Anglican Church of North America

A significant moment for the embattled Anglican Communion arrives today. In Wheaton, Illinois, a constitution and code of canons are being announced for a new North American province which will operate in parallel with The Episcopal Church. It brings together eleven jurisdictions in the USA and Canada and represents what seven Anglican primates asked the leaders of those jurisdictions to do.

Some parts of the Communion will recognise this new entity immediately. Others will completely ignore its existence.

Why does any of this matter? It matters because it makes clear that the revisionist agenda cannot be pushed without there being serious consequences. It also matters because it communicates that some Primates will not shy away from establishing new Anglican jurisdictions, even where Anglican churches exist already. It matters beause it indicates that the half-hearted attempts at achieving peace have failed, in my view mainly because the North American hierarchy never had any intention of repenting for their actions (apologising for upset caused is not the same thing as repentance) and reversing the direction they have taken. The TEC and Anglican Church of Canada could have made room for conservative dioceses and congregations which could not approve the ordination of women. They could have affirmed Jesus Christ as the only way to God. They could have proclaimed a Gospel of radical transformation. They could have clearly stepped away from their support for practicing homosexual bishops and same sex blessings. None of this happened because most of the leadership North American provinces just don't believe these things any more. If they did the Global South provinces would have ceased their involvement in supporting new church structures in TEC/ACC territory.

It seems unlikely that those Provinces supporting this new Province will themselves be thrown out of the Communion. That would mean the loss of far too much of the Communion. Instead, we'll see a period of messiness, with some Provinces in relationship with only some parts of the Communion (reappraisers or reasserters) and others trying to be in relationship with everyone (both reappraisers and reasserters). I believe this latter course of action is going to get harder to follow, as the provinces supporting the new  North American province discover who is with them or not. What could make it very interesting is if other provinces like Scotland and Wales come out as backing TEC in the face of this new development.

It's a deep sadness that such action has been necessary. However, this happened because the TEC leadership has steadily eroded belief and practice to such a point that many now reckon that they follow a different gospel. 

Is this new entity be truly Anglican? Because of the support from other parts of the world, I venture to say, "Yes, it is". Is it part of the church catholic? Of course it is. Aren't all followers of Christ? It will be called schismatic. Aren't all Anglicans part of a schismatic organisation anyway? Will it be effective in mission? My experiences in the USA (including time with the staff of an Anglican Church in the city where today's events are unfolding) suggests it will be. Set free from fighting rear guard theological actions and supported by bishops who know, understand and encourage what congregations are doing, they seem able to focus on simply growing the Church. Will it be recognised by Canterbury? I suspect not. Will that matter? Only if Rowan Williams speaks out actively against it. He won't do that either.

We wait to see what effect, if any, the events in Wheaton have on the rest of the Communion.

Comments

[Tim]

This has to be the saddest piece of news I've heard in a long while (especially since I've not been keeping up with the wider Anglican scene of late).

It matters because it makes clear that the revisionist agenda cannot be pushed without there being serious consequences.

I think you mean there is sufficient weight of conservative tradition that the church, and therefore the Church, will be seen as increasingly out of touch, tied to an erroneous view of a culture ~2000 years ago as though it prescribed how today's culture should operate; this being a view which has only been in place since the times of Luther and Calvin.

the North American hierarchy never had any intention of repenting for their actions (apologising for upset caused is not the same thing as repentance)

What actions? Ordaining +Gene as bishop? I'm won't bother asking why that needs repentence, because it does not. Nor should it even interest anyone else in the wider Communion, because it's TEC's polity.

TEC ...could have made room for conservative dioceses and congregations

How much more room do they need? Where is the problem with the current system in TEC? Where is the prescription, "ooh, you *must* have a lesbian for your new rector" when handling vacancies, etc?
I have thought this for a long time: there seems to be a faction that persists in seeing themselves as oppressed and ill-catered-for, while the polity of TEC caters for the *whole* spectrum. Thus such factions are merely separatist, not actually interested in finding solutions or accepting the status quo.

They could have clearly stepped away from their support for practicing homosexual bishops and same sex blessings.

Why would they want to? No, better not ask that; I only expect a boring blast of a select handful of verses devoid of contextual understanding as an answer.

If they did the Global South provinces would have ceased their involvement in supporting new church structures in TEC/ACC territory.

Yeah RIGHT!

If the various provinces calling themselves `Global South' had been interested in having influence in the US, in a Biblical manner ("if you see your brother sinning...") then they would have opened a forum for discussion. What they actually did was leech a parasitic organization, CANA, onto TEC for the express purpose of stealing gullible congregations and dioceses away, from the outset.

If they had been interested in discussion, including possibly pointing out fault, they would not have walked away from Lambeth in advance, either.

Is this new entity be truly Anglican? Because of the support from other parts of the world, I venture to say, "Yes, it is".

I fail to see where the rest of the world, other than Canterbury, comes into the definition of `Anglican'.

Of course I can see how there might be fragmentation of which-province-recognizes-which all over the place; is that not a *bigger* fragmentation than letting TEC go its own way, and even worse still than learning to have dialogue between provinces?

Frankly, I am muchly saddened (and struggling not to let anger through) at the "conservative"s' black-and-white and bigoted attitude to a viable subsection of humanity being given such credence.