(Living Church) Bishop William Franklin responds to Ephraim Radner

Posted by Kendall Harmon

...I appreciate the cautions about this linking of conciliarism too easily to Anglican provincial autonomy that Professor Radner makes me aware of. What are we to do in the 21st century with the international vision of Christian fellowship that was so much a part of the idealistic program of the medieval canonists who crafted conciliarism? What new structures might allow us to realize more deeply what it means to be members of the worldwide body of Christ? The Episcopal Church is no longer a “national church” but is made up of a family of nations, most of which do not share the English heritage of 18th-century American Anglicans (and in some nations the Episcopal Church in fact overlaps with another autonomous Anglican province). How can the 18th-century adaptation of conciliarism to one republic serve an international church that is no longer confined to one continent? The debate about the Anglican Covenant, which enters a new stage now as we prepare for the 2012 General Convention, is an opportunity for the whole people of God to engage prayerfully the issues concerning the constitutional structures of the body of Christ that Professor Radner and I have raised.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal- Anglican: CommentaryAnglican CovenantEpiscopal Church (TEC)Executive CouncilInstruments of Unity* Christian Life / Church LifeChurch History* TheologyEcclesiology

17 Comments
Posted September 27, 2011 at 3:50 pm [Printer Friendly] [Print w/ comments]



1. Kendall Harmon wrote:

Bishop Franklin very noticeably leaves out the proposed Prayer Book of 1785/86 and its curious history

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1786/preface_1786.htm

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/1786/BCP_1786.htm

September 27, 5:11 pm | [comment link]
2. moheb wrote:

Bishop Franklin writes:”(and in some nations the Episcopal Church in fact overlaps with another autonomous Anglican province)”
If so, what exactly is TEC’s objection to ACNA?

September 27, 5:33 pm | [comment link]
3. Cennydd13 wrote:

Moheb, you do ask a very good question.  By what authority do TEC and their Presiding Bishop presume to claim that the ACNA is not Anglican nor has the right to exist in the same territory?  They never have been a so-called “national” Church at all; they’ve simply been the only member of the Communion here in this country.  That doesn’t give them the right to claim that the ACNA can’t.

September 27, 7:47 pm | [comment link]
4. A Senior Priest wrote:

Puh-leez. When the author pretentiously writes, “The Episcopal Church is no longer a “national church” but is made up of a family of nations….” he refers in fact to an ecclesiastically American power with a few colonial leftovers from a bygone age. Did the HoB fly down to Ecuador en masse to merely provide backup for Mrs Schori to flex a bit of primatial muscle and collectively let off some hot air about global warming? Or was it not also an exercise in asserting that TEC still has some piddling colonies still on its books? The agenda for quite some time has been clear. Kate as Empress over a family of subject bodies. A family of nations, indeed.

September 27, 7:54 pm | [comment link]
5. A Senior Priest wrote:

Central Ecuador stats (which should be treated as optimistic):
Congregations: 23
Active Baptized Members: 2,153
Communicants in Good Standing: 1,555
Others Active in Congregations: 868
Average Sunday Attendance ASA: 1,323
Church School Pupils: 386
Total Baptisms: 256
Adult: 222
Children: 34
I don’t have its total revenues, TEC subsidy, or the total cost of the HoB meeting there, nor the amount of carbon emissions it generated.

September 27, 8:07 pm | [comment link]
6. anglicanconvert wrote:

Bishop Franklin makes a valid point to my mind.  Historically, Lambeth has not had the authority of the ancient councils.  Now he seems to take that to show that the Covenant is really, when you get down to the bottom of it, non-Anglican and, hence, a reason to reject it.  But he ignores the facts on the ground.  Historic Anglicanism, at least in the west, is coming apart at the seams because of western innovations.  The covenant is an attempt to preserve what is at risk.  It may be new, but the threat is new.  What is odd to me is that critics of the covenant ignore the problem that the covenant is intended to fix, as if it is not real or serious.

September 27, 9:03 pm | [comment link]
7. Bookworm(God keep Snarkster) wrote:

“What is odd to me is that critics of the covenant ignore the problem that the covenant is intended to fix, as if it is not real or serious”.

Yes, the usual:  Pink Elephant 935; Anglicans 0. 

God forbid I compare the secular to the ecclesial, but it’s my understanding that Sarah, who posts here frequently, is a successful corporate consultant.  Perhaps she will weigh in on what ignoring reality and the actual problems ultimately does to organizational health. 

As far as the erudite column above goes, I’d say it’s an academic and referenced way of saying, “We want to do what we want”; which, as usual, still ignores traditional Anglican teaching on, at the very least, the real definition of the sacrament of marriage.  Not to mention that this approach renders all teaching subordinate to Episcopal teaching; which, in my view, is presumptuous and arrogant.

September 27, 10:00 pm | [comment link]
8. Cennydd13 wrote:

Yeah, western Anglicanism may coming apart at the seams, but this implies that all of it is coming apart, when in fact it isn’t, as shown by the Anglican Church in North America, CANA, and the AMiA; all of whom constitute a dynamic renewal and resurgence of Anglicanism.

September 27, 10:04 pm | [comment link]
9. anglicanconvert wrote:

“Yeah, western Anglicanism may coming apart at the seams, but this implies that all of it is coming apart, when in fact it isn’t, as shown by the Anglican Church in North America, CANA, and the AMiA; all of whom constitute a dynamic renewal and resurgence of Anglicanism. “
Point well taken.  I was not speaking about the new movements so much as the old establishment, e.g. TEC, the Canadians. 

I hope that you are right about these movements signaling a renewal and resurgence of Anglicanism.  Are these new movements comprehensive enough to take in disaffected Anglo-Catholics, or do these new movements represent for the most part the evangelical wing of Anglicanism?

September 27, 10:15 pm | [comment link]
10. Undergroundpewster wrote:

“...the whole people of God…”

Who is he kidding?

September 27, 10:20 pm | [comment link]
11. Cennydd13 wrote:

Well, anglicanconvert, I certainly don’t have a problem with “disaffected Anglo Catholics,” since I was once one of them.  I still consider myself Anglo Catholic.  There are a large number of us in the Diocese of San Joaquin, as a matter of fact, and we do have a very sizeable number of evangelicals, who I must say work extremely well with us.  I believe that’s pretty much the same in most of our dioceses…...but undoubtedly there are several where that may not be the case.  I believe that there’s a good balance in our province.

September 28, 12:44 am | [comment link]
12. anglicanconvert wrote:

Cennydd13, I did not mean that the disaffection of Anglo-Catholics was with the AMiA, CANA,or ANCA, but rather it is with the TEC.  I don’t really know much about any of these new groups.  My impression has been that they are mostly evangelical rather than Anglo-Catholic.  Historically, Anglicanism has spread a wide enough tent for low, high, and broad churchmanship.  I was wondering if the new movements can and will continue that historic Anglican approach.

September 28, 1:11 am | [comment link]
13. Cennydd13 wrote:

I think there’s room for differences, of course, but not the TEC heresies.  They are anathema to us.

September 28, 2:47 am | [comment link]
14. montanan wrote:

anglicanconvert - San Joaquin and Fort Worth both have Anglo-Catholic charism.  The Bishop of the Diocese of Western Anglicans in ACNA is quite Anglo-Catholic.  I believe the evangelical folks and the A-C ones in ACNA (and, I presume, AMiA, too) work together very well.  I think the key is that our charism is not what divides us; we are bound by our orthodox faith.

September 28, 8:41 am | [comment link]
15. Cennydd13 wrote:

Exactly!

September 28, 10:46 am | [comment link]
16. fvanzant wrote:

I may be dumb, but I have never understood why some people think there must be a conflict between being evangelical and being anglo-catholic.

September 28, 6:25 pm | [comment link]
17. Cennydd13 wrote:

Silly, isn’t it?

September 29, 4:56 pm | [comment link]
Registered members must log in to comment.




Next entry (above): From the Morning Bible Readings

Previous entry (below): R.R Reno—Whither Marriage?

Return to blog homepage

Return to Mobile view (headlines)