From the Living Church: Global South Will Propose Two-Province Solution
February 13th, 2007 posted by kendall at 10:23 am
The Global South bloc at the primates’ meeting will ask their follow primates to give approval to plans outlined in the Kigali Communique published last September and developed in a paper titled “The Road to Lambeth” that establishes a separate Anglican jurisdiction in the United States in communion with the See of Canterbury. This jurisdiction would gather “Windsor-loyal” Episcopalians, parishes, dioceses, clergy and bishops into a second church.
In addition to current members of The Episcopal Church, the new province would include the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) and the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA), and would be open to reunion with the Continuing Anglican churches in the United States.
The ecclesiastical structure of the proposed province would be governed by a college of bishops. From among their ranks, the college would nominate three candidates to be presiding bishop, one of whom would be selected as primate of the province by the primates’ meeting. This second American Presiding Bishop would have voice and vote at future primates’ meetings under the proposals worked out by the Global South coalition and their allies, sources close to the coalition told a reporter.
The two-province solution is seen as an interim measure until such time as an Anglican Covenant can be formulated and adopted that would define who is, and who is not, an Anglican, sources noted, adding these plans had been presented to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in advance of this week’s gathering.
The specific details of the two-province plan are unknown as the Global South primates have declined to comment publicly.
posted by t19elves at 10:32 AM
4 Comments:
Here are the 29 comments posted as of 16:30 GMT / 11:30 EST
---------------------------------------
1. David H Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:36 am
An interesting report and prediction. I wonder if the Global South proposal will gain a majority.
And: will it be possible for the moderate Windsor-affirming ECUSA bishops to convince the rest of ECUSA to support this plan (go along with it, anyway) and not be trouble-makers when it comes to property?
Perhaps the more Anglican-sanctioned such a restructuring would be (and the less it would appear to be another splinter group such as we’ve seen over the past thirty years), the less likely it will be that courts will decide for ECUSA.
Mainly I am just speculating, none too usefully perhaps, to get the thread going.
------------------------------------
2. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:39 am
If this is true, it leaves some unanswered questions:
1. Will this require the ECUSA to drop all lawsuits?
2. Will the ECUSA and the new province have equal representation at Lambeth?
3. Will there be any consequences for ECUSA for breaking communion?
4. Does this just push to the future an inevitable split?
5. Does this leave open the possibility of an equal treatment of ECUSA and “orthodox” positions on homosexuality?
6. Would this make it easier for more ECUSA churches to switch to the new province?
…and many, many more questions…
------------------------------
3. Bobby J. Kennedy Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Without knowing if this information is accurate and with only one reading of this material I think I could embrace this plan as a way forward.
----------------------------------------
4. David+ Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:41 am e
This proposal still leaves the Anglican COmmunion in a mess with many provinces refusing to have anything to do with ECUSA. Until TEC is officially banished from the Communion there will continue to remain all sorts of fonfusion that will not be healthy for anyone.
--------------------------------------
5. Bobby J. Kennedy Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:46 am e
# 2
I also wonder what this may mean for the Church of England if this really is the outcome of the Primates meeting.
It is an interesting post none the less.
---------------------------------------
6. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:46 am e
If this solution makes it easier for parishes to “go Anglican” now legitimately, I’d be for it. If a split were to come in the future, there would be far less legal standing to sue for properties. Perhaps this could be a temporary lifeboat for many, many parishes.
But the danger is that this would leave ECUSA with a foot in the door to further legitimate their false theology and consolidate their influence as well.
At the moment a split appears inevitable. Will it happen now or …. when? And who will be made the stronger for waiting?
-------------------------------------
7. alfonso Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:48 am e
This could a be a way forward IF it is emphasized that it is an interim, emergency pastoral solution, until all routes of reconciliation and discipline have been exhausted. The Covenant will presumably put the final pieces in place. Ultimately, there can not be (with integrity) two provinces in the same geographical area that are at doctrinally at odds and equally in communion with world-wide Anglicanism.
---------------------------------
8. DaveJ Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:50 am e
Well, Jason, #2, this proposal WOULD probably tilt the outcome of the laswsuits in Virginia toward the departing congregations. Such a vote by the primates owuld almsot certainly have to be seen by the courts as a “denominational split.” Virginia law gives individual churches the right to choose sides when a denominational split occurs.
The “Departees” have been using this law as part the basis for their claims to the properties. However, lawyer friends tell me their case is exceedingly weak given the CURRENT lay of the land (ie, a true “split” had not actually occured).
However, if this passes, they’d have a strong case.
Makes one wonder if Marty & Comapny didn’t jump the gun a little…
----------------------------------
9. In_Vermont Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:50 am e
This plan can provide “episcopal” supervision for the orhtodox Anglicans in the USA and it will hold in abeyance synodic judgement of the schismatic revisionists of ECUSA until the next Lambeth meeting.
The problem is in the details as Jason’s questions point out.
Implementation of this plan would be an opportunity for a strong orthodox Anglican revival in the USA.
Is this part of the planning of our orthodox leadership?
------------------
10. Jordan Hylden Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:51 am e
Whoa! This is the most significant news yet to come out of Tanzania.
The big question on my mind is this: Will the GS primates insist on giving the alternative ecclesial structure “provincial” status, immediately? I think we can all agree that that is the most probable eventual outcome, but I imagine the English position will be: “Yes, let’s do everything you say, but how about leaving off calling it a ‘new province’ until we give the Episcopal Church the opportunity to accept or reject the Covenant?”
To my mind, it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to immediately say, “OK! New province here!” That should be the consequence of not signing up to the Covenant. An alternate structure, as per the ACI proposal, definitely.
I hope that the GS primates will be amenable to that sort of compromise. Otherwise, like Rowan Williams said, “I fear schism.”
-----------------------
11. Rick Killough Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:52 am e
And what if TEC refuses to allow dissident parishes in non-Windsor dioceses to go to the new province?
There must be a contingency plan made now in that case, i.e. ultimate discipline.
--------------------
12. alfonso Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:53 am e
And I should have said, I think the better solution, is for NEITHER the TEC presiding bishop NOR the proposed “Windsor-compliant” chief bishop to have full primatial status until the covenant process is complete. Until then both may have voice, but not full vote at any “instrument of unity” meeting.
---------------------
13. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:54 am e
#5.
Good point about the CofE. I am not sure, but would guess with time it will drift toward ECUSA theology. An earlier split would more likely place it in the orthodox camp (though not sure of this) and a later split may tend to put it in the other camp.
Which makes me wonder. Is the ABC theologically another pope? That is, is the ABC essential to the communion? If so, better to split earlier if there is a risk of a future ABC that is elected on the basis of an alternative theology.
---------------------
14. Scott K Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:54 am e
Would the Primates be able to implement it themselves, or would it require approval from all the individual provinces of the communion? What would be a realistic time frame? Would it require action of GC’09 (too far away, IMO)?
I’m encouraged by the idea, but a lot of questions are unanswered.
(PS: if there were suddenly a legitimate alternate provice available for US congregations, I think the reappraisers would be quite surprised at how large the “tiny minority” of dissenters is who choose to join it).
--------------------
15. Randall Stewart Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:55 am e
Folks, this is the ACI proposal for the most part. Nothing new, other than that apparently there is really a will to make it happen. It is an interim plan and has been on the boards since October, I believe. You’re not going to see anything more dramatic than this at this time.
I can tell you, though, it will get the attention of a lot of people who have not been paying attention.
---------------------
16. David H Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 10:57 am e
No. 10: “To my mind, it doesn’t make a great deal of sense to immediately say, ‘OK! New province here!’ That should be the consequence of not signing up to the Covenant.”
I take your point, but I disagree. Windsor-affirming parishes and dioceses can understand what is involved, can decide based on what is at stake, in (re)aligning themselves with the Anglican Communion rather than with ECUSA. In many ways, I like the idea of a simple restructuring, voting with one’s feet, rather than subscription to a covenant whose contents we don’t know but which could be more divisive and indeed confusing in the long run. I am not against a covenant–just don’t see it as a necessary step before establishment of alternative province in the USA.
-------------------------
17. badman Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:01 am e
Why should the primate’s meeting have the final say over who is to be primate of another province?
More generally, this proposal breaches a recurring principle in many Lambeth Conferences which is to disapprove of competing bishops in one territory.
Resolution 1 of 1878: “There are certain principles of church order which, your Committee consider, ought to be distinctly recognised and set forth, as of great importance for the maintenance of union among the Churches of our Communion.
First, that the duly certified action of every national or particular Church, and of each ecclesiastical province (or diocese not included in a province), in the exercise of its own discipline, should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members… [W]hen a diocese, or territorial sphere of administration, has been constituted by the authority of any Church or province of this Communion within its own limits, no bishop or other clergyman of any other Church should exercise his functions within that diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof.”
Resolution 22 of 1908: “the principle of one bishop for one area is the ideal to be aimed at as the best means of securing the unity of all races and nations in the Holy Catholic Church.”
Resolution 51 of 1930 “believing the formation of a central appellate tribunal to be inconsistent with the spirit of the Anglican Communion, holds that the establishment of final courts of appeal should be left to the decision of local and regional Churches.”
Resolution 63 of 1968 “deplores the existence of parallel Anglican jurisdictions in Europe and other areas”
Resolution 72 of 1988 “reaffirms its unity in the historical position of respect for diocesan boundaries and the authority of bishops within these boundaries; and in light of the above affirms that it is deemed inappropriate behaviour for any bishop or priest of this Communion to exercise episcopal or pastoral ministry within another diocese without first obtaining the permission and invitation of the ecclesial authority thereof.”
If you want to be in a different church, start it yourself. But don’t call it Anglican.
And as for destroying Catholic order in order to get advantage in a pending dispute over property, doctrine or anything else - that sort of attitude didn’t keep the Church going for 2,000 years. That sort of attitude has the potential to destroy any institution within a generation, however venerable it may be. Is that what you want?
-----------------------
18. David H Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:01 am e
No. 15: “You’re not going to see anything more dramatic than this at this time. I can tell you, though, it will get the attention of a lot of people who have not been paying attention.”
Well, I don’t think I could take a lot more “drama”!
On your second point, yes, it will.
------------------------
19. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:01 am e
” And I should have said, I think the better solution, is for NEITHER the TEC presiding bishop NOR the proposed “Windsor-compliant” chief bishop to have full primatial status until the covenant process is complete. Until then both may have voice, but not full vote at any “instrument of unity” meeting. ”
Yes, but whatever this proposal is, it must be something acceptible to KJS in order to fly. She sure wont give up her primatial status or a vote on the future instrument of unity.
-------------------
20. Bryan McKenzie Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:02 am e
The problem as I see it is who would be in the new province? Would it be just the Network with individual parishes or dioceses being allowed to opt in? Or would CANA and AMiA also be a part of that new province, and what would their sponsering [sic?] provinces say to that. I know that AMiA sends a portion of its tithes to support its home province. Would Rowanda [sic] let them out of this obligation if they were to decide to join the new province.
My spelling is terrible.
-----------------------
21. David H Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:05 am e
Badman writes: “That sort of attitude has the potential to destroy any institution within a generation, however venerable it may be. Is that what you want?”
I’m sure the Primates have concerns about damage and destruction very much on their primatial minds. But they are reckoning with the possibility that a bit of judicious pruning may in fact be the best way to restore vitality to the Anglican tree.
------------------
22. Russell Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:09 am e
Badman,
A little church history will show that the “Catholic Order” in a diocese has consistently been manipulated by councils or popes when heresy threatened the larger Catholic Order. I think that this the case also qualifies as threateneing the larger Catholic Order.
--------------
23. Bryan McKenzie Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:10 am e
I guess all I am worried about if there is a 2 province solution is the outcome of the money question.
------------------
24. Alan Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:12 am e
My first reaction was something about Anglican Fudge. My second reaction is that Anglican Fudge may not be all bad. Such a structure, while pleasing few activiists, would allow for something like any orderly separation by diffusion between the two entities. After a period of time, those who care could find a church consistent with their biblical understanding. Those who just like their parish could remain knowing it was a recognized church. It also provides a way for members of the Continuum and the REC to bring their special talents back into the mainstream.
To make this work, each “side” needs two things. First, a level of graciousness on things like property, episcopal authority, perceived past hurts, etc. Second, a true confidence that they are following God’s will. Lacking either of those, the reactions are going to be highly defensive and even petty.
---------------
25. Br_er Rabbit Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:12 am e
Bryan, Perhaps that is all that 815 is worried about also.
--------------------
26. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:13 am e
22.
I think “Catholic Order” is a bit of a misnomer. The ECUSA has a mixed order. On the level of vestry it is clearly a congregational set up. No parish of the Catholic Church would even dream of hiring its own pastor!
------------------
27. Wannabe (Newbie) Anglican Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:14 am e
#19: Although it would be helpful if PB Schori signed on to this proposal, I don’t expect that and fail to see why it’s necessary. She is in no position to dictate to the Primates and the Anglican Communion.
---------------------
28. Phil Snyder Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:14 am e
This is HUGE!
I, too, would like a stipulation that this is an interim solution with a sunset clause of, say, 2012 or 2015 (two or three general conventions) so that all attempts at reconciliation can be made.
The problem with “one bishop per territory” is what happens when the person holding the shepherd’s crook turns wolf and there is no one to discipline him/her? This allows for some measure of discipline for the “wolf” with a shepherd’s crook.
I am excited about this proposal and pray that it passes and is implemented.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
--------------------
29. Jordan Hylden Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:18 am e
Badman,
Agreed, sort of. I think most of us will agree that an alternate structure at this point is necessary, roughly like the ACI proposal. But this plan doesn’t make sense to me.
On the one hand, it’s a “new province” with its own primate. On the other hand, it’s an “interim solution” which awaits the Covenant, and which includes Episcopalians, and which is governed by a college of bishops– presumably, this includes the Windsor bishops.
But you can’t be in two provinces at once. This would require all of the Camp Allen/Network Episcopalians to say immediately, “I’m out! New province!” without allowing ECUSA to opt in or out of the Covenant.
Either this is sloppy reporting, or an inadequate proposal, or I’m not getting something.
#30 admin Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Note, we are now copying comments on important threads over to the backup blog. These first 29 comments have been copied over to the backup blog.
That will allow for discussions to continue in case of site problems.
---------------------
#31 Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:39 am
#27.
” #19: Although it would be helpful if PB Schori signed on to this proposal, I don’t expect that and fail to see why it’s necessary. She is in no position to dictate to the Primates and the Anglican Communion. ”
Agreed. KJS is in no position to make demands. However, if she refuses to accept such a proposal she may have to walk out altogether, making this a “ONE” Province proposal! ;)
---------------------------
#32 John B. Chilton Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:40 am
The two-province solution is seen as an interim measure until such time as an Anglican Covenant can be formulated and adopted that would define who is, and who is not, an Anglican, sources noted, adding these plans had been presented to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams in advance of this week’s gathering.
In other words, the-dismember-first-then-banish strategy. Calling it interim is sugar coating.
What we do know is that two bishops for one territory is not Anglican.
-----------------------
#33 Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:42 am
32.
And we also know that gay bishops is not Christian. So what’s your point?
----------------------
#34 Wannabe (Newbie) Anglican Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Jason, ahhhh, I see. :)
----------------
#35 Wannabe (Newbie) Anglican Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:44 am
(I should have indicated I was referring to Jason’s post #31. Sorry.)
---------------------
#36 Publius Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Wow, this is great! As I said over on SF, note well two points:
1. This proposal has already been presented to the ABC. While the article does not say that the ABC has accepted it, consider the comments of the Bishops of Durham and Wichester in context of this disclosure.
2. The Primates, not the Americans, choose the new Primate of the new Province. We are on probation.
Will this pass?
----------------------
#37 Kevin Adams Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:45 am
I think KJS will most likely try to pull the old “but our polity requires that the GC weigh in on this, so we can’t respond until GC2009″. I don’t think this will work anymore based on what happend with GC2006, so the next fallback will be “we are TEC, an international church in our own right, so we don’t need the Anglican Communion”, which is what the left leaning blogs and HOB/D listserve have been more than hinting at recently.
--------------------
#38 Michael Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:46 am
Dont get excited KJS will never accept this and I dont blame her.
-------------------
#39 Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:48 am
” What we do know is that two bishops for one territory is not Anglican. ”
There are a lot of protests that this proposal is opposed to “Catholic Order” etc. I am a Ukrainian Catholic, and I can attest that there are plenty of overlaping episcopal jurisdictions all over Europe and North America. Similarly, in the US there is the 150 year tradition of non-territorial parishes which serve the needs of particular ethnic groups etc (all of which are in this case Latin Rite). So, when it comes to “Catholic Order” territoriality can be flexible for good reasons.
Resorting to territoriality as an absolute when sexual morality is up for grabs is so far from the meaning of Christianity, I am baffled and know not what to say.
--------------------
#40 Russell Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:51 am
What will the Anglican Consultive Council have to say about this? They will not like having their constitutionally derived duties of creating new provinces over rode. And you can bet that the TEC will make that point.
------------------------
#41 Phil Snyder Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Russell (#40) - don’t forget that some of the Primates met with the ACC steering committee yesterday. This may have been floated by them already.
Again, I think it is a great interim solution until TEC’s GC can address the issue. It does require some “good faith” and cooperation on the part of TEC. I hope and pray that there is Christian Charity among more bishops that what we have seen in Virginia.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
------------------
#42 BillS Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:56 am
A two province solution is a fabulous outcome, and we should grab it with both hands, and not let go for a better grip. No outcome is going to solve all of the problems, and please all of the nitpickers and naysayers, but if all of the orthodox oriented groups in the US can all get in the same provincial boat, recognized by the Anglican communion, it greatly strengthens the hand of all orthodox parishes and diocese who wish to separate themselves from TEC.
There is nothing in the Bible that prevents two Anglican provinces in the same geographical area. We live in a marvelous age of instant worldwide communications, and the ability to travel long distances in a short period of time that allows us to create structures unmoored from geography.
Those of us who leave TEC can be happy in our new Orthodox home, continuing to worship and pray as we traditionally have, and TEC can do what they want. Speaking for myself, whether TEC stays in or out of the Anglican Communion, or gets invited to Lambeth, or marries gays, will be of no concern.
-------------------
#43 BillS Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 11:57 am
I hope that we can all agree that a new orthodox province in the US will solve most of the problems that we have currently within TEC, and not nitpick the details so much that the boat never gets launched. First order of business is to create the lifeboat, and get everyone on board. Next order of business is sort out the rules, and who will be the captain.
If we wait for an Anglican Covenant to be designed, debated, and perfected, we may never get another chance. Perfect is the enemy of the good. I hope we will seize this opportunity while it is available.
------------------
#44 Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
#40. Russell
As I understand it the ACC is consultative or advisory rather than a matter of jurisdiction. Still the question is a good one. Who does have the authority to erect new provinces? I would suspect Lambeth, but dont really know. Anyway, the loophole may be that this is an emergency and temporary measure.
-----------------
#45 Dallasite Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
DOA. Ain’t gonna happen.
-------------------
#46 Jordan Hylden Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Russell,
Good point. There’s a distinct difference between the primates saying, “Let’s set up an alternate ecclesial structure with an eye to it becoming a new province if ECUSA rejects the Covenant,” and “We hereby create a new province.” Everyone knows that ECUSA will almost certainly reject the Covenant, and that the non-Windsor bishops won’t be invited to Lambeth.
But forcing this immediately is a bridge too far. Honestly, what’s the point? Why NOT work through the Communion structures? If the GS primates insist on somehow creating a new province themselves, right now, there will be problems. By grasping for too much too soon, they’d wind up getting less than they could otherwise.
Hopefully this is an error in reporting. The details haven’t been released yet. And, as Publius has pointed out, this plan has already been presented to Williams. The comments by Wright and Scott-Joynt should probably be viewed through its lens. Which does mean, more or less, the ACI proposal.
-----------------
#47 Jordan Hylden Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Dallasite is right. “New province” right away, created here and now by the primates, won’t even fly with most conservatives. I’m hard-pressed to see how it’d even be possible.
---------------------
#48 Kvoldvaka Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
The matter of overlapping jurisdictions is an old problem in Anglicanism. See:
Letters, Documents, &c. in the Matter of Episcopal Jurisdiction in China
No place: no publisher, c. 1904.
http://anglicanhistory.org/asia/china/correspondence_jurisdiction1904.html
We do well to study the “anomalous positions” of the past to figure a reasonable way out of this one.
-------------------
#49 BillS Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
There will be problems with a new province now matter how, when, or by whom it is proposed. TEC will object no matter what. Count on it. These things are not going to change by putting it off to some later date or through some other mechanism.
All of the primates from around the world are together today, now. Wait for another day, and the world is different. If it can be done now, it should be done now. Now is the time to be bold. To establish a new Province in the US does not require the permission of TEC. TEC would like us to believe that, but it does not. All that is required is recognition by a majority of the rest of the world’s primates.
If TEC can declare that God is doing a new thing, and that what they are doing is prophetic by popular vote in the US, in contravention of the rest of the Anglican world, then certainly the rest of the world, and the Anglican communion can establish and recognize a new province in the US as God doing a new thing and prophetic. To argue otherwise is to say that the Bible is infinitely malleable but that canons and so forth are fixed.
While there is no explicit mechanism that allows a new province in the US, neither is their a mechanism that explicitly prevents it, except for the rules within TEC itself. If TEC is going to willfully ignore the desires of the Anglican community, then surely the Anglican community can ignore the internal rules of TEC as not applying to the Anglican Community.
As Nike says, just do it.
---------------------
#50 JM Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
“two bishops for one territory is not Anglican.”
Maybe, but it is, at best, Tradition. Theoretically, a tradition not mandated by Scripture can be changed or reversed a lot more easily than God’s Word can be changed or reversed. TEC has already done the latter, so it should have no serious objection to the former.
Comments 51 - 70 are here:
#51 Hursley Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:26 pm e
I see TEC’s leadership battling this “solution” all the way. I cannot say I think it a workable solution “on the ground,” as it relies on TEC to participate, or at least allow it to happen. The fact is that TEC is deeply committed (and has legal reasoning behind this) to fight any and all attempts to dethrone and remove real assets from its control. I am not saying here that I think 815 et al. are right in their belief and practice of the Faith, but they have considerable legal basis for upholding their position. Once our leadership decided that catholicity is much less important than their concept of justice, all appeals to anything other than the courts became moot. Once collegiality — however strained — is abandoned, it comes down to raw force (see 4th century Church history for more on this). This is where those who feel that TEC is beyond repair must accept the need to leave the real property, pension &c. for the sake of their ideals, rather than continue hoping that it will come to its “senses” anytime soon. As the money gradually runs out, the people die off, the few children gradually migrate away…as these things happen, TEC will sink into oblivion and at some point perhaps become vulnerable to forces pushing for re-connection with catholic belief and practice. Some of us are prepared to walk with that process in witness to the Gospel; others feel that is unacceptable. But TEC is not going to roll over and play dead; it will fight all threats to its auto-generated “New Thing” until the last dollar of the last endowment fund. That takes time…more time than this plan (if true) would give it.
--------------------------
#52 Sherri Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:27 pm e
First order of business is to create the lifeboat, and get everyone on board. Next order of business is sort out the rules, and who will be the captain.
I’m with you, BillS. The particulars can be sorted out later, but emergency relief now would be a blessing. Make it a *big* lifeboat.
---------------------------
#53 struggling in diocese of mass Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:29 pm e
Apologies if this question has already been asked (haven’t got time to read all these responses!): any guesses as to what might happen to a Network parish in a decidedly non-Network diocese if the two-tier plan goes through?
-------------------
#54 William Sulik Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:40 pm e
DaveJ in #8 refers to “Marty & Comapny” — are you refering to Martin E. Marty and the Lutherans?
Are you trying to say the Lutherans made a mistake when they signed onto Called to Common Mission? — that they should’ve waited?
Youre statements don’t make much sense…
-------------------
#55 alfonso Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:40 pm e
Of course TEC would fight this! But the primates can give a choice: look, you are welcome to come to “instrument of unity” meetings with your new probationary status (perhaps even with vote if understood to be protionary as well) if you accept this “two province approach”; if you don’t, you are welcome to not attend any further meetings. Mind you, we won’t say you are not part of the Anglican Communion until the covenant process finishes, but your only options are cooperate or stay home. This way, the Primates are not dictating internal TEC politics, just the terms of international participation.
------------------------
#56 Craig Goodrich Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:42 pm e
Badman:
And as for destroying Catholic order in order to get advantage in a pending dispute over property, doctrine or anything else - that sort of attitude didn’t keep the Church going for 2,000 years. That sort of attitude has the potential to destroy any institution within a generation, however venerable it may be. Is that what you want?
No, it’s not what I want, but it’s what we have. The Episcopal Church has been totally destroyed in about a generation and a half by those who cared nothing for Catholic order, Scriptural doctrine, or anything else beyond getting kudos for their progressivism at Manhattan cocktail parties (and perhaps faculty sherry parties).
----------------------
#57 BillS Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:43 pm e
Hursley,
TEC is going to fight with everything they have anything that challenges their authority and primacy in the US. They are not going to change their behavior nor direction. Whether we agree or not, they believe that God is doing a new thing, that they are being prophetic, and that they are simply promoting justice and full inclusion for gays. Nothing that orthodox Anglicans in the US say or do will change that.
Further, they are not concerned with polity with reasserters in the US, or the Anglican Community outside of the US. They are suing Truro etc, and the vestry and clergy of Truro and the Va churches. I am a member of Christ Church, Savannah, and the shot has been fired across our bow that we may be next.
Orthodox Anglicans need an orthodox province within the US. Whether we can move into the orthodox province with our Churches and other property remains to be seen. But, whether or not we can bring our property with us, we need a place to go outside of TEC that we do not now have. I fail to see any benefit for waiting for anything to happen that will make this necessity for a second province any easier on a different day. When the Covenant is written, good, we will sign the covenant.
The risk to waiting is that many faithful US Anglicans will move on or out. Many seem to succumb to paralysis by analysis, that everyone wants their particular concern fully addressed and answered before taking any action. If we do this, nothing will ever happen.
--------------------
#58 This_Day Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:51 pm e
I love it. This is exactly what ACN has been praying for. +KJS doesn’t have to sign off on it or agree - she does not unilaterally determine if she and her folllowers are in communion with the worldwide body of Anglicans. This is also consistent with ++ABC’s response to GC06. It is a two-tiered American Episcopal Church - one “tier” being in full communion with Anglicans and the other “tier” being “associated with” Anglicans on a lower theological order.
This proposal would accomplish a few things of great import:
1. It allows a pre-Covenant alignment. There is already a shism, the Covenant will make the dividing line clear and this interim structure will allow some orderly re-alignment to take place in the interim.
2. This provides a single tent under which to gather ACN, AMiA, CANA and Continuing Anglicans. That alone cannot be underestimated ! The orthodox NEED to act as a group - this is the kind of legitimacy that will likely embolden and encourage pew-sitters to stand up and be counted among the faithful orthodox.
3. It bolsters the legal position of orthodox parishes which have separated from ECUSA. Having said that, for parishes and dioceses considering separation - this structure gives a sanctuary of sorts which may allow them to remain a part of ECUSA’s “orthodox tier” and avoid litigation and oppression until a Covenant is hammered out.
His will be done!
--------------------
#59 closet catholic Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:52 pm e
Why would KJS/815 go for this or anything like it? What is in it for them? They don’t care about the world wide anglican communion. If they did would they have filed a lawsuit against Aikinola’s bishop, priests, and vestry members a couple days before the meeting? Can you imagine the chit chat between KJS and Aikinola (KJS to Nigeria-So I went with the powerhouse NY firm and they are so expensive. Say Peter how much your attor neys costing you per hour) Furthermore, its not just a nonsense process objection to say that KJS doesn’t have the power to fundamentally alter the constitution of ECUSA. General Convention would have to approve this.
-------------------
#60 Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:53 pm e
56. Craig.
” The Episcopal Church has been totally destroyed in about a generation and a half by those who cared nothing for Catholic order, Scriptural doctrine, or anything else beyond getting kudos for their progressivism at Manhattan cocktail parties (and perhaps faculty sherry parties). ”
If indeed a two province proposal is in the works, the second province ought to be located in the MidWest or the South to keep it free from the taint of NYC and LA.
BTW, Craig. I always like what you have to say.
-----------------------
#61 BillS Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 12:57 pm e
Just to be clear, establishment of a new province in the US does not necessarily require that TEC be kicked out. These are two separate issues. First, orthodox Anglicans in the US need a recognized place to go in the US. Secondly, the Anglican Community can decide or not decide how to deal with TEC.
Two provinces can operate in parallel, and people and churches can choose which best serves their needs. Whether TEC gets invited to Lambeth and all the rest of the TEC issues can then be decided on the merits in the fullness of time. Meanwhile, the new orthodox province will provide a stable environment in the US for orthodox Anglicans.
--------------------
#62 plainoldlaydude Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 1:01 pm e
One thing no one is talking about is just how ECUSA could be given yet another chance to respond both prior to Lambeth and the next ACC meeting in 2009. While or General Convention doesn’t meet again unitl 2009 it is possible to call and extra meeting:
Special meetings. Deputies to special meetings.
Sec. 3 (a) The right of calling special meetings of the General
Convention shall be vested in the Bishops. The Presiding Bishop shall
issue the summons for such meetings, designating the time and place
thereof, with the consent, or on the requisition, of a majority of the
Bishops, expressed to the Presiding Bishop in writing.
(b) The Deputies elected to the preceding General Convention shall be
the Deputies at such special meetings of the General Convention, except
in those cases in which other Deputies shall have been chosen in the mean-
time by any of the Diocesan Conventions, and then such other Deputies
shall represent in the special meeting of the General Convention the
Church of the Diocese in which they have been chosen.
I don’t think the Primates have the authority to act alone to create a seperate province. The Primates act as a confirmation (requiring 2/3 majority to change the roster) to the action of the ACC. At most they can call for the creation of a new province but that can’t be affirmed until the next ACC meeting in 2009.
So if it is determined that the response of ECUSA at GC 2006 is determined to be inadequate the Primates and Cantaur could ask ECUSA to get it fixed by Lambeth. So this could happen:
House of Bishops meeting in March calls for Special GC in late 2007 or early 2008 to make a final response to Windsor. Which could undercut any movement to start a new province.
Just an Idea.
--------------------
#63 Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 1:01 pm e
59. ” Why would KJS/815 go for this or anything like it? What is in it for them? ”
If the ECUSA stays, it will give them time to consolidate their alliance with the majority non-Evangelical Anglicans in England.
What is in it for KJS? It buys her time to go for the real prize: the CofE. As it went with WO, so she hopes it will go with gay bishops and gay marriage.
CofE weakness is what made KJS becoming the BP possible. If she is smart, she will use the time to get an ABC made in her image and likeness, or preferably a lesbian. (The last I heard the liberal wing of the CofE was between 50% and 60% of membership.)
This nightmare is not without precedent. So, Anglicans watch out for the downside of this proposal. The Anglican rock to which you are clinging may well be made of clay. Time is not on your side. It is against you.
---------------------
#64 EP Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 1:07 pm e
it is okay Jason
i read the Book
and i know how
the story ends
-------------------
#65 Physician without health Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 1:07 pm e
I hope that this second province includes the faithful in Canada. As the article stated, they are in dire straits and their numbers may be too small for their own province. There is precedent for a transnational province, as is the case with New Zealand (Aotearoa) and Polynesia, and I think pssibly the Caribbean and Africa as well.
------------------------
#66 alfonso Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 1:09 pm e
#59 Closet Catholic.
Schori doesn’t have to agree to anything. The primates can say: If you stay at this meeting, it will be assumed that you agree to consider this “two province” solution; otherwise, you are excused. If you show up at the next meeting, it will be with full knowledge that there will be another “primatial-level” bishop representing America. Whether you and the TEC want to change your constitution or not; whether you move on it fast or slow; is up to you and doesn’t affect Lambeth/Primates’ Meeting. Until the covenant takes permanent form, this is who we are inviting and who we will support.
The only thing that TEC’s objections (and there would be objections!) would affect, would be the property issues. The primates can’t control TEC property disputes. They are not trying to do that, or at best it is a tertiary issue. The Primates need to bring international order to bear on a disorderly province, that’s it. If this helps traditional parishes and their properties, fine; but the focus must be Christ and his Church, even if the sacrifice of mammon is great.
-----------------------
#67 Truth Unites ... and Divides Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 1:10 pm e
“However, the seven primates who spoke with TLC Monday appeared confident of the prospect of having their plan gain the consensus of the meeting.”
Does consensus mean that there will be a vote on this proposal? If yes, will the results of the vote be released?
Further, does the question of whether this primates meeting have “standing” to implement this interim solution, if passed, be posed? If they do have authority, and this can be satisfactorily established, will this effectively answer nay-sayers.
Lastly, do concur with many of BillS’ comments. Nike+: Just Do It. God will bless it.
----------------------
#68 BillS Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 1:11 pm e
closet catholic,
KJS does not have to approve it. We all know that she will not approve it, we are not asking her to approve it, and are not counting on her approval to do it.
The whole point is to establish a new province outside of her approval. TEC will do everything they can to prevent it. However, the only way to get it done is to start, and just do it, and like every venture, deal with the obstacles and issues as they come up.
The key is that a majority of primates recognizes the new province in the US as a legitimate province of the Anglican Communion. If this happens, then she has no authority in the new province, and has no say. The only issue between the two provinces is whether parishes or diocese who leave TEC and join the new province can take the property with them into the new province. This issue will likely be decided on a case by case basis in court, which would happen anyway.
-------------------------
#69 LP Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 1:50 pm e
This is great news… let’s hope it goes through. On behalf of the Continuing church though, I do have to raise a “reality check” on this point:
—–
The new province would… be open to reunion with the Continuing Anglican churches in the United States.
—–
This really is rather disingenuous. First, as anyone who knows the situation realizes, before this could happen, elements of “revisionism” beyond just that of homosexually active bishops would need to be addressed & settled—women’s ordination, the ‘79 BCP, etc.
Something like WO is a non-negotiable to genuine anglocatholics, and the implicit revisionism and anti-catholicism on sacramental theology & ecclesiology contained therein rises to the level of precluding jurisdictional union or intercommunion.
To say, thus, that this new group would be “open to reunion” with the Continuum is like saying that PECUSA is “open to reunion” with the AMiA. A nice PR trick… but an “openness” which requires one group to sacrifice its identity and convictions to join the other is no genuine openness — any more than a call for unilateral surrender is an equitable compromise.
Secondly, I’d be curious to know if any leaders of the “mainline” and commitedly-anglocatholic Continuing churches have been consulted by +Duncan et al. about this (APCK? ACA? ACC? etc)—or if this is just “magnanomous handwaving” in their direction without any real substance or thought.
.
.
The parallel jurisdiction being described sounds like the best way forward for those parishes recently in PECUSA—allowing a unified jurisdiction to keep the fragments together and maintain an international visibility and accountability. (The early history of the Continuing church would have been rather different if stronger “unifying” forces such as this had been present.)
But, for the sake of honesty - not to mention theological & ecclesiastical clarity - perhaps these claims about being “open to the Continuing churches” ought to be shelved until those differences can be properly addressed.
After all, in a very real way, some (not all!) of the recently-departing G.S. parishes & clergy who would be joining this new jurisdiction have substantially more in common with PECUSA (despite their obvious differences) than they do with the orthodox & catholic Anglicans of the Continuing churches.
pax,
LP
----------------------
#70 David Wilson+ Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 2:16 pm e
I agree whole heartily with BillS #42 “grab hold off this with both hands and don’t let go” We can sort out the details later as we get under way.
What would be tragic would be the conservatives to fracture over this like the Irish nationalists did over partition in 1921. Pray for unity and that the many large egos in our midst are self-suppressed for our Lord’s sake.
71. EP Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 2:18 pm e
pax, LP
on issues of orthodoxy
a second province at
this point would be
a single or a double
and not a home run
humility will be needed
on all sides
including
the continuing church
which needlessly
wracked itself
with division
and personal squabbles
one step at a time
and perhaps
reunion will happen
72. LP Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 2:31 pm e
—
the continuing church
which needlessly
wracked itself
with division
and personal squabbles
—
One hopeful part of this proposed solution for the “moderate revisionists” [i.e. those who only object to PECUSAs post-mid-90s revisionism, rather than that of all of the last 40 years] is the “international profile” of the suggested jurisdiction.
That will give the parallel body a pull toward institutional unity & cohesion which the early Continuing church movement (to its detriment) lacked.
On the other hand, the range of theological, sacramental & ecclesiological opinions within these more recent PECUSA refugees is substantially greater than that amid the various “genuine” (i.e. Synod of St. Louis) Continuing Churches. [This is why those “mainline” Continuing churches — APCK, ACC, ACA, etc — are being drawn slowly but surely back toward eventual jurisdictional reunion.]
It will be interesting to see how the interplay between these centrifugal (theological differences) and centripetal (international accountabililty) forces works its way out in this temporary moderate-revisionist parallel jurisdiction (should it come about).
pax,
LP
73. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 2:37 pm e
71. EP
Thanks for your thoughtfulness.
I am concerned that fragmentation has already occurred with AMiA, CANA, Brazilian, Ugandan and whatever other Primates in on the act.
As I see it the 2 Province solution does two things, it gives a counterweight to the ECUSA fanatics and it reunites the already fragmenting “orthodox” Anglicans. They need to stand on their own and united rather than under the wings of several foreign Primates. God Bless Akinola et al., but the needless divisions will only harm a future Anglican province in the US. The fragmentation needs to come to an end post haste–and if the APA and REC can be brought on, all the better (they seem the healthiest of the continuing crowd). And as long as their integrity is respected and the BCP1979 and WO is not forced, they might be interested in a re unification.
Also, WO may end up being reconsidered in a new Anglican province in the USA, if not throughout the AC as most Ordained Women will likely go with the split. This could even re-animate the now very abstract dialogues with the Catholic Church.
So much potential for the Holy Spirit in this meeting!! (and for the other spirit–so pray your rosaries, folks!)
74. Fred Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 2:40 pm e
Let there be a second province and even a third province. Just don’t steal the property!
75. LP Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 2:49 pm e
—
Let there be a second province and even a third province. Just don’t steal the property!
—
What, you mean like the Dennis Canon did?
Hey, I belong to AAA… does that mean AAA can announce they own my car, for which they’ve never paid a cent?
:-)
Still, I know PECUSA is anxious to get the parish properties. Then, when the rump congregations fold after a few months, they can sell them off to pay the legal fees they amassed in fighting for those properties in the first place.
Letting the parish to which our Episcopal ancestors gave their money keep using it… and to keep using it for the *faith* to which those ancestors gave their gifts… yes, that would be a misuse of that trust.
But selling off the fruits of those ancestors’ gifts to persecute those who practice those ancestors’ faith… ah, now *there’s* a proper stewardship of our inheritance!
76. JM Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 2:50 pm e
I understand your priorites, Fred. Suppose we just go by the recorded deeds?
77. James W. Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 2:58 pm e
DaveJ: I would agree with you that Minns and the ADV perhaps moved too quickly. But I think that there may have been other considerations also at play. I think that the ADV parishes actually have a pretty fair case as it stands.
Fred: I am sure TEC would want the property. After all, TEC will no longer be a financially feasible institution anymore and they need other people’s money to leech off of. Too bad, the liberal TEC doesn’t have the courage of its convictions to be self-supporting.
Generally: As regards the “two province solution”, I think that this will be a very tough sell to TEC. I see immediately a couple of factors that will affect how well it can be sold:
1. How other liberal provinces see this. If Canada, NZ, South Africa, etc., see this as a reasonable solution and urge KJS to accept this, it will have a much greater chance of being accepted. KJS wouldn’t want to be standing against a general consensus. Against the GS primates, sure, no problem, but not against a consensus.
2. If this is stated to be an “interim jurisdiction” only, as opposed to a “new province”, then KJS could spin this that TEC has not been replaced and that TEC is just being magnanimous.
3. I would guess that TEC might want some provision included that somehow will keep the property ownership (read permanent parish status) in TEC’s hands, while allowing them to align in the interim with the interim jurisdiction. My guess is that TEC will read this (as it obviously is) as the preliminary dismemberment of TEC prior to formal expulsion from the AC at a later date. They will want some financial or monetary coercion to prevent these dioceses and parishes from eventually leaving TEC.
4. It would depend on how much KJS wants the AC stamp of approval. The primates could easily say to TEC - here is your choice: you either accept this plan and cooperate, in which case this jurisdiction is an interim non-provincial solution and you can remain in the AC for now; or you can reject this plan and not cooperate, in which case this jurisdiction will be the new Anglican jurisdiction in the US and you are out now.
78. Jack Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 3:04 pm e
Were this plan adopted, I wonder how long it would take for the inclusive agenda folks to show up as a matter of provinicial governance?
79. DaveJ Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:03 pm e
#54 William Sulik, In the words of the immortal Sgt. Hulka, “Lighten Up, Francis!” From now on, I will use the more circumspect “Bp. Marty & Co.”
But don’t you agree that this proposal, if adopted, would help the “denominational split” argument greatly? Sort of takes the notion of the split from the nature of “de facto” to “de jure,” wouldn’t it?
80. Billy Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:17 pm e
Sorry, I don’t think it makes a tinker’s d….m, what happens in Tanzania, as far as TEC is concerned. First, ++KJS couldn’t accept a separate province, even if she wanted to. GC is the governing body of TEC and the diocese is the governmental structure. ++KJS has little power over the individual diocese (except in case of misbehavior of a bishop). As far as church property goes, it will be up to the individual bishop how he/she deals with property of churches wanting to leave, just as we’ve seen so far across the US. Some bishops have compromised, made agreements and the parishioners have left with property. Other bishops have made deals and the church property has remained. Still other bishops have filed law suits and other parishioners have filed lawsuits. The same will be the case, regardless of what the AC says about a separate second province within US. Second province may marginally help parishioners in lawsuit. Otherwise, it is going to be business as usual for TEC. Now for individual reasserting parishioners, it may very well be that the second province will provide a bevy of churches to turn to, where presently few are available in many areas of US. And that would be a good thing.
Pray for peace in our communion and for the Holy Spirit to descend with the power of a sword but alight with the touch of a dove in Tanzania. All blessings.
81. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:31 pm e
80.
” Sorry, I don’t think it makes a tinker’s d….m ”
And by tinker you would mean Gypsy? Wow, what an enlightened way of speaking. Thought Anglicans only spoke like this in private. Well, call me a papist!
82. Paul Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pm e
Do the canons of the episcopal church address the possibility of a second province? I would have thought that they would not have considered the possibility. That being the case - wouldn’t ++KJS be free to accept it? TEC seems to have consistently said something along the lines of if it isn’t in the canons it isn’t enforceable. Even resolutions of the GC are only recommendations.
83. chip Smith Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:53 pm e
I am shocked that the orthodox here are not jumping with joy. A new Province will provide Orthodox Anglicans with a church in communion with Canterbury. It will force fence sitting bishops to choose sides - out of personal belief, genuine affection for the larger communion, or if they are from conservative leaning parts of the country the disentegration of their diocese.
On the liberal blogs they do not seem to be Anglophiles. If forced to choose between their inovations and equality in all things or the communion - they will choose the former.
I think based on the creation of FACA much of the Continuing Church folk are looking towards reuinification. The issue of WO can be brooked in a variety of ways - look at Fort Worth. The new province should be able to approve both the 1928 and the 1979 books as acceptable on a parish by parish basis. My guess is that the publisher of the 1928 book would be a good stock to buy :) The orthodox’s first priority should be establish a church. Worry about TEC from a position of strength latter.
84. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 4:57 pm e
83.
Everything you just said…and meaningful ecumenical talks with the Catholic Church…this could be breathtaking…
85. LP Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:14 pm e
83:
—-
The issue of WO can be brooked in a variety of ways - look at Fort Worth.
—-
I believe that any one genuinely (anglo)catholic in their theology cannot accept unity in a jurisdiction which accepts WO even as “local option”… for that is to accept being in a jurisdiction which you know to practice lay presidency at the Eucharist and (if there are bishopesses… and if you have clerical deaconesses you can make no Scriptural objection to denying them the priesthood and episcopacy as well) ordinations.
I.e. this means accepting membership in a jurisdiction which has sacrificed all orthodox & catholic understanding and practice of the apostolic succession, the ordained ministry, and the sacraments… treating those things as “optional” and “irrelevant” to the definition of the church.
No right thinking anglocatholic would want to be part of such a jurisdiction… one which has, ipso facto, rejected the basis for jurisdictional unity and communion in the first place.
This basic theological (and logical) fact seems to genuinely escape those who mistakenly believe that “local option” is a compromise… rather than what it really is, the complete capitulation of the orthodox & catholic teaching on the ordained ministry & sacraments.
pax,
LP
86. Ross Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:19 pm e
Let’s be clear about the steps here.
The ACN and whoever else they can persuade to come onboard can create a national church structure at any time they want. All they need to do is to come up with a letterhead design and announce that they’ve done it.
The kicker is whether this “proto-province” is recognized as being an Anglican province, in communion with other provinces; and in principal each Primate can — subject to the polity of their own province — make that decision independently. The idea behind this proposal would presumably be to make sure that a majority of the Primates would so recognize the new province; ideally a two-thirds majority, because then they could modify the ACC roster of member provinces which may or may not be definitive for determining who is in or out of the AC.
Independently, each Primate could also decide whether or not they are in communion with TEC; again, they would hope to get a majority of the Primates agreeing on that.
Whether ++KJS or GC agrees with this or not is moot, because it’s simply a matter of recognizing a body as being in communion or not. We can of course decide who we are in communion with, but if someone else declares themselves out of communion with us then presumably they don’t care whether we reciprocate or not. Legally I doubt that TEC would look favorably upon the idea that parishes should be free to skip gaily back and forth between the two provinces without having to argue about property and titles.
However… the proposal (as reported via rumor) refers to “a separate Anglican jurisdiction in the United States in communion with the See of Canterbury.” If they want that, then the one person whose consent they have to get is +++Williams… because he decides who is in communion with Canterbury or not. The article says that the plans were “presented” to him, but that of course says nothing about whether he thought it was a workable idea or not. I suspect he’d at least want to put it off until Lambeth ‘08 does something with the Covenant and GC ‘09 has a chance to respond.
On the other hand, the GS Primates have already dropped hints to the effect that Canterbury may not be the be-all and end-all of the communion as far as they’re concerned. They may well decide that being in communion with Abuja is plenty good enough.
The worst-case outcome for the communion as a whole is a nightmare tangle of provinces that are in communion with some others, who may or may not be in communion with yet others, and so on.
87. BillS Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:20 pm e
Chip,
I am with you, Brother. We should all be pulling on the oars to get this provincial boat launched while we have the Anglican World’s attention. We can sort out the WO and other issues later. The biggest mistake that we can make is to pick it apart before we get started.
If WO is deal breaker for some, then we need to start without them, and see if a way can be found to bring them on board later. But again, whether Shori likes it or not, we need to just do it.
88. LP Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:34 pm e
87
—
If WO is deal breaker for some, then we need to start without them, and see if a way can be found to bring them on board later.
—
They’re already on board their own “alternate jurisdiction” rafts. They’re not looking to switch to leakier and less-tested boats… so don’t be surprised or offended that they’re not.
By the way, for what it’s worth, my read on the “parallel jurisdiction” is that the importance is not so much whether it’s recognized by 50 or 67 or 90 percent of the other independent Anglican churches, but simply that it get organized. The key thing the primates can do is to take all the GS refugee parishes and put them under one roof.
As far as membership in the A.C. goes, currently that’s *POINTLESS*. Being in the currently-constituted Anglican Communion is meaningless… as it has no enforceable authority or standards. Heck, PECUSA is currently in it… and Lambeth really is nothing more than an episcopal jamboree.
That will change with a proper Confession or Constitution, such as is in the works.
When that has been finalized, a *NEW* global Anglican body can be formed from those independent Anglican jurisdictions (including the parallel US jurisdiction) who chose, as a body, to join it and accept it’s oversight.
It’s at that point that PECUSA, having chosen to “walk apart” is left behind… not by the primate’s decision to kick it out of the current toothless Anglican Communion but, rather, by PECUSA’s own decision not to join the new and meaningful one.
pax,
LP
89. chip Smith Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 5:35 pm e
One thing I left out is that a large mass departure 0f ten or more dioceses and 100+ individual congregations would have the added benefit of overwhelming TEC’s financial ability to litigate. Too many different jurisdictions not to mention the real blow the departures would make to 815’s budget.
90. Ross Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 6:02 pm e
#88 LP:
That will change with a proper Confession or Constitution, such as is in the works.
A confession and a constitution are very different beasts, and I’m not sure we know yet which one the draft Covenant is trying to be.
91. James W. Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 7:23 pm e
One other thing to think about, which just occurred to me now.
If KJS is presented with a take it or leave it offer in which TEC can either cooperate and remain in the Communion for now, or not cooperate and be kicked out (and despite what anyone says, the ABC and ABY can terminate TEC is they so choose, there is no 2/3 ACC requirement or any such thing), then TEC would be in a very delicate position.
If TEC refuses to cooperate, then they lose their AC and ABC connection, which will cause a serious constitutional crisis within TEC and its dioceses. TEC defines itself constitutionally as being in communion with the ABC and the AC. Now many argue that the preamble is meaningless. It may be, it may not be. But that’s a risk. A BIG risk. And the risk is ENTIRELY borne by KJS and the TEC liberals. If they lose this legal argument, then they are kicked out not only from the AC, but from their bishoprics as well.
There would be a huge incentive for KJS and the TEC to accept such a proposal even if they wouldn’t like it. KJS and her minions sometimes strike me as reckless and foolish, but I don’t think they would take that big of a gamble.
92. Jason Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 7:32 pm e
91. James W.
If what you say is true, then the conservatives should push for a proposal KJS cant accept, force her out and let the conservative minority inherit all the ECUSA properties and funds. Now, THAT would be the best possible outcome. “The wages of sin is death.” Disposession of the liberal take over would scatter them to the winds. Afterall, they are all about MONEY. Absent the money, they would cease as a body.
But, I am not naive enough to believe any of this.
93. Ross Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 7:37 pm e
#91 James W:
I seriously doubt it. Who, exactly, would be forcing the “liberals” from their bishoprics… the secular courts? They have no such jurisdiction. The Primates? They couldn’t do that even to a province that is in communion with them; they certainly can’t do it to one they’ve just declared outside the pale.
For that matter, the preamble also describes the Anglican Communion as “a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”; and the Vatican might have somewhat to say about just who represents the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and who gets to decide who is in fellowship with it. Nobody is suggesting that this means the Anglican Communion suddenly ceases to exist as a valid entity.
94. This_Day Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 7:38 pm e
#83 chip
I am jumping with joy.
95. Truth Unites ... and Divides Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 8:07 pm e
#83 Chip.
Not jumping for joy until the fat lady finishes her last note.
However, I’m looking up with hope and prayer as she warms up her vocal cords.
96. James W. Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 8:16 pm e
Ross: Don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that the orthodox would be foolish enough to ask a secular court to vacate bishoprics. Not at all. What I am suggesting is that this would open the door for the orthodox to use the SAME argument that TEC/815/KJS is currently using against orthodox parishes, but against liberal bishops.
For example, 815 and Peter Lee are claiming that the Falls Church vestry is no longer the Falls Church vestry because they don’t satisfy TEC’s standards of what a vestry must be. Well, if Peter Lee would no longer be in communion with the ABC or the AC, then it could also be claimed that Lee no longer satisfies the TEC standards of what a bishop is. If the court would accept that - and it would be a debatable point - then some very messy legal fights could start.
Ross - the constitution’s preamble states that TEC “is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury”. Okay, so if that is what TEC is, and if the Diocese of Virginia is not that, then presumably, what we now call the Diocese of Virginia is not TEC. If it is not TEC, it cannot lay claim to TEC property.
97. Ross Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 8:50 pm e
But the “preamble” is descriptive, not prescriptive. The argument you’re making is the same as saying that I could challenge the constitutionality of any part of the U.S. Constitution that did not clearly serve to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” I’ve never heard of anybody taking that argument to court, because it would be laughed right out.
The preamble is basically flavor text; it simply explains why we’re bothering to write the rest of the document.
98. LP Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 9:09 pm e
At some point, fence-sitters are going to have to decide whether they’re going to keep waiting for a “magic wand” to transfer properties to them (and thus, basically, stay in PECUSA) or if they really believe firmly enough in the “faith once handed down” to walk away.
PECUSA is going to make every property fight as messy and unpleasant and costly as possible — so costly that the average victory will cost more in time, energy & souls than are won by what properties are actually kept — and there’s nothing the primates can do which will change that fact.
It’s silly to keep pinning hopes on the “next development.”
At some point you have to decide if you’re going to separate yourself from apostasy or not. Indefinite waffling is the same as “not”.
pax,
LP
99. William P. Sulik Says:
February 13th, 2007 at 9:58 pm e
DaveJ [#79] Says:
#54 William Sulik, In the words of the immortal Sgt. Hulka, “Lighten Up, Francis!” From now on, I will use the more circumspect “Bp. Marty & Co.”
My apologies, I misunderstood you — I gather you are referring to Martyn Minns — its my understanding that he doesn’t stand on titles or honorifics and so on. I think you can call him Martyn and it won’t bother him.
On the other hand, if you were purposely referring to Martyn as “Marty” in an attempt to be insulting, demeaning, playful, or whatever, it doesn’t work — it’s confusing at best and beneath you at worst. You are better than that.
As to your other point — yes, I do think a two-providence solution adds to the indicia that this is a division in a denomination and not merely one church leaving the hierarchy.
Post a Comment
<< Home