Thanks to David Virtue, we can publish the C of E's General Synod resolution concerning ACNA for you:
“That this Synod aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America, recognize and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican church in North America (ACNA) to remain within the Anglican family; acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.”
David also records "The final vote was 309 in favor, 69 against and 17 recorded abstentions." (The official text of the resolution is here).
So there you have it: more than 75% of the GS recognises that there is a third Anglican church in North America, that it is a serious candidate for consideration for a formal relationship with the C of E and for inclusion as a member of the Anglican Communion.
I suggest it is now up to ACNA do so some serious soul searching. If this resolution is to be taken further following the Archbishops reporting back to Synod in 2011, there would need to be an unequivocal commitment by ACNA to be in communion with the C of E (recall: there are ACNA voices which are negative about the leadership of Canterbury), and to apply for membership of the Communion (recall: there are ACNA voices which appear to call for their inclusion to involve TEC's exclusion. But there is nothing in the C of E's motion which implies the C of E would support TEC's exclusion).
Of course there is a bit of soul searching for TEC to do as well. Could it acknowledge, beyond the "distress" of the situation, that there are significant differences in North American Anglicanism which are better accommodated by three churches than by two?
Just before I am shouted down on that, might I ask why there are two Anglican dioceses in Europe?
I presume their existence is testimony to differences which exist between two forms of Anglicanism in Europe!!
PS There is a very interesting argument in support of recognition of ACNA here.
Peter...there are not two anglican dioceses in Europe, if by that you mean the CofE diocese of Europe and the Convocation of American (Episcopal) Churches in Europe. The Convocation is not a diocese. There are, of course two dioceses in Europe - in Spain and Portugal - that were independently derived and not the product of English, American or English speaking peoples in various locations coming together. But at any rate, the real issue is that all of the entities in Europe that are Anglican and part of the Anglican Communion exist with some real interchange and agreement among them and none has said of the other, "you walked away" or "We are not in communion with you."
ReplyDeleteThe parallel is not there.
I suspect you mean a fourth Anglican church in North America, not a third.
ReplyDeleteI still struggle to understand your concept of having strong bonds of unified doctrine and practice between Communion members and wanting to have both ACNA and TEC in communion with each other (when, from my limited perspective, the whole reason for ACNA's existence is that it is "not TEC" and does not want to be in communion with TEC - or stronger: wants not to be in communion with TEC).
More interesting will be following the next CofE General Synod motion:
That this Synod
(a) aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of England;
(b) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed The Free Church of England to remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
"Just before I am shouted down on that, might I ask why there are two Anglican dioceses in Europe?"
ReplyDeletePlease, Peter, get it right: they're called tikangas! :)
Hi Mark
ReplyDeleteMy mistake re Convocation which is not a diocese. Nevertheless two Anglican "things" which are not exactly the same as each other, straddling shared territory "exist with some real interchange and agreement among them". If ACNA does not want to face up to seeking some real interchange and agreement with TEC within the framework of the Communion then it has no future in the Communion ... and, as you and others point out, it is not always clear whether ACNA wants a "Communion future". But do you think TEC realises that its future in the Communion will be challenged and questioned as long as it appears to withhold the hand of grace to conservative Anglicans in North America. Even today we learn that TEC through its senior hierarchy is pressing hard against one of its own dioceses. What is that about? Well, from a distance it looks very much like TEC does not like conservatives! Why should conservatives agree with the niceties of TEC's arguments that it is the good guy in all this when we can see that one outcome is that the Communion loses more and more conservatives?
Hi Bosco
ReplyDeleteIt would be great to have a Communion with "strong bonds of unified doctrine and practice between Communion members" which included both ACNA and TEC because they have resolved to have as strong bonds of unified doctrine and practice as possible, given that on some matters they have strong disagreements.
My post called for ACNA to front up to what future it really wants, and if it is a "Communion future", that will mean some compromise on its part.
I do not think it fair to characterised the whole of ACNA's existence in terms of being antithetical to TEC: ACNA's reason for being is believing that it can observe a form of Anglican orthodoxy more fruitfully apart from TEC. Given that even today there is news of the TEC hierarchy placing pressure on one of its own dioceses (South Carolina), it is increasingly difficult to accept that TEC actually likes having conservative Anglicans in its midst.
No inter-communion “recognition” of the ACNA by the CofE is involved, Peter, other than the fact that the CofE--like the rest of us--all “recognize” that ACNA “exists”, wants “to be Anglican,” can avail itself of methods “to request” to become formally in communion with the CofE, the TEC, the ACofC, the Anglican Communion, etc., etc. In essence, nothing has changed.
ReplyDeleteNow the matter can be allowed to die in the CofE and Communion bureaucracies, where ACofC and TEC supporters can keep the topic bottled up in committee forever, if necessary. (This Synod vote also dramatically reduces the chance of any other ACNA “recognition” resolution being promoted hereafter--After all, “it’s being studied” it’s “in committee”, the ACNA “has yet to make a formal request,” that a request “is pending, subject to...” etc., etc.) Finis.
Actually, Peter, you of all people should be aware that there are many more than just three Anglican Churches in North America. In fact, there are about 20 of them! Each of them just as “recognized” by the CofE (and by the TEC and ACofC for that matter), as the ACNA. So, you have your task cut out for you if you have any desire to bring all Anglicans in our continent under one roof. Best of luck!
Readers Down Under may be interested in checking out some of these other “Continuing” Anglican Churches:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Anglican_movement
Kurt Hill
In snow-bound Brooklyn, NY
(More than a foot of the white stuff fell last night!)
Hi Kurt
ReplyDeleteThat is a lot of snow!! Must be climate change sceptics heaven over there.
Yes, there are many Anglican churches in North America. As far as I know their existence has never before been discussed in the C of E GS. But the GS has now discussed in a manner which recognises not only its existance but the possibility of inter-communion, an entity known as ACNA which is the most significant gathering up of a number of those other Anglican churches, as well as a significant protest note about a recent development in Anglican Communion matters which has raised significant questions about what it means to be Anglican.
Perhaps my heading should have been: C of E GS fails to take opportunity to state once and for all that there are only two Anglican churches in North America (or three, if Mexico is deemed part of North America).
Well, Peter, one could also say that: “C of E GS fails to take opportunity to state once and for all that there is only one Anglican church in NZ,” yes?
ReplyDeleteThe fact remains, there is no recognition of inter-communion between the Church of England and the ACNA, anymore than there was ever recognition of inter-communion of the CofE and the Reformed Episcopal Church. Nada. Nichts. Zippo.
I think that you’re a bit too sanguine regarding the ACNA. As I discussed in an earlier post elsewhere on this blog, the ACNA appears to be increasingly divided into at least four factions: those that accept women deacons and priests, but not bishops; those who refuse to recognize women in any clerical role (well, maybe, just maybe someday a female deacon here or there); those who have a perfunctory attitude toward the Articles of Religion; those neo-Calvinists who take the Articles seriously as contemporary guides to faith, and who also distrust “Ritualists.” These folks are already fighting among themselves over the formulations in their Prayer Book. And, no doubt the fights will become more generalized now that their attempt at inter-communion with the CofE has been (politely of course), rebuffed.
Kurt Hill
Digging out of the snow in Brooklyn, NY
Hi Kurt
ReplyDeleteYou know, and I know, that there is a significant group of C of E GS members who would wish to be in communion with ACNA (an ACNA that holds together - I take your point that it might not). That would not be the case in respect of, say, the Reformed Episcopal Church, or, for that matter, the Free Church of England.
Right now that group does not have a majority in the Synod. But a majority is not far away if (a) ACNA holds together AND expressed its willingness to conform to requirements to be a member of the AngCom, (b) TEC continues down a pathway in which it is perceived to be hostile to conservatives. The latest moves it is making, pressing the Diocese of South Carolina, do nothing to assure the Communion that it is an Anglican church in the Western tradition of including both its liberal and conservative wings as valued parts of the whole.
You do know, don't you Peter, that the Reformed Episcopal Church is a “founding jurisdiction” of the ACNA? At least that’s what they claim on their website. In recognizing the ACNA, therefore, one also recognizes the Reformed Episcopal Church. Are you really so certain that would be swallowed in the GS? And, of course, if one can recognize the REC, why not a resolution recognizing the Free Church of England, too?
ReplyDeleteI think that you also credit right-wing conservative elements within the CofE with too big an influence. They have influence, yes. But remember, TEC and ACofC have yet to really “push back” in Synod or elsewhere. If the stops were pulled out more, and allies encouraged, I think it even more unlikely that ACNA would receive inter-communion recognition. Particularly if TEC and ACofC stay the course. Of course, it’s too soon to say that ACNA is “breaking up”, but as hope after hope is dashed, in the Courts, in the Synods, etc. that becomes ever more likely as the disparate elements clash with each other ever more strongly.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn
Kurt keeps up all his diversionary talk, but the truth is, the dam has cracked. The significant factor is Gafcon and the Global South. This is the future of world Anglicanism. The English establishment will try to kick this matter into the long grass but the personal links that Bob Duncan et al have with English Anglicans are very strong.
ReplyDelete“The significant factor is Gafcon and the Global South. This is the future of world Anglicanism.”--Anonymous
ReplyDeleteYou really think so, do you? With some folks, I guess, only “the numbers” game counts.
If Cafcon and the Global South is truly “the future of world Anglicanism” than you can kiss goodbye to Europe (including most of the CofE), North America, Brazil (and most of Latin America), Australia (minus the Jensenites, of course, who will ultimately go their own way), New Zealand, Japan, etc. What you are left with is the likes of Uganda and Nigeria---and the difference between kill “them” and “only” imprison “them.” Not exactly an inspiring future for “Anglicanism.” At least it is not to me.
Kurt Hill
Brooklyn
"You really think so, do you? With some folks, I guess, only “the numbers” game counts."
ReplyDeleteA curt response: the future belongs to those who show up for it.
Demography is a game of last man standing. Unless there is an immediate reversal of 45 years of relentless decline, it is hard to see how most of Tec and ACoC will still be alive in even 15 years' time. Excluding Abraham and Sarah, do people in their 60+'s reproduce much? Learn from this fact: English and NZ Methodism is facing imminent extinction - but not African or Chilean or Singaporean Methodism. Why not?
Anglican presence in Europe and Latin America is almost invisible - no more than 100,000 at best, and Recife is the only growing diocese!
The 'Jensenites' represent one third of church-going Anglicans in Australia.
Hi Kurt and Anonymous
ReplyDeletePersonally I am not at all sure what the future of Anglicanism(s) is: there are many variable factors to consider, not least whether conservative Western Christianity is simply a slower declining religion than progressive Western Christianity. But any form of Christianity in the West must be missional or die. As I understand all forms of Anglicanism these days we have got the message about being missional. But have we all got the right understanding of the gospel at the heart of our mission?
Peter, one form of mission (perhaps the most productive historically) is having children and bringing them up as Christians. Liberals are not particularly interested in having children - for all the right reasons, of course. :)
ReplyDelete