-words, because Christians of all different stripes have ended up leaving TEC.
Bowman, I have noticed a long post from you on the "I am rapidly becoming a revisionist" thread, which appears to have been intended for this thread. In it you write: "Had GAFCON not threatened the existence of the Anglican Communion...".
That assumption is at odds with the facts: At the Jerusalem Conference in 2008, the leaders made it clear that what would become Gafcon would not be leaving the Anglican Communion.
Nor is it correct even in an indirect sense: The existence of the Anglican Communion has been threatened by two main factors:
(a) the willingness of TEC and ACoC to ignore pleas for consultation and forge ahead on their own path, particularly in refusing to permit alternative oversight of orthodox congregations by the ABC, and in consecrating practicing homosexuals as bishops; and
(b) the cavalier attitude of successive Archbishops of Canterbury who treated the Communion as their private domain. In particular, ignoring decisions of the Primates Meetings in 2005 and 2007, neutering debate at the Lambeth Conference in 2008, and then failing to call a Primates Meeting after 2011, or a Lambeth Conference in 2018.
TEC, ACoC and two ABCs bear much of the responsibility for the mess the Communion is in.
Hi Michael
It is always helpful to remember (or be reminded) of the provocateurs as well as the inept in the breaking down of intra-Communion relationships. Nevertheless I cannot go along with your view of the GAFCON conference in 2008 in respect of contributing to the breaking down of those relationships. I twin GAFCON with the decision of many bishops to not turn up to Lambeth 2008. That boycott broke Lambeth as we know it and thus one means of empowering Communion wide relationships between episcopal leaders.
Now I am neither arguing for or against the boycott per se. I only note that some conservative bishops felt able to turn up and to offer their voice in proceedings. What kind of collective voice would they have had if all bishops had turned up? We'll never know! I mention that to make the point that no matter whether the boycotting bishops felt they had no choice on the matter, they did have a choice and they exercised it towards one element in breaking down relationships. GAFCON, in my view, fuelled the boycott (since it offered an alternative and (as it happens) much appreciated opportunity for Anglican fellowship). So, no, I am not going to let GAFCON off the hook of inclusion in the list of provocateurs.
Thank you, Michael, for a concise indictment of TEC, ACoC, and the ABCs.
When I attribute causation, especially in a counterfactual hypothesis, I do not also attribute blame. And personally, I do not care about the blame anyway. For my part, all are forgiven.
I am done with this thread. It is a pain to scroll back to it. And, like Peter, I am revising my mind on some points as we go, so that the revisions thread better fits my thoughts as they are today.
Bowman Walton
"The existence of the Anglican Communion has been threatened by two main factors:
(a) the willingness of TEC and ACoC to ignore pleas for consultation and forge ahead on their own path, particularly in refusing to permit alternative oversight of orthodox congregations by the ABC, and in consecrating practicing (sic) homosexuals as bishops;..."
- MichaelA -
Misrepresentation, yet again, MichaelA.
What you obviously have not noticed, MichaelA, is that each Province of the Anglican Communion is a legal entity, with its own individual Constitution - owing nothing to any other Province by way of legal relationship; except "Ties of Affection".
The Anglican Communion is not 'A CHURCH' as is the Roman Catholic Church, with a Pope at the Head. The Anglican Communion is a Fellowship of Churches with a filial relationshop to the See of Canterbury. It is NOT A CHURCH which demands conformity with the Church of England Constitution, or that of any other Anglican Church!
TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada were both sovereign Churches weith their own separate legal constitutions, capable of making their own rules - a status claimed (by the way) by certain of its Provinces in the Global South; when they decided to set up a group with its own rules under the banner of GAFCON. This entity proclaimed its own separate identity (separate from the Anglican Communion relationship) under the quasi-official document known a separate provenance known as the 'Jerusalem Declaration', a document that does not include any Anglican Province outside of its own membership.
If you are looking for a culprit for schismatic breakway from the Anglican Communion, you need look no further than the GAFCON.
"If you are looking for a culprit for schismatic breakway from the Anglican Communion, you need look no further than the GAFCON."
Right on, Father Ron!
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn, NY
Post a Comment