6. We note with great sadness the passing of Resolution A049 at the 77th General Convention of The Episcopal Church which authorized a liturgy for blessing same-sex unions. This action confirms our disappointment that The Episcopal Church has no regard for the concerns and convictions of the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide.
7. We stand in solidarity with our brethren in the Communion Partners who have dissented from this action. We uphold them in prayer and support them in fellowship as they continue in their commitment to the evangelical faith and catholic order of the Church, as expressed in their Minority Report known as The
8. We also appreciate and support all the faithful in Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as well as those in the Anglican Church in Canada who remain true to our biblical and historic faith.
9. We deeply respect and appreciate our historical and spiritual relationship with the See of Canterbury. We have written to the Crown Nominations Commission with concerns from the Global South and important principles for consideration as it nominates candidates for the appointment of a new Archbishop of Canterbury.
1. Mark Baddeley wrote:
The Global South are continuing as they have been for a while now - they’ll note TEC’s heresy and immorality, reject it, and move on. They aren’t going to let TEC or any other liberal group set the agenda for them for them to react to. They will continue to move forward with an agenda more directly coming from Scripture and work with others doing the same.
I love it. TEC is reduced to a single dot point - the same amount of attention that is given to endorsing the handful of CP Bishops left and the small but growing ACNA as the two recognized Anglican expressions in the U.S.
July 21, 1:22 am | [comment link]
2. Ralph wrote:
Reading the Global South Communiqué sent me to the Communion Partners website. It looks like this is an organization for clergy, “those who have felt called to remain in The Episcopal Church while following a different theological trajectory.”
Perhaps they would consider offering a membership category for laity with similar views. Perhaps making available a tastefully-designed lapel pin, and/or windshield sticker. I don’t have a TEC sticker on my car; that would convey the wrong message these days, wouldn’t it?
July 21, 9:02 am | [comment link]
3. Cennydd13 wrote:
Ralph, we already have a tastefully designed lapel pin…...the lapel pin of the Anglican Church in North America, and it’s available through our website. As for the laity, I believe they’re represented by the Communion Partner bishops. I do wish, though, that these bishops would distance themselves completely from TEC rather than remain as the loyal opposition.
July 21, 12:21 pm | [comment link]
4. SC blu cat lady wrote:
Instead of on a t-shirt, perhaps the Diocese of SC needs to put “Making Biblical Anglicans for a Global Age” on a lapel pin/button? Any takers?
July 21, 3:19 pm | [comment link]
5. A Senior Priest wrote:
How nice for them all. If everyone who left TEC since 1976 had stayed instead of cut and run, we’d have a 70% majority. Meh. Whatever. I’m still annoyed and hurt by all of this nonsensical charade but eventually will get over it. I am certain, however, that I want as little to do with both the revisionists who destroyed a great cultural and religious institution as those who left it behind. In the words of Mercutio….
July 21, 3:42 pm | [comment link]
6. tjmcmahon wrote:
Would that Dr. Anis could be ABoC. But even though he cannot serve in that position (and would never be elected by the overbearing revisionists of the committee in any case) the Lord has seen to it that he will be the leader of global Anglicanism in the coming years.
July 21, 4:42 pm | [comment link]
7. Cennydd13 wrote:
5. I recall hearing conservative Episcopalians who were trying to prevent their Church from going apostate and giving in to the progressive revisionists being shouted down at every turn from 1976 onwards during diocesan conventions as well as General Convention. I should know, because I was one of them.
When you consistently try and try and try to no avail, and when you finally realize that your efforts and those of others like you are getting your side nowhere, what are you supposed to do? Are you supposed to stick around and continue to be belittled and called homophobes and Biblethumping fundies, and try to defend yourselves from lawsuits, or should you shake the dust from your sandals and leave?
Sorry, but when it comes to that point, I’m completely intolerant. In this case, I fought back by joining 100,000+ other faithful Anglican Christians who shook the dust from their sandals and moved on via the ACNA…...and I have never regretted it nor have I looked back.
July 21, 5:59 pm | [comment link]
8. c.r.seitz wrote:
# 7 Glad it’s working out for you.
July 21, 6:03 pm | [comment link]
9. The_Elves wrote:
A gentle reminder from the elves. Comment policy on T19 is to not allow comments that encourage our readers to leave TEC.
July 21, 6:56 pm | [comment link]
10. pendennis88 wrote:
Every person is in a different place and called to do different things. I don’t fault those who prayerfully stay nor those who prayerfully leave. But on the original topic, paragraph 9 seems a rather important sign of the next potential storm to me.
July 21, 8:23 pm | [comment link]
11. Ian+ wrote:
It would be lovely if some of those who have left TEC would, in their comments here, stop trashing TEC and being critical of those who have either not discerned a vocation to leave or have discerned one to stay (only God knows these things for sure). And then there’s the smugness with which some assert that they themselves are faithful Christians, with the implication that none in TEC are. A bit of humility, folks, please.
July 21, 8:42 pm | [comment link]
12. Sarah wrote:
RE: “Ralph, we already have a tastefully designed lapel pin…...the lapel pin of the Anglican Church in North America, and it’s available through our website.”
Believe you me, I and the vast vast majority of the allies in TEC I’ve worked with won’t be associated with ACNA should we leave TEC. Why leave one frying pan to jump into the fire on the other side? So why any of us would want a lapel pin of an organization we want no part of, is anybody’s guess.
I’ll most likely be in the EPC if I leave; I’d like to be a part of a functional, competent, healthy church if I depart TEC and every time Cennydd et al speak we all recognize again why the two groups aren’t going to end up together.
But why leave when we’re having so much fun?
I just hope and pray that if the Diocese of SC should leave they sit tight and refuse to join something significantly worse off than they as a diocese are. It would be a *dream* to be able to plant parishes up here in the Upstate connected with that diocese, as long as they don’t screw it up by attaching themselves to a massively dysfunctional, incompetent alternate Anglican entity.
At last—we’d have the one unified diocese in South Carolina that we ought to have had for the past 90+ years. 1922 is a short time ago by Southern standards! ; > )
July 21, 10:11 pm | [comment link]
13. Sarah wrote:
RE: “It would be lovely if some of those who have left TEC would . . . “
Those in alternate Anglican entities like the individuals you’re referring to [blessedly not all of them are like that] simply can’t, Ian+—‘cause they never really left, rather patently. They’re simply unable to let it go.
So we’re going to have to hear the droning caws and heckles of Sanballat and his followers till the cows come home.
July 21, 10:20 pm | [comment link]
14. episcoanglican wrote:
Brothers and sisters, please enough of the tearing down of one another. Or am I the only one for an affinity for TEC and the ACNA? I for one was fully prepared to remain a “Daniel” within TEC but to my surprise was sent out to pastor a parish in ACNA. I still maintain the highest respect for my family back in the Diocese of Albany and remain in communion with them as much as I can. And no, some of us will never fully leave TEC. How can we? It is our God given heritage. I use the 79 prayer book every day. I have no intention of abandoning even those I refuse to commune with. They remain in my love and prayers. I am relieved not to be fighting that fight directly but give thanks and pray for those that remain faithful fighting within, especially our esteemed brothers in the ACI. As someone said already, some are called to stay, others to go. Let’s not bear ill will toward those with a different calling.
July 21, 11:26 pm | [comment link]
15. Cennydd13 wrote:
I bear no ill will towards those who’ve decided to stay with TEC, and some of them are members of my family. I simply could not accept the things which TEC has done.
July 21, 11:45 pm | [comment link]
16. Todd Granger wrote:
Well said, episcoanglican (#14).
And of course those of us in extramural Anglican bodies never left The Episcopal Church, Sarah. Just as I never left the local Southern Baptist church in whom I grew up and came to faith,, though I’ve not been a member of that church for nearly thirty years. I remain a part of that fellowship as surely as I am part of the mission church within PEARUSA/ACNA of which I am a member (for all the ecclesiological incoherence therein). Like episcopanglican, I continue to use the 1979 Prayer Book for my personal devotions, just as our mission church uses it for all our liturgies and services. I continue to pray for the witness and lives of faithful Anglicans who have remained in The Episcopal Church, both in the parish that our family left almost three years ago, and in the wider denomination. I even pray for +Michael Curry, whose own theological position and actions helped us discern that, after twenty years, we were to leave.
The broad-brush condemnation and denigration by members of both camps for the others (stayers or leavers) that flares here from time to time is really quite disheartening and makes one feel very low.
But it’s not simply a matter treading lightly so as to not hurt someone’s “feelings”. It’s a matter of not exercising charity. We who have left for extramural Anglican bodies are often accused - perhaps rightly? - of a lack of charity by the simple fact of having entered into schism from brothers and sisters remaining in The Episcopal Church. If that be so, then I pray we discern the sin, repent of it, and receive God’s forgiveness as well as the forgiveness of the brothers and sisters we left. But from the other side, I have to say that the same lack of charity is frequently demonstrated here in the comments of the brothers and sisters whom we’ve left behind in The Episcopal Church.
July 22, 12:58 am | [comment link]
17. MichaelA wrote:
“If everyone who left TEC since 1976 had stayed instead of cut and run, we’d have a 70% majority.”
That is exactly what you did have, a Senior Priest. All of those people WERE in TEC. If you couldn’t stop the slide into apostasy with them back then, what makes you think that you could stop it with them now?
How does a 70% majority prevent a liberal take-over anyway?
“Cut and run” is also an interesting way to put it. Many of them were forced out - although Schori and you might deny that. Many of them also left because they could not in good conscience remain - would you see that as relevant?
“I am certain, however, that I want as little to do with both the revisionists who destroyed a great cultural and religious institution as those who left it behind.”
Really - you see no disinction between those who took a stand on God’s truth and those who did not. Why is that? Perhaps the “cultural and religious institution” is more important to you than anything else?
July 22, 4:48 am | [comment link]
18. MichaelA wrote:
Cennydd, I would have thought that the best thing those in ACNA can do for the resurgence of Anglicanism in USA is work on their church planting and evangelism.
July 22, 4:50 am | [comment link]
19. MichaelA wrote:
“I’d like to be a part of a functional, competent, healthy church if I depart TEC and every time Cennydd et al speak we all recognize again why the two groups aren’t going to end up together.”
July 22, 4:51 am | [comment link]
Also when you speak, Sarah. You are no different!
20. MichaelA wrote:
“It would be a *dream* to be able to plant parishes up here in the Upstate connected with that diocese, as long as they don’t screw it up by attaching themselves to a massively dysfunctional, incompetent alternate Anglican entity.”
Hmmm, then you’d best wait and not plant any churches, because you will never be able to entirely predict the future. Wait until you have the perfect entity that you are happy with and are confident is proof against future going astray, then you can start the church planting.
“So we’re going to have to hear the droning caws and heckles of Sanballat and his followers till the cows come home.”
Wasn’t Sanballat the enemy of the people of God (Nehemiah 6:1)?
July 22, 4:55 am | [comment link]
21. Ralph wrote:
The intent of #2 was to suggest a way that those committed to staying in TEC might quietly and tastefully (after all, we’re Anglicans) display support of the Anglican orthodoxy movement. A DioSC t-shirt is an intriguing idea, but it’s not something that one might wear to a diocesan convention.
Affiliating with an organization committed to remaining in TEC and the Anglican Communion is one possibility, but CP appears to be for clergy. In looking at the ACI website yesterday, I can’t tell just who they are and what they do, other than writing very nice essays. (No offense intended, c.r.seitz.) There’s also the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. I can’t tell what other organizations would be appropriate.
Here in the US, TEC has been dramatically unstable for years, and ACNA faces its challenges, as well. If I were to be “a part of a functional, competent, healthy church if I depart TEC” I don’t know what I would do with myself.
Obviously, there’s much more to Christian worship than aesthetics, but I’d have to look for a parish that has highest standards for formal ceremonial worship, tasteful and traditional music, and preaching. Plus, the other things. One can still find that in the southern TEC dioceses if one is willing to travel on Sunday.
July 22, 7:46 am | [comment link]
22. MichaelA wrote:
Ralph, I think your idea of a lapel pin or t-shirt (or similar items) is a great idea.
I would hope that those wearing the “I’m in TEC and faithful to the faith once delivered” lapel pin, and those wearing the “I’m in ACNA and faithful to the faith once delivered” lapel pin, can each smile at the other, wave, honk in the carpark and even fellowship and pray together…
July 22, 8:50 am | [comment link]
23. Marie Blocher wrote:
Ralph, I think you are desiring something like the Anglican Communion Network before it morphed into ACNA. Many dioceses and parishes joined ACN with the desire to work within TEC, and felt abandoned when ACN closed down at the founding of ACNA. The ACN had been a good way for traditionalists to keep connected and support one another.
July 22, 8:56 am | [comment link]
Suddenly we found ourselves stranded, with radicals to the left and radicals to the right. Then some bishops came together as Communion Partners. Still nothing like that for parishes and laity.
24. Marie Blocher wrote:
July 22, 9:04 am | [comment link]
I agree that paragraph 9 has storm clouds written all over it. If Great Britain can’t elect a traditionalist as ABC (And I don’t think they can currently) then it is time for the head of the Anglican Communion to be elected from/by the world-wide communion.
25. Sarah wrote:
RE: “And no, some of us will never fully leave TEC.”
That’s wonderful—but as my comment was clearly referring to the Bitter Leavers who can’t stop being Sanballat, and also made it clear that not all those in ACNA are like that, I certainly wasn’t referring to folks like you.
RE: “And of course those of us in extramural Anglican bodies never left The Episcopal Church, Sarah.”
Ditto to Todd Granger. I’ve never noticed your being a Bitter Sanballat Leaver heckling from the sidelines.
RE: “The broad-brush condemnation and denigration by members of both camps for the others . . . “
There was *no such thing* by this Episcopalian towards leavers in general—not in this comment and not elsewhere. I’ve been very clear over the years and years I’ve commented who has earned my ire—and it’s certainly not “leavers” in general. I have many friends in both ACNA and other entities who have left TEC and we mutually commiserate and advise one another by phone and email constantly. I’ve supported people who’ve left, and publicized their actions in writing on a constant basis, and I have found great things they’ve been a part of and posted them right up in the blogosphere.
No, it was quite clear to what segment I referred to in my comment and I specifically pointed out that not all of the members of ACNA are Bitter Sanballats.
RE: “We who have left for extramural Anglican bodies are often accused - perhaps rightly? - of a lack of charity by the simple fact of having entered into schism from brothers and sisters remaining in The Episcopal Church.”
I agree—that’s a faulty accusation. There is no intrinsic sin in leaving an organization or entity.
RE: “Also when you speak, Sarah.”
MichaelA—I should hope so. I’ve no interest in being with such people nor do they have an interest in being with people like me. The disinterest is mutual and I am glad that the chasm between the theology, values, and principles of the Bitter Leavers and those conservatives who have stayed in TEC is stark and clear and won’t be bridged. And God forbid that if or when we leave TEC we import that stuff into our next Christian body or constantly heckle those who choose to stay.
The most irritating thing about the aftermath of General Convention [or any of the other Long Expected Actions of the heretical and incompetent and bullying organization that is TEC] is dealing with the Bitter Sanballats heckling comments.
RE: “Wait until you have the perfect entity that you are happy with . . . “
No need for a perfect entity—the Diocese of SC with all of its faults will do quite nicely and stands in stark contrast to both TEC and ACNA. But yes, I suspect I will be in TEC for quite some time to come.
RE: “Wasn’t Sanballat the enemy of the people of God (Nehemiah 6:1)?”
Yes, he sure was. But chapters 2 & 3 demonstrate the analogy probably the most clearly.
Marie—I’m with you. The AAC was that kind of entity as well for those remaining in TEC. I’ve always believed that they lost their vocation when they decided to focus more on the entities leaving TEC—but organizations have the right to choose to focus on whatever they please.
I would also say that if laity and parishes need an entity to support them within TEC, it’s their responsibility to form it themselves [and I speak to me as much as to you].
July 22, 9:40 am | [comment link]
26. c.r.seitz wrote:
At a time of judgment, various efforts from different angles and with different understandings of polity have emerged. That is probably not surprising. ACI (and before that SEAD) has witnessed a lot of this at close quarters. ‘Windsor Bishops’ was the larger predecessor of CP Bishops and the ACNA/AMiA Counterpart.
July 22, 9:49 am | [comment link]
Ralph, ACI works closely with CP Bishops and others, often behind the scenes. We wrote the amicus brief in the TX Supreme Court case. We are on the expert witness list in Quincy, for which one of our number has Title IV staring at him. We all have full time jobs.
We are happy to receive any financial support as the bulk of this work is done pro bono.
I suspect CP rectors and leadership will take your interest seriously. Two CP Bishops have recently retired (CFL and W-LA), and their successors will have their own evaluations. It has been encouraging to see +Brewer at work. CFL is a very solid diocese.
27. tjmcmahon wrote:
Perhaps one can be so bold as to suggest that all Anglicans on this list, whether Communion Partners, otherwise orthodox Episcopalians, in ACNA, or some associated group, consider the following:
1) The primates appointed to the standing committee of the GS include both Gafcon primates, and primates who have been the “Anglican Communion partners” for the Communion Partners.
2) These archbishops, along with all the churches of the GS, have issued a statement that they “stand in solidarity with our brethren in the Communion Partners” AND “support all the faithful in Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as well as those in the Anglican Church in Canada who remain true to our biblical and historic faith.”
3) This statement, therefore, calls ALL of us to “stand in solidarity with our brethren in the Communion Partners” AND “support all the faithful in Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as well as those in the Anglican Church in Canada who remain true to our biblical and historic faith.”
I would put to you that those orthodox left in TEC are obviously quite well aware of the errors of the leadership and legislative majorities of TEC, and the heresies of many of its bishops. And I know of no one in ACNA who is not aware of the confusion of polity and jurisdiction brought about by overlapping jurisdictions and trying to unify a dozen distinct ecclesial organizations. But if the Global South is willing to support both, and strengthen communion with both, perhaps we should begin the work of restoring and strengthening communion with each other.
July 22, 12:01 pm | [comment link]
28. Todd Granger wrote:
Well put, tjmcmahon (#27). Thank you for bringing the thread back to its proper focus. One might comment that once again the Americans need the leadership of the Global South to restore order to our fragmented and argumentative house(s).
July 22, 1:41 pm | [comment link]
29. c.r.seitz wrote:
AMEN. CP had some really fine men present in Bangkok, and one must suppose the same was true of those invited from ACNA.
July 22, 1:44 pm | [comment link]
30. SC blu cat lady wrote:
Sarah, As for unifying the two dioceses back into one, there is a way to do that. I believe that the process for merging dioceses is mentioned in either the Constitution or the Canons. I just remember stumbling upon it while going thru one of them quickly looking for something else.
July 22, 4:49 pm | [comment link]
31. Ralph wrote:
God will help the conservative clergy protect each other from diabolical attack.
Among the laity, there are those conservatives who work for corporations, local, state and national agencies, and so forth, with strict anti-discrimination policies that include ‘sexual preference.’
The most casual comment made at work about the current crisis can be amplified by activists and lead to a dismissal hearing. People at church were asking me what I think, only this AM. Were I to give a forthright answer, and were that to get back to my employer, I might soon be flipping burgers in Charleston. Spiritually a good thing, perhaps, but not right for this time in my family’s life.
The best I can come up with is a fudgy something like, “Well, if the bishops of the Anglican Communion disagree with Lambeth I.10, perhaps they should rescind it so that we can move on.” Or, “Well, if the bishops of TEC disagree with its constitution, its prayerbook, and its catechism, perhaps they should rewrite them so that we can move on.”
The laity need protection, and ‘freedom of speech’ won’t work. This will get worse before it gets better.
The rhetoric coming from the Global South primates and ACI is well and good. But, statements 6, 7, and 8 aren’t something to carry into an employment tribunal.
July 22, 5:11 pm | [comment link]
32. MichaelA wrote:
The Global South primates view both ACNA and Communion Partners as important parts of the future of Anglicanism in North America. This is the same attitude they have been making clear since 2010.
I hope we will see no more accusations that other Christians are to be called enemies of the people of God. Christians are allowed to disagree with each other on issues like this, without being accused of not being Christian at all.
+Dan Martins writes
“The consensus among the four Episcopal Church representatives here is that the trip was definitely worthwhile. It put our names and faces in front of people who might otherwise be tempted to forget about us or write us off. We want the Global South, which, let’s face it, represents the overwhelming majority of the world’s Anglicans, to be very clear that not all in the Episcopal Church are supportive of the communion-shattering and self-absorbed actions of recent General Conventions. There is a remnant. We need their encouragement and leadership as we endeavor to be a loyal but uncompromised minority party in our church for the indefinite future. We also have gifts to offer as partners in gospel witness and mission.”
+Martins has an engaging style and his blog gives a perspective on the machinations of the GS conference, from an American outsider’s POV:
“One of the things I’ve become more keenly aware of in this conference is the importance of context. As a westerner still trying to unlearn the mental habits of Christendom, and as one who tries to be a bridge builder rather than a bridge burner in a very diverse and conflicted church, I would have wished for more winsomeness, more gentleness, and maybe even a touch of humor. There was none of that. Yet, the Nigerian church is on the front lines of the encounter with militant Islam. Many Christians there are, at any moment, in danger of losing life or property. So they cannot afford flabby troops. Neither can we, actually, but we haven’t completely figured that out yet.”
He does seem empathetic with the people he meets. I am glad that Communion Partners were able to send two bishops and two rectors to this conference, also that there were Canadians and Australians there – the more meetings we have like this, the better. It just drives home that Anglicanism is a world denomination and we must work hard to overcome cultural barriers:
July 22, 8:58 pm | [comment link]
“I think I already knew this subliminally, but the prevailing sense in the Global South (a term that might be morphing into Global Majority) is that they were hoodwinked by seminaries in the “first world” countries that evangelized them 200 years ago, and to which they have been sending a steady stream of ordinands until fairly recently. By their lights, we sold out to the theological zeitgeist and failed to send them a memo. Now they’re upset. Or at least cautious. Understandably.”
33. Cennydd13 wrote:
18. MichaelA, that’s precisely what we ARE doing.
July 22, 9:14 pm | [comment link]
34. Todd Granger wrote:
Yes, to echo Cennydd13 and MichaelA (whose comments in this thread are deeply appreciated), I have been immensely impressed with the missional and missionary character of the ACNA and former AMiA (now PEARUSA) congregations with whom I’m had contact - particularly PEARUSA. We left our longtime parish in the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina three years ago and joined a congregation of the AMiA (now of PEARUSA), All Saints (Chapel Hill-Durham), where Dr Steve Breedlove, now the bishop-elect of PEARUSA, until recently served as rector. At the time that we joined, All Saints was only five years old and had an average Sunday attendance between 200 and 250. Within a year of our joining, the attendance had grown enough (usually between 250 and 300) to necessitate two Sunday morning liturgies. (I believe my estimates are correct.)
A year after that (almost a year ago), All Saints sent out five or six families (including mine), around twenty people, to be the founding members of a new mission, the Church of the Holy Trinity (Chatham). Our mission church, who have been meeting weekly on Sunday mornings for only ten months, already has an ASA between 60 and 70 (our first Easter Day liturgy in April drew about 110). And more than just numerical growth, we’re seeing profound personal and corporate growth in Christ as a congregation.
Church planting is certainly something that extramural North American Anglicanism (well, increasingly intramural in the case of ACNA and its subjurisdictions) understands and does well.
July 22, 11:29 pm | [comment link]
35. calley wrote:
Having awakened this morning in the USA and having read this thread, I feel compelled to mention that the apparent lack of charity among the orthodox Anglican entities in North America is not lost on the GS Primates. Two of the primates in Thailand mentioned in conversation that Anglicans in America are going to have to find a way forward together if we expect to be taken seriously by the Global South. Along the lines of 1 John 4:20, their question is, if we cannot love our brothers in America that we can see, how can we be trusted to love our brothers in the Global South whom we cannot see? The bottom line is that we (all orthodox Anglican entities in America) need to exert our energies and direct our prayers toward establishing a unity in Christ rather than casting doubt on one another, or promoting our own party.
July 23, 9:36 am | [comment link]
36. SC blu cat lady wrote:
#27 TJ, If you have any ideas as to how the Bishop of the diocese of SC and the clergy and people of this diocese could contribute to such an unity, I am sure +Mark Lawrence would be glad to hear from you. In one letter to the diocese, he mentioned getting many e-mails every day expressing various opinions as well as asking for help from the diocese.
#35 Calley, Are these other jurisdictions so united that they see our divisions as obstacles to unity with them? Unless they are absolutely 100% unified, many in North America are going to see that position as the pot calling the kettle black. just saying’. Unity is worth our best efforts.
July 23, 10:57 am | [comment link]
37. Cennydd13 wrote:
While there are so many small Anglican jurisdictions in North America competing with each other, there are going to continue to be problems. If they want to be effective, they are…..ALL of them…..going to have to join together as one. This means that the ACNA, the ACA, APCK and others will all have to agree to put their differences aside if there is to be one truly orthodox Anglican Church in this continent. I believe the ACNA has made a start in that direction, and yes, it isn’t perfect by any means…...but at least it’s a start. And we do indeed have to stop the squabbling with those who differ with us. If we’re going to criticise them for what they do, then it must be done with Christian charity…..but with firmness. This is important if we expect to gain the backing of the Global South primates, and the ACNA is already there, as we all know…...and that’s a start.
July 23, 12:42 pm | [comment link]
38. Oreo wrote:
All those groups coming together as “one” is never going to happen as long as there are doctrinal differences. It’s like those who wish that TEC and the Roman Church would come together or be in relationship with one another. It’s a nice thought, a nice dream, but it is a fleeting though and, at best, just a dream.
July 23, 1:27 pm | [comment link]
39. Karen B. wrote:
July 23, 2:53 pm | [comment link]
It’s great to read your testimony in #34. It’s my prayer that we’ll be hearing many such stories as PEARUSA gets organized and Anglican 1000 continues!
40. tjmcmahon wrote:
Oreo- I can’t see any great doctrinal difference between +Bob Duncan and +Mark Lawrence or +Dan Martins. South Carolina is, from what I hear, a bit more on the “low church” side than Pittsburgh, and Springfield a bit more “high church.” But no more so than 5 years ago, when they were all part of TEC. The divide is an ecclesiastic one. I think it is fairly evident at the moment that 815 would bring charges against a TEC bishop who formally recognized +Jack Iker as Bishop of Fort Worth (that being the gist of the 6 hours of wrangling by the HoB at GC). So for the time being, full communion is off the table between any diocese of TEC and its ACNA counterparts. But that, in and of itself, is not a matter of doctrine. Bishops from TEC have shared Holy Communion with ACNA bishops (as certainly many parishioners of both have).
But, as I pointed out in 27, I think the doctrine of Anglicanism requires that we submit to our bishops, and our bishops (those of the GS) are quite clear, it seems to me, in what they are calling on us to do. They have clearly identified both ACNA and the CP dioceses (whatever few of them are left) as the legitimate expressions of Anglican Christianity in the United States. Those of us who identify as “traditional Anglicans” need to follow their lead. Do not get caught in the trap that KJS, the ACO, and indeed Rowan Williams set for us when they reneged on the Dar Es Salaam plan to provide primatial oversight for traditional Anglicans in the US. Let’s remember that ACNA is Plan B- a plan exercised in response to the bureaucrats at Lambeth Palace and 815 derailing plan A in order to keep pushing their secular agenda both in the West and throughout the GS. ACNA’s existence (along with any number of other consequences) is a direct result of the Archbishop of Canterbury not carrying through what he promised he would do at the post-Dar press conference.
July 23, 5:42 pm | [comment link]
41. c.r.seitz wrote:
I suspect without knowing the details—they have been referred to on occasion by people claiming to be in the know—that we would need to know more about the relationship between the GS, as in this communique, and the narrower Gafcon reality. At the covenanrt event in Toronto in May, we had good representation from the former, and there is also some overlap. (++Wabukala is a Wycliffe grad). I know our Principal was in Bangkok. One of the questions in Toronto was how the GS might take up the covenant and use it as a fresh rallying point, given the disposition of CoE and now TEC. I mention this not to commend the covenant or to suggest a SE Asia style adoption of it, but only to say that some provinces still need to think through the implications of a covenant, even moreso given the judgments of TEC and the CofE. It is heartening to see the list above and to see names that span Gafcon and GS as such.
July 23, 6:58 pm | [comment link]
42. Oreo wrote:
#40, tj, go back and re-read #37’s statement. He is referring to the establishment of unity amongst all the groups that have already broken away from TEC and yes, there are doctrinal differences, i.e., the ordination of women, that separate some of them them. Mark and Dan are still in TEC. They are not in a splinter that might call themselves the Scottish Anglican Episcopal Charismatic 1928 BCP Worshipping Non-Women Ordaining LEVAS Hymn Singing New Living Bible Thumping Church…and you a non-believing heretic if you disagree with them on any of the above.
July 23, 7:54 pm | [comment link]
43. MichaelA wrote:
Like Tjmacmahon and Cennydd, I read Calley’s post at #35 as being directed not so much at institutional unity, but more at any of us saying “staying is the only way”, or “leaving is the only way”, or “my particular way of leaving/staying is the only way”.
SC Blu Cat Lady at #36 queries how Dio SC can contribute to such unity – I would have said, “by doing no more and no less than what you are doing now”. +Lawrence is treading a delicate line because he cannot afford to give TEC a *legal* excuse to depose him. This is particularly important at the moment because TEC HOB have signalled that they aren’t going to support arbitrary action by KJS against a fellow bishop anymore, even an orthodox one – they are aware that KJS could use the same power against any of them if she is not checked. But I agree with Tjmcmahon that formal recognition of e.g +Iker at this time would unnecessarily aggravate TEC bishops who are otherwise happy to leave Dio SC alone.
Yet at the same time, +Lawrence is keeping fellowship open with ALL Anglican groups. Note the following:
1. At the beginning of this year, Dio SC hosted the Mere Anglicanism conference, speakers at which included the Dean of Trinity School for Ministry, the Bishop of London, and +Michael Nazir-Ali who provides alternative oversight for dissenters in the Church of England. You can’t get a much broader spread than that.
2. In April this year, +Lawrence attended the Gafcon leadership conference in London. I don’t think +Lawrence has any plans to join Gafcon. Rather, he was there in order to keep the lines of communication and fellowship with other Anglicans open. Even some liberal bishops in TEC want to do this, and of course at meetings like this +Lawrence can discuss important matters frankly and face-to-face with ++Duncan and the ACNA bishops.
For the same reason, I have commented previously that, whilst I as an Anglican would prefer to see just one Anglican jurisdiction in South Carolina, I think that independent and ACNA congregations there would be insane to place themselves under +Lawrence’s oversight at the present time – there is just too much risk that KJS may take legal action against +Lawrence in the near future, and in the process lay a claim to the property of any independents who have joined with him. In time, I am confident we will see one Anglican jurisdiction throughout America, but it won’t be for many years.
The Global South bishops take a long view, and they view real unity as more important than formal unity. They won’t be impressed with Anglicans who seem much better at fighting each other than fighting against apostasy and heresy.
July 23, 8:37 pm | [comment link]
44. MichaelA wrote:
C. R. Seitz at #41, I believe all of the Gafcon primates are also members of the Global South. I haven’t really seen any sign of divergence between the two bodies, at least for the last two to three years.
July 23, 8:46 pm | [comment link]
45. MichaelA wrote:
I don’t want to minimise doctrinal differences, nor the importance of sorting them out. But I do think on some issues we can take time to resolve them.
I believe the bible teaches against ordaining women to the priesthood, but I can’t see the sense in separating over that issue alone. Rather, I hope that we will win over those in the Anglican Communion who have, in my view, succumbed to a liberal innovation. Such winning over will occur through prayer and respectful but firm dialogue, and I expect it to take years.
A similar issue arises with a particular problem in my own diocese (Sydney) where several successive Synods have voted overwhelmingly to endorse lay presidency of Holy Communion (although Sydney has never actually had a lay president – that would require the Archbishop to authorise one, which has never occurred to my knowledge). Please note, my intention is not to start a debate on that particular issue, but just to point out that this is another one where I am confident that folk in Sydney can be persuaded to change their minds, especially as it is a recent development here.
Its always a hard issue, over what issue do we separate. But there are some issues where its better to give an extended time to winning people over from them. Everyone ends up more strongly grounded in the faith as a result.
July 23, 9:56 pm | [comment link]
46. c.r.seitz wrote:
#44 Good news.
But of course the recent London event was a Gafcon-ACNA-JD event.
It was not an event for all the GS, which has not joined in the JD. Nor was CP invited in a formal sense as in this particular case.
We can but hope for a wider convergence in Christ.
July 23, 10:23 pm | [comment link]
47. Cennydd13 wrote:
MichaelA, it looks to me as though the Global South primates are telling the North American Anglicans ex TEC to get their act together, and since this appears to be the case, I agree that it isn’t going to happen overnight, and some may never cooperate with the others.
Be that as it may, it is going to be years before this comes about, but I have faith that such will eventually be the case. It may not happen in my lifetime, but then it’s Christ’s Church we’re talking about, and He is the prime mover, and he’ll see to it that it happens.
July 23, 11:19 pm | [comment link]
48. MichaelA wrote:
Prof. Seitz at #46,
True, but I think it is important that we remind people that Gafcon and the Global South are different types of bodies and shouldn’t be conflated.
You can only be in the Global South if you are a bishop in one of 21 specified Anglican provinces. Gafcon on the other hand is a special interest group devoted to the cause of orthodox renewal in the west. Membership is open to clergy and lay people, anywhere in the world. The Global South Primates who are members of Gafcon are those who directly involve themselves with Western renewal.
The Jerusalem Declaration was formulated at the Jerusalem Conference in 2008. So far as I am aware, “the Global South” have never been asked to sign it, nor would there be any need for them to do so. However, the JD has been made the touchstone for membership in Gafcon, and this makes sense because it is the only faith declaration around which directly confronts the issue of most significance in the West:
“We acknowledge God’s creation of humankind as male and female and the unchangeable standard of Christian marriage between one man and one woman as the proper place for sexual intimacy and the basis of the family. We repent of our failures to maintain this standard and call for a renewed commitment to lifelong fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those who are not married.” [The Jerusalem Declaration 2008, clause 8]
It is also important not to confuse the Gafcon Leadership Conference held in London last January with the “Gafcon 2 Meeting” scheduled for next year. They have different purposes.
“Nor was CP invited in a formal sense as in this particular case.”
Are we sure about that? +Lawrence was there, and it was an invitation-only event, so he must have been invited. The invitation list has never been published, to my knowledge, so we don’t know who else was invited or attended. I do know that several clergy from TEC were there, and not just from South Carolina.
July 24, 4:02 am | [comment link]
49. c.r.seitz wrote:
# 48. I prefer not to comment any further re: your question. As I said above, we can pray for a wider convergence in God’s mercy.
July 24, 10:05 am | [comment link]
50. Sarah wrote:
RE: “I hope we will see no more accusations that other Christians are to be called enemies of the people of God. Christians are allowed to disagree with each other on issues like this, without being accused of not being Christian at all.”
An odd hope. Of course, Christians can be both the “enemies of the people of God” and of their work. Scripture is quite clear about that.
The Sanballat reference is a perfect description of the Bitter Leavers, and I’ll be happily using it more frequently as it is so apt an analogy of their behavior. And there are—fortunately—quite a few in TEC and outside of TEC who approve of that analogy and agree with it.
RE: “Sarah, As for unifying the two dioceses back into one, there is a way to do that. I believe that the process for merging dioceses is mentioned in either the Constitution or the Canons. I just remember stumbling upon it while going thru one of them quickly looking for something else.”
Hi BluCat—somehow I don’t think that unification of the two dioceses would occur . . . *within TEC*. ; > )
July 24, 12:21 pm | [comment link]
51. Sarah wrote:
RE: “The Global South Primates who are members of Gafcon are those who directly involve themselves with Western renewal.”
Well actually, there are Global South Primates who “directly involve themselves with Western renewal” who are not members of Gafcon—they just don’t choose to do so in the manner that Gafcon has chosen.
July 24, 12:35 pm | [comment link]
52. tjmcmahon wrote:
I think it is important not to equate Gafcon (a conference, and now series of conferences, aimed at determining a future for Anglicanism globally), which brought about the Jerusalem Declaration and a formalized grouping of some primates and provinces within the broader Global South, and the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, made up of those who have personally signed the Jerusalem Declaration. While the second obviously is an outgrowth from the first, and allows a degree of organizational unity between individuals in the West and the Gafcon movement, Gafcon in and of itself is much more about bringing Christ to the millions in Africa and Asia who have never encountered Him than it is about the erring Western Churches.
I would also suggest to Dr. Seitz and others that the primates and provinces who have participated in Gafcon and the FCA did so as a response to the machinations of TEC, CoE, ABoC, Standing Committee and the ACO, which were damaging, sometimes negating, the work they were trying to do for the Gospel. There again, if the West had been looking after its responsibilities to the worldwide Communion (and Christ), or had just been honest enough to leave the Communion when their leadership determined that Communion doctrine was no longer their doctrine, there may never have been a need for Gafcon, the FCA, ACNA, CP or any of the other acronyms that have arisen in recent years to distinguish traditional Anglicans from the leadership of the Western churches and the “official” Anglican Communion machinery.
Regardless of where people stand on Gafcon, Communion Partners, or (choose your acronym), I will reiterate that this document calls upon us to exercise such unity and charity as we can muster. I think the degree of unity the churches of the GS are displaying here is displayed in their choice for Chairman, and I can think of no one better to lead Anglicanism in this critical hour. May our Lord bless Bishop Mouneer Anis with the wisdom and patience to be our guide. And may the Lord grant us the wisdom and patience to follow the example of the GS churches and their bishops.
July 24, 2:38 pm | [comment link]
53. Todd Granger wrote:
Of course, Christians can be both the “enemies of the people of God” and of their work. Scripture is quite clear about that.
Realizing, Sarah, that I may expose real ignorance here, would you demonstrate this from either Scripture or Tradition? If from Philippians 3, doesn’t that passage refer to pagans? How could a Christian be an enemy of the cross of Christ without having apostasized?
July 24, 5:21 pm | [comment link]
54. MichaelA wrote:
“Of course, Christians can be both the “enemies of the people of God” and of their work.”
I don’t think you can equate Sanballat in any sense with a Christian. He was entirely outside God’s people. If you had drawn the analogy with Shemaiah, a Jew who conspired with Sanballat (Nehemiah 6:10-13) you might be closer.
“The Sanballat reference is a perfect description of the Bitter Leavers, and I’ll be happily using it more frequently as it is so apt an analogy of their behavior.”
I appreciate that Bitter Stayers are inclined to say all sorts of things about Bitter Leavers, and vice versa. I am just pointing out that it is inaccurate.
July 24, 7:47 pm | [comment link]
55. c.r.seitz wrote:
“I would also suggest to Dr. Seitz and others that the primates and provinces who have participated in Gafcon and the FCA did so as a response to the machinations of TEC, CoE, ABoC, Standing Committee and the ACO, which were damaging, sometimes negating, the work they were trying to do for the Gospel.”
Is this somehow in doubt?
“May our Lord bless Bishop Mouneer Anis with the wisdom and patience to be our guide.”
A nice prayer. It will take a lot of God’s grace to see unity in his church in the anglican family. I believe the GS leadership as represented in this group especially is crucial to that. Smaller sub- groupings can be transformed by effective leadership.
July 24, 8:56 pm | [comment link]
56. Katherine wrote:
What I hope is that Bitter Leavers and Bitter Stayers will gradually become Sad rather than Bitter, and thence able to recognize the essential Christian nature of their counterparts in the Other organization(s). It’s the only way convergence will ever happen, and convergence is what we all should pray for. I personally would be delighted to see the Episcopal presence in my geographical area repent and become once again a church in which I could worship—and put money on the offering plate. I appreciate Todd Granger’s reminder that I should continue to pray for Michael Curry and the Episcopal clergy here.
July 28, 4:25 pm | [comment link]