An article with this title by Bishop Pierre Whalon appears this week at Anglicans Online.
You can read it here.
There is then further comment and response by Bishop Whalon at the Episcopal Café.
See the comments here, and the response here.
38 CommentsUpdated yet again Tuesday evening
See earlier list of pro-ACNA items.
The Church Times headline is Synod holds off from ACNA.
THE General Synod declined on Wednesday afternoon to express a desire to be in communion with the Anglican Church in North Amerca (ACNA).
But, “aware of the distress caused by recent divisions” in the Anglican Churches of the US and Canada, it recognised and affirmed the desire of those who had formed ACNA to be part of the Anglican family, and “acknowledged that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further”.
Earlier in the week, Matt Davies of ENS had reported Church of England says no to full communion with breakaway entity.
Church Mouse For the avoidance of doubt – the CofE did not ‘recognise’ the ACNA yesterday
Simple Massing Priest “Just a flesh wound”
Lionel Deimel Declaring Victory and Moving On
Scott Gunn Parsing Synod — what have they done?
Jim’s Thoughts resolution
Colin Coward Lorna Ashworth’s motion about the Anglican Church in North America
ask the priest Synod, ACNA and the FCE – A narrowly-avoided theological misstep
Updates
More from Simple Massing Priest
SOMEBODY on the Anglican Right is lying
and
Another lie from the Anglican Right
Justin Brett ACNA-Related Ramblings
Stand Firm has discovered another document, Copy of TEC Memo Circulated at CoE Synod.
25 CommentsUpdated
The synod debate on ACNA has produced these reactions from Americans who support ACNA:
The following article was written by Brian Lewis for the Preludium blog of Mark Harris.
“We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language” (Oscar Wilde, The Canterville Ghost 1887).
I was alarmed but (bearing in mind Oscar’s witticism) should not have been surprised to hear that some in TEC and ACoC might misunderstand the full significance of the Church of England’s General Synod’s decision to reject the call to “express a desire to be in Communion with ACNA”.
But let us be clear it did just that, not once, but twice or perhaps even three times.
To follow through the sequence of events.
The original motion was:
That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.
In a background paper circulated in advance of the debate the mover (Lorna Ashworth) made a number of allegations about TEC and the ACoC. This clearly established that though the motion was ostensibly only about ACNA it was intended to invite the CoE to condemn the behaviour of TEC and ACoC.
In response to that briefing paper I circulated to all members of synod two papers.
All synod members including the Archbishops were sent these papers (I believe they are now online at Thinking Anglicans). Members of TEC and ACoC are indebted to Simon; I know how hard he worked on the production of theses papers. I also know how grateful many members of synod were to receive them.
Mrs Ashworth duly presented her motion to Synod, the further allegations made in her opening address confirmed that this was indeed a motion inviting synod to condemn the actions of TEC and ACoC.
In response to the original motion the Bishop of Bristol put forward an amendment (with the support of the House of Bishops) entirely replacing it.
The amendment reads
That this synod
(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.
There are two key and essential things to recognise about this amendment (certainly recognised by everyone in the synod and why it was resisted by those supporting ACNA):
(Other finer questions about “affirm” and “remain” were not key to the understanding of this amendment and to my recollection not brought into the debate, indeed an amendment to leave out “affirm” was withdrawn; we could equally say that by saying the leadership had “formed” ACNA the Bishop was saying ACNA is a new church, but that was also not part of the debate nor probably part of the Bishop’s intention. )
The force of this amendment is in replacing OUR desire to be in COMMUNION with THEIR desire to remain part of the Anglican FAMILY.
Synod accepted this amendment.
Synod declined to express “a desire to be in Communion with ACNA”. That matters. Questions not asked are one thing but when a question is asked and the answer is politely No Thank You that changes where you are.
The No Thank You was polite, of course it was, but it was real. The amendment also asked our Archbishops for a report on the situation, and helpfully recognised the reality of the issues any future possible recognition would raise for the relevant authorities.
I find it difficult to see how ACNA could welcome any of this.
Further In case it was just possible that this was not a rejection of synod “expressing a desire to be in Communion with ACNA” the supporters of ACNA put forward again, as an amendment to the Bishop’s amendment, the original request “that this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”. Asking the Synod to say both things at once. A very Anglican fudge that would have been!
The Bishop of Winchester and other ACNA supporters spoke for this, needless to say I spoke against it.
This was the critical moment of the debate – you might just possibly maintain we had in the Bishop’s amendment acknowledged proper procedure – the role of the “relevant authorities” the role of the Archbishops etc, now we could add in the support of our persecuted brothers and sisters (as they were presented to us), and say we desired to be in Communion with them.
The synod carefully considered this and voted No.
That is the second time.
Then we were asked to add an amendment that expressed “our desire that in the interim, the orders of ACNA clergy be recognised and accepted by the Archbishops subject to their satisfaction as to such clergy being of good standing, enabling them to exercise their ordained ministry in this country, according to the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967.”
We said No. Recognising orders is a key part of being in Communion.
I’m afraid I consider that is No a third time.
It was hardly surprising however that nobody objected to the final amendment, an acknowledgement of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada – indeed I had referred to it myself when calling on synod members to support those who had remained faithful to their church.
I know the very existence of this debate raises questions about one part of the Anglican Communion interfering with another – and those questions were raised – but before we answer them, what of the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Presidential address expressing “repugnance” of the “infamous” proposed legislation in Uganda, and the efforts he and other CofE bishops have made communicating directly with the Anglican Church in Uganda. It is also not improper for a synod to offer its view of who it hopes we will be in Communion with. But I recognise there are big issues at stake for the Communion generally – I would just reiterate, I see little cause for concern for TEC or ACoC in the outcome of this particular debate, and to be frank it is beyond disingenuous or bizarre for anybody connected with ACNA to pretend this is in anyway an affirmation of ACNA.
Brian Lewis
44 CommentsA critical view of the ACNA resolution is contained in an article published on Fulcrum and due to also appear on Religious Intellligence written by the Bishop of Sherborne, Graham Kings.
Read General Synod Motion concerning the Anglican Church in North America.
2 CommentsThe Church of England Newspaper reports that one episcopal signer of the original resolution has had new thoughts. In Controversial American vote defused by House of Bishops it is reported that:
The Bishop of Winchester, the Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, said: “My name is on the original motion of Lorna Ashworth’s, and I’m happy that it was and is, but I realise that it is more practical to ask the Synod to do something that it really is in a position to do. “It is not in fact the role of the Church of England to make these kind of decisions, nor is it for Synod to make these kind of decisions. Therefore, to enable the archbishops and the bishops and others to vote positively, there needs to be an amendment like that which the Bishop of Bristol will be bringing.
“It does two things. It brings the motion in line with the constitutional role and the canonical realities as to who actually makes these decisions. At the same time it is a clear and positive affirmation of the character and intentions and standpoint of the ACNA.”
Somebody who left the Church of England quite a while ago, Charles Raven, now a major force in the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans says this, in a piece published on Anglican Mainstream titled The English General Synod: The Centre Cannot Hold:
9 Comments…it is as much about the English Church as the Church in North America.
She poses precisely the sort of question that the Church of England’s leadership wants to avoid because the ACNA represents a choice which must be made between two incompatible forms of religion – historic biblical Anglicanism and that pseudo- Anglicanism being promoted by TEC and its allies which derives its energy from the spirit of the age rather than the Spirit of Christ.
Tobias Haller has composed some pithy questions that member of General Synod might care to ponder about ACNA:
18 CommentsPlease consider the following for a moment:
1) What would be done in the Church of England if a bishop from the convocation of Canterbury were to announce one day that he no longer considered himself to be under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and had transferred his allegiance to the Archbishop of Tanzania, but intended to remain in his present location and exercise episcopal functions as a representative of his new archbishop?
2) What would be done in the Church of England in the case of a priest who announced that he no longer recognized his diocesan bishop as having any authority over him, but refused to relinquish his cure? And if he invited bishops from other dioceses or provinces to do parish visitations there?
3) What would be done in the Church of England if the clergy and parish council of a parish in, shall we say, Dibley, announced that it was no longer part of the Church of England, but considered itself now to be a congregation of the Church of the Province of the Sudan, altered all of their signage and other public information to reflect this change, purporting now to be part of “The Anglican Church in England” and invited bishops from the Sudan to function in the parish, refusing to have anything more to do with their C. of E. diocese or its leadership?
These are the kinds of things The Episcopal Church is having to deal with, as facts on the ground. Any depositions, inhibitions, or lawsuits are a result of and in response to precisely these sorts of actions. Consider carefully how you vote on the motion to come before you. You may soon be dealing with just such situations yourself.
The Episcopal Church
Office of Public Affairs
February 4, 2010
The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA)
The following is one in a series of talking points prepared as a resource for The Episcopal Church.
Talking Points:
The Episcopal Church and the ACNA
The facts about The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA).
Scott Gunn has posted a series of blog articles recently commenting on various matters relating to ACNA.
Some examples:
“Church Militant” gets new meaning
Duncan says Canterbury is “lost”
3 CommentsUpdated
As listed in my paper:
Professor Bruce Mullin’s Affidavit in the case of the Diocese of Ohio
This deals particularly with the issue of parishes purporting to depart from a diocese. It has not previously been published.
Professor Bruce Mullin’s Affidavit in the case of the Diocese of Fort Worth
This deals particularly with the issue of dioceses purporting to depart from TEC.
Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (2009)
New edition, just published electronically during the past week.
The “Chapman report” January 2004
This matter was also reported at the time by Stephen Bates in the Guardian see
US Anglicans plot to break up church and Leaked letters reveal plot to split US church.
“Alternative oversight”
On January 14, 2004 , The Washington Post published a story headlined, “Plan to Supplant Episcopal Church USA Is Revealed.”
The article was based on a letter from the Rev. Geoff Chapman, rector of St. Stephen’s, Sewickley-one of the larger parishes in Duncan ‘s diocese-who said he was responding to an inquiry on behalf of the AAC and its “Bishops Committee on Adequate Episcopal Oversight.” 10 The letter, dated December 28, 2003 , was leaked to Post reporter Alan Cooperman.
In the letter, Chapman wrote that the AAC’s “ultimate goal is a realignment of Anglicanism on North American soil” resulting in a “replacement jurisdiction.” He added that conservatives would “seek to retain ownership of our property as we move into this realignment.”
A parish interested in “alternative oversight” should declare its relationship with its diocesan Bishop “severely damaged” as a result of Robinson’s consecration, Chapman wrote, and state that it now looked to “one of the Primates or an AAC orthodox Bishop for their ‘primary pastoral leadership.’”
Episcopal bishops who claimed authority over a parish in another bishop’s diocese would be vulnerable to prosecution under canon law. However, Chapman wrote, “we do have non-geographical oversight available from ‘offshore’ Bishops, and retired Bishops.”
If “adequate settlements” were not within reach by “some yet to be determined moment, probably in 2004,” he added, “a faithful disobedience of canon law on a widespread basis may be necessary.”
[extract from Following the Money see link below]
The “Barfoot memo” March 2004
The concept of “offshore oversight” for conservative Episcopal parishes was developed further in a March 3, 2004 , memo to “Ekklesia Society primates and bishops” and leaders of the Network by Canon Alison Barfoot. It was occasioned, Barfoot wrote, by conversations with Atwood, John Guernsey of the Network and Martyn Minns of the AAC.
Barfoot, formerly co-rector at Christ Church in Overland Park , Kansas , had recently been appointed an assistant to Orombi, primate of the province of Uganda . An ally of Duncan’s, Orombi had broken off relations with the Episcopal Church in December 2003.
In the memo, Barfoot outlined a three-step plan for removing parishes from the oversight of Episcopal bishops and placing them under the oversight of an “offshore” bishop who would then delegate his authority over that parish to the Network. If a parish did not already have a relationship with an offshore bishop, Barfoot suggested, the Ekklesia Society could arrange a match.
[extract from Following the Money see link below]
Following the Money 2006
5 CommentsThe American Anglican Council has published this press release: Rebutting Simon Sarmiento and TEC’s Factual Inaccuracies.
The article lists only five points.
Anglican Essentials Canada has published this article: ACoC priest, Alan Perry, questions the ACNA briefing paper.
The article lists only one point.
11 CommentsReaders may recall this General Synod motion, which is being debated next Wednesday. And there is this amendment.
A paper rebutting the claims made about the Episcopal Church, compiled by me, has been issued to General Synod members.
That paper can now be read in full here.
50 CommentsThis is the title of a publication from the Chicago Consultation.
As the press release says:
Earlier this month, diocesan standing committees and bishops with jurisdiction were formally notified of the election of the Rev. Mary Glasspool as bishop suffragan in the Diocese of Los Angeles. Bishop-elect Glasspool is the second openly gay, partnered person to be elected bishop in the Anglican Communion.
The 2009 General Convention of the Episcopal Church affirmed, through Resolution D025, that God calls partnered gay and lesbian people to all orders of ministry in the Episcopal Church. The Chicago Consultation believes that this position is consistent with traditional Anglican polity and theology. To aid standing committees and bishops with their role in the consent process, we have published a collection of essays by eminent theologians across the Episcopal Church…
God’s Call and Our Response is available as a PDF file.
It is is edited by the Rev. Dr. Ruth A. Meyers, Hodges-Haynes Professor of Liturgics at Church Divinity School of the Pacific. It includes essays by:
More about the Chicago Consultation here.
7 CommentsThe Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh has a press release:
Today Common Pleas Court Judge Joseph James accepted a Special Master’s report detailing the properties the Judge has previously ruled should be controlled by the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
The Special Master compiled his inventory following the Judge’s order of October 6, 2009, in which he ruled that a 2005 Stipulation agreed to by former diocesan leaders prevented them from continuing to hold diocesan assets.
Today’s order contains provisions intended to make it clear to the financial institutions holding the assets that they should now take their instructions only from designated representatives of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. The order, which takes effect immediately, also requires former diocesan leaders to provide ongoing cooperation to the Diocese to implement the provisions of the Order.
The Diocese plans to quickly make arrangements so that all parishes may again have access to their investment funds that were frozen by financial institutions during the legal proceedings.
A PDF of Judge James’ January 29th order and the public version of the Special Master’s report can be viewed by clicking here.
Lionel Deimel has additional information here, and more here. And even more here.
24 CommentsEpiscopal Café has drawn attention in ABC’s visitors to Canada on “aberrations south of the border” to a report in the Anglican Journal on the recent visit to Canada of “two pastoral visitors from the U.K. who were deputized by the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams”. They were Bishop Chad Gandiya of Harare, Zimbabwe, and Bishop Colin Bennetts, the retired bishop of Coventry.
Rather surprisingly, the visitors appear to have included remarks in their report about a country they were not visiting, the USA. According to the Journal:
The visitors said they were also reminded frequently by bishops that “Canada is not the USA.” While the United States is seen as a melting pot culture where religious and ethnic groups are synthesized into “Americans,” Canadians “genuinely value and seek to live with diversity.” Differences between the Anglican Church of Canada and The Episcopal Church were underscored, including the area of Christology. “We sensed that in Canada there was a general consensus on the nature of orthodoxy, with fewer extreme views of the kind that have led to some of the aberrations south of the border,” the report said. “Even the bishops who were strongly progressive in the matter of same-sex blessings insisted that they stood firmly within the creedal mainstream.” This, the report said, is “an encouraging sign that it allows for a more obviously Christ-centred approach to issues that currently divide the Communion, to say nothing of the wider church.”
Now read this article about the skills of Bishop Bennetts as a “bridge-builder”, Conflict resolution expert sent to observe at HOB.
198 CommentsPat Ashworth reported it all for the Church Times in Election of lesbian bishop stirs up controversy.
Riazat Butt reports in the Guardian that Archbishop Rowan Williams urged to retract comments on election of lesbian bishop.
Jeanne Carstensen at Religion Dispatches has Election of New Lesbian Bishop Reveals Tensions in Anglican World.
Daniel Burke at Religion News Service has Lesbian Bishop Aware but Undaunted by Controversy.
7 CommentsPBS has Bishop Jon Bruno: “No Barriers” for Gay and Lesbian Episcopalians.
There is a Southern California Public Radio interview at The highest stained glass ceiling.
Ruth Gledhill has Canon Mary Glasspool: time for Church to open door to rights for gays in The Times and Lesbian bishop pledges gracious non-restraint on her blog.
On the other hand, there is this editorial in the Living Church Think, and Act, Globally.
And also A Statement by the Bishop of Texas on recent Anglican Events.
4 CommentsBishop Alan Wilson wrote a further post, this one is titled Two ways to win an argument….
Richard Morrison in The Times wrote Nothing but sex please, we’re vicars…
Savi Hensman wrote for Ekklesia Liberating the Anglican understanding of sexuality.
The New York Times published an Associated Press report headlined Episcopal Lesbian Bishop Calls Election Liberating.
The Baltimore Sun published a report headlined Lesbian bishop-elect finds support as well as controversy and the transcript of the interview is at Glasspool: ‘I anticipated some kind of reaction’…
6 CommentsOpen letter to the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church and the Bishop of Los Angeles
Dear Bishop Katharine and Bishop Jon,
We congratulate you and the people of the Episcopal Church on the electoral process which has led to the election of the Revd Canon Diane Jardine Bruce and the Revd Canon Mary Douglas Glasspool as Suffragan Bishops of the Diocese of Los Angeles. We are aware that the process was carried out with great care and prayer, as will the decisions of Bishops and Standing Committees who consider whether to confirm the elections. We wish the elected candidates all joy in their ministries and assure them of our prayers.
The Anglican and Episcopalian tradition is, at its best, one which celebrates the breadth of human experience and welcomes the many ways in which we, as Christians, try to live out our vocations under God. We are therefore deeply sorry that the reaction from the Church of England to the election of Mary Glasspool has been at best grudging and at worst actively negative.
While it gives us no pleasure to dissociate ourselves from the sentiments expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose wisdom in so many areas we deeply respect, we greatly regret the tone and content of his response, particularly in the context of his failure to make any comment on the seriously oppressive legislation being proposed in Uganda.
We wish you to know that there are a great many within the Church of England who like us are unequivocally supportive of TEC in being open to the election of bishops without regard to gender, race and sexuality. We pray that the Communion at large will grow in confidence and maturity, so that it can learn to celebrate both those things which hold us together and those things over which we disagree. In that context we greatly welcome the Theological Round Table recently announced by the Churches in India.
We urge you and your fellow Bishops and diocesan Standing Committees therefore not to be persuaded by responses from outside your province in considering the request to confirm these elections, and urge those who disagree to approach the Episcopal Church with a renewed and reinvigorated sense of trust in the actions of the Holy Spirit. As a Communion we are called to be an example to other Christians and those who have no beliefIn a diverse and global world threatened by much, it is time now to move on from these questions which divide us and focus on responding to the huge challenges we face together.
Yours sincerely
Giles Goddard
Chair,
Inclusive Church
Updated
Stuff on this just keeps on coming in.
ENS Los Angeles women bishops’ elections create ‘bit of a wave’; tsunami of reaction, expectations
Bishop Alan Wilson What hath Kampala to do with LA?
Living Church Canon Glasspool’s Election Draws Pointed Responses
Kampala Monitor Orombi angry over new lesbian bishop
Ruth Gledhill has written Friend of Dr Rowan Williams feels ‘betrayed’ by his stance on gays.
The subject of that interview, Colin Coward, has commented in Betrayed by the Church’s stance on gays.
Earlier posts by Colin are here, and also here.
Symon Hill has written Questions for Ruth Gledhill and Rowan Williams.
And now, Ruth Gledhill has blogged Out and Angry: Colin Coward on being gay priest in today’s church.
13 Comments