A Look Back to June 2004

Posted by Kendall Harmon

“The contumacious actions of the Diocese of New Westminster and ECUSA have and continue to have profoundly divisive consequences within the Anglican Church of Canada, ECUSA, and the Anglican Communion as a whole. Within the Anglican Church of Canada and ECUSA, the “scandal” caused by the actions of these bodies has caused

–some to leave for other churches,
–some to call for more adequate Episcopal oversight,
–some to form ecclesiastical bodies independent of the Anglican Church of
Canada and ECUSA (but in communion with one or another province of the
Anglican Communion),
–some to withhold money for the support of their parish, diocese, and national
church.

Within the larger communion, a number of provinces have declared broken or impaired communion with both ECUSA and the Diocese of New Westminster. Some have even spoken of a break with the See of Canterbury if no action is taken to check the excessive claims to autonomy that lie behind the actions recently taken in Canada and the United States.

Finally, some of the most important ecumenical partners of Anglicans have issued strong statements about the divisive implications of the actions taken by the Diocese of New Westminster and ECUSA.

In short, the actions taken in Canada and the U.S. have set off shock waves both locally and internationally. They have produced as well a degree of bitterness and contentiousness throughout the communion that brings shame upon the ame of Christ and weakens the credibility of the witness of Anglican Christians. To ignore by silence and/or inaction such rending of Christ’s body is to stand idle as fellowship both within and between the provinces of the Anglican Communion disintegrates.”

–Communion and Discipline, the Anglican Communion Institute submission to the Lambeth Commission, page 38, as posted on the old blog in June 2004


Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal- Anglican: CommentaryArchbishop of Canterbury

3 Comments
Posted November 27, 2010 at 12:05 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Timothy Fountain wrote:

The “listening process(es)” listened to everything but what was really going on. 

The ACI quote here is simple description, not a partisan call for any one of the listed reactions.  If ever there were a situation needing sober, common sense containment and management, this was it.  We over-complexified and obfuscated and manipulated, and all of the devastation described has only increased.

November 27, 2:30 pm | [comment link]
2. Jill Woodliff wrote:

There has been an unwillingness to examine underlying assumptions, an unwillingness to address the logical consequences of tightly held convictions, even an unwillingness to passively read about the consequences in varied news sources—in short, a willful blindness. 
The irony is that TEC claims that its people do not check their brains at the door.  What a laugh.

November 27, 5:35 pm | [comment link]
3. Bookworm(God keep Snarkster) wrote:

Yes, but here’s the deal—when the minority wants the majority, it’s a “listening process”—but once the majority is achieved, then it must become “consensus” and “uniformity”.  Uniformity, to revisionists, looks like legitimacy, the ultimate goal in innovation. 

To borrow from Fr. Fountain, “if ever there were a situation needing sober, common sense containment and management, this was it.  We over-complexified and obfuscated and manipulated, and all of the devastation described has only increased”.

And I’ll raise by saying that I don’t believe anyone is going to get anything different out of the current AB of C.

November 27, 7:30 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): John Hunwicke on Bishop Andrew Burnham’s Last Mass which was recently Concluded Today

Previous entry (below): North Korea Accuses South of Using Human Shields

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)