The problem would, of course, still be present; that is to say that individuals, congregations and dioceses that leave or want to leave arenot acting out of ‘fear’ or even ‘distrust’ but are rejecting the theology and doctrine of the Episcopal Church as heresy and apostacy.  To suggest that there could be a shared, mutually respectful entity existing between the emerging ACNA and TEC is much the same as suggesting that the Christian Church could be in communion with Islam.

It is a great idea, and was, I understand, discussed internally at 815 in the Griswold years.  The closest analogy was the relatively amicable (few lawsuits, anyway) PCA/PCUSA split, though that was helped by the history that they had only recently combined the Northern and Southern Presbyterian denominational entities.  Not everyone, after all, even on the revisionist side, thinks suing and driving out the orthodox is the Christian approach.  But it got nowhere then, largely out of concern there would be too many parishes that would leave if they had a clear way out, even if it required a supermajority vote.  Griswold’s approach was to make sure bishops made it economically painful to leave, but not always sue (recall, e.g., Overland Park, KSO).  The whole “scorched earth” policy, implemented by the Schori at the instigation of the Chancellor, has as its purpose eliminating the option of orthodox parishes to leave.  TEC leadership fears, possibly rightly, that to fail to sue or depose even once would open the floodgates. That is also why TEC has never been willing to participate in any viable alternative oversight scheme, as once unleashed, they fear it would get out of hand and they would lose control.  Of course, pure resentment of orthodoxy is present in the TEC leadership as well, which makes it easier to pursue these strategies on principal.

So, not likely it will ever happen under this PB.  Or this Archbishop of Canterbury who winks at what TEC is doing.

Finally, we have a liberal questioning the disgraceful litigation - and in Episcopravda! That is a good thing. I don’t know about the exact scheme to work things out but the desire to work things out amicably is most certainly welcome.

I agree with pendennis’ excellent remarks.  This is a good idea, which is why it won’t go anywhere.

It would seem that this is wishful thinking now that the horse is out of the barn.

Mrs Schori is acting out of fear, and therefore will find herself unable to agree with sensible proposals like this. She knows that if congregations were given freedom of choice that she’d lose at least 50% or more of her serfs, and she’d have no credibility anyway.

Intriguing idea. I understand that American Methodists are politically distancing themselves from their much larger Third World counterparts due to many of the same doctrinal differences that are evident in TEC. Perhaps ACNA could engage in a historic rapprochement with breakaway conservative Methodists, expanding on the idea of regathering the many Anglican splinter groups.

Do away with every one of the innovations introduced during the past forty some-odd years, and then maybe we can discuss it.  Otherwise, forget it!

BillC (#1) - Many (most?) of the CofE clergy in Wesley’s time were apostate as well.  A lot of them were bishops and priests simply because it was a good living.  The only thing that they didn’t allow was “zeal.”  They were made captive by the spirit of the age - much like now.

Wesley et. al. touched off an evangelical revivial in England.  That caused new ferver and a desire to read and study scriptures - and that led to readying and studying what others said about scriptures and that led to reading and studying the Apostolic Fathers.  That, in turn, led to the Anglo-catholic revival in the Oxford movement and that led to the ritualist controversy.

If you thing things are bad today, you should see what passed for “faith” in the early to mid 18th century!

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

#7 As a former methodist I would not foresee a rapprochement with “breakaway conservative Methodists”.  The Methodist Church as it is currently configured has been heavily influenced by the Evangelical United Brethren merger of 1968.  This means that by and large most “conservative” Methodist practical doctrine (as opposed to official doctrine) is closer to the SBC than to historic Anglicanism. At least this was my experience as a grad student at a Methodist seminary.

My two cents anyway.

i would love to be able to go back to church…can’t trust any of them in my area close to houston.

Friends know I like reading alternative history (very educational about real history when well done) like Harry Turtledove. Even liked Kingsley Amis’ go at our holy mother the church in The Alteration (his nasty answer to my dream: what if the ‘Reformation’ never happened?). What if the German and Italian bishops weren’t so corrupt and listened to Luther’s just grievances so he didn’t go into heresy? (Amis imagined him as a strict reformist Pope!) What if Luther realised faith vs works was a non-issue as Rome and the mainstream Lutherans have agreed? What indeed if the Methodists weren’t pushed out (tragic, I agree - the Wesleys are men to admire)? ... What if the Protestant Episcopal Church really did change into the American Catholic Church (as the story goes about a proposed name change at a General Convention many years ago) with the victory of the Anglo-Catholic Movement?

That said although I appreciate the magnanimity of what you’re proposing it’s still untenable for Anglo-Catholics as indeed Gafcon/ACNA (interesting name that - same as the first Continuing church which splintered right after it started) are. Why beg for a place in a Protestant church liberal or conservative? One is setting oneself up to lose in the long run. Catholicism reduced to a menu choice is no longer Catholicism but liturgical Protestantism.

Many (most?) of the CofE clergy in Wesley’s time were apostate as well.

Yes! He was reacting against the ‘Enlightenment’ (‘Religion? All bosh. Well, at least it’s good for keeping the riffraff well-behaved. Let’s go hunting!’) as well as against Calvinism.

Regarding American Methodist/Episcopalian history, the letter skips over the influence of the American Revolution. That seminal event helped with the establishment of the Methodist Episcopal Church and in its popularity here versus how the Protestant Episcopal Church developed in the first 75 or so years following independence.

As someone who watches with interest the goings-on in the UMC, I’d like to see greater acknowledgement of its Anglican roots. I know that the influence on worship styles varies regionally and from church to church, but talking to many Methodist ministers I see a lack of knowledge from whence they came.

This looks a lot like a recommandation I made in TLC 13 years ago.  Others have said the same thing.  But as many above have noted, it’s too late.  I think Mrs. Schori really is a Christian in the sense of understanding that Jesus has done something in her life that she wants to share with the world and make a difference for Him.  I can understand her frustration with those of us who constantly claim that her brand of Christianity isn’t the real thing.  Theologically, of course, it’s not and one of the striking things about this sad situation is how appallingly easy it is to make that case.  The poor woman has no theological formation to speak of and looks to these eyes to be hopelessly in over her head both theologically and pastorally as head of TEC.  The job requires a spiritual giant; she alas barely rises to lilliputian.  She should never have been put in it at all.

A giant might - mind I say might - have been able to negotiate something along these lines.  There are certainly problems, none, I think, insoluble.  For instance, how can Catholic order be maintained in a case where parishes get to choose their bishop?  I think the answer is not all that difficult: Catholic order cannot be maintained in the current situation since the basis of catholicity - continuity - is rejected by those who currently head TEC.  Ths suggestion, bad as it is, is likely the best available in the situation.  But we don’t have anybody in the headship of TEC with sufficient stature to implement something like this. 

What we have are people who are hopelessly muddled about very basic matters: the nature of Divine Revelation, the relationship of human and divine in its communication, the definition and place of the Church in relation to God in Christ and to human history.  They mistake inclusiveness for catholicity, sentiment for charity, petulance for righteous wrath, and self-pity for justice.  They think we see these things the same way they do only with ourselves inserted for themselves and so cannot come to anything like a mature understanding of what is at stake or what is going on.  Without an understanding of the problem, solutions will be hard to come by.

Frankly, I think the Archbishop of Canterbury knows that but - right or wrong - believes he can do nothing about it and that quick attempts at a solution that do not exhaust all possibility of keeping all parties at the table will be damaging in the long run.  I cannot help suspecting that he is right and we will have to muddle through a tragically messy situation as best we can.  That doesn’t make our lives easier, but impatience has never been a virtue, that I know of.

The two theological positions CANNOT be reconciled. 

Those who have been allowed to take over TEC, etc. should not be given communion, much less put into leadership.  They are infecting some sheep and scattering others to safer pastures.  Like the Wesleyans, (and Lutherans and Calvinists before them) those who are tuned by God’s Word cannot and will not tolerate, dialogue or listen to the distortion and pollution of the Faith.  They will leave.

Virtue reports a new diocese is being formed by the Anglican Alliance of North Florida which has doubled the number of parishes and priests since 2005, has two Georgia parishes expects two more parishes to join soon. 

The new building where Good Shepherd Anglican Church is currently meeting in Binghamton is four times the size of the facility from which they were evicted by TEC.  Since coming to Binghamton, Fr. Matt has been teaching five Bible studies per week.  Sowing that much Good Seed has grown a fine green pasture and is drawing more sheep each week.  It will be exciting to see how fast they fill up that building!

There are too many internal factors in the TEC to ever allow this to happen.  They are: David Booth Beers, KJS’s “Rasputin”, Bonnie Anderson, and Louie Crew, who do not want a piece of the apple, but the whole apple. KJS is merely a pliable pawn in their hands.  The poor lady is, I hate to say, over her head and completely inept.

In this way, both “sides” of our church could continue in dialogue from protected positions of mutual respect without the present feelings of distrust and fear. Both would also be encouraged to grow

The problem is that the sides don’t want to continue in dialogue from protected positions.  The sides hate each other and want to destroy each other because both sides believe themselves to be right - and in fact, infallible on this issue.  There is no doubt in their minds.  If you’re sure you’re right, there is no reason to make peace.  Each side regards compromise as defeat unless compromise leads to the eventual defeat of the other side.

Sydney, I certainly think the inclusivists are wrong, in fact more than that, they have brought ignominy to the denomination that I grew up in and loved. So, sure there is anger. But if Rwanda can, after a single generation, find peace then all is not lost.

We, orthodox, don’t need to wish bad on the revisionists. Ms Schori managed to shrink the diocese of Nevada by 10% in her short tenure while the general population exploded. They are saddled with her for the next 6 years.

This being said, the lawsuits compound the disaster for the revisionists and actually benefit the orthodox. This country likes underdogs. The revisionists have made martyrs out of the orthodox. The lawsuits are really stupid - pyrrhic victory or loss are the only outcomes.

The sides hate each other and want to destroy each other because both sides believe themselves to be right

You can have a principled disagreement with someone else—-a disagreement so fundamental that you would not feel free to compromise—-without hating the other side or wanting to destroy it.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Political correctness tells us that belief in right and wrong (a distinguished from pervasive moral relativism) causes wars and massacres. Yet humanity has a long record of conducting wars and massacres for purely opportunistic reasons (such as power and wealth). Sound convictions about right and wrong do more to constrain human behavior than to inflame it.

A few thoughts on this:
1. I read this proposal as permitting the creation of an orthodox province within TEC, not a seperate orthodox province in addition to TEC.  So the dioceses and parishes in the orthodox province would still be fully part of TEC.  In that light, this is a proposal that might have worked 5 years ago, but would certainly not work now, because neither the ACNA nor TEC would ever accept it.

2. pendennis88 (post #2) and Senior Priest (post #6) are right that the PB and her liberal cadre are acting out of fear.  Many conservatives here have the false notion that the primary objective of TEC’s liberals is simply to get same-sex marriage liturgies passed and gay bishops.  This is not entirely true.  Their objective is to have these things accepted by TEC while maintaining the public facade that only a tiny minority of extremists are opposed to it.  Accordingly, if TEC made such a provision, and a huge number took advantage of it, then the liberal PR objective would have failed.

I re-read it and I also saw the business about a “province within the Episcopal church.”  That is inherently contradictory, but the fact that litigation is being criticized in Episcopravda is significant. Notice also that the orthodox are being compared to the Wesleyans.

“robroy” - “Episcopravda”?? This is from The Living Church, hardly a shill for 815.  TLC (full disclosure: I’m on the Board) has been critical of litigation from the get-go and has taken a clear position against the theological errors of TLC’s leadership all along.  Please recognize friends - even if you at times disagree with them - as such.

RE: “The problem is that the sides don’t want to continue in dialogue from protected positions.”

I agree with this statement.

But I don’t agree with this one here: “The sides hate each other and want to destroy each other . . . “

I can’t speak for other conservatives but I do not hate revisionists.  I wish them well in their lives.

I don’t wish their agenda in The Episcopal Church well, and will of course resist it in any tiny way I can.

But that is a far cry from hating them or wishing them ill.

This idea is far too sane to ever make any headway in TEC.

Brad Drell

Daniel (#22), the essay was found in Episcopal Life Online, here.

Let us be reminded of John Wesley’s words:
“If we could bring all our preachers to insist that Christ not only died for us, but also that Christ must reign in us, we should shake the trembling gates of hell”

Were it that Christians of all denominations could agree on this!

“robroy” #25 - Fair enough.  But the tagline on the article above specifies TLC and makes no mention of Episcopal Life.  Your statement was potentially misleading.

John Wesley opposed the separation of the Methodist Societies from the Church of England.  He did, however, take the step of appointing “superintendents” for the American societies.  Shortly after Francis Asbury returned to the colonies as a “superintendent” he styled himself a bishop.  Regretfully, leaders of separatist movements are often drawn not only to right doctrine, but the trappings of power.
In 1758, John Welsey wrote in his “Reasons Against A Separation From the Church of England,”
“Because the Experiment has been so frequently tried already, and success has never answer’d the Expectation.  GOD since the Reformation raise up from Time to Time many Witnesses of pure religion.  If these lived and died . . . in the Churches to which they belonged, notwithstanding the Wickedness which overflowed both the Teachers and People therein; they spread the Leaven of true Religion far and wide . . . But if upon any Provocation or Consideration whatever, the separated, and founded distinct Parties, their influence was more and more confined; they grew less and less useful to others, and generally lost the Spirit of Religion themselves in the Spirit of Controversy.”

Daniel, I had read this previously in “Episcopravda” and I didn’t see that either TLC picked it or vice-versa. So I didn’t even see Kendall+‘s reference to TLC. Sorry ‘bout any confusion.

But, Mr. Smalley, in No. 28 you leave out that with the end of British rule in the American colonies in 1783 Wesley recognized that the Church of England had no foundation for a church in America - no Crown, no church. In America there was a vacuum of authority that through Wesley’s actions Methodism was able to fill.