Yes, Charlie, you are correct.  Hilary and Athanasius were physically exiled from their sees, we in the ACNA are spiritually exiled from pecusa and many of us were cradle Episcopalians.  Many who have destroyed pecusa come from other traditions, but that is neither here nor there at this point.  The ACNA has not started a new church, they are doing missionary work under the auspices of foreign primates.  We who are part of the ACNA have stayed in our locales and are fighting the good fight for the gospel.  Many of us have departed pecusa because we have come to believe that the Lord would have us proclaim the gospel rather than fight battles in an apostate institution that has ceased to be a church.  In the ACNA we can focus on the many who do not know Christ in our neighborhoods rather than be distracted by the politics that drives pecusa.  Many of us could not in good conscience financially support dioceses that were using our funding to support the apostasy of pecusa.

The members of the ACNA came to the realization perhaps earlier than Dr. Radner that pecusa is beyond repair and has no interest in returning to full communion within the Anglican Communion on any terms other than her own.  Fortunately there are overseas primates that recognized this situation as early as 2000 (if not earlier) and have replanted North America with the dna of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.  I am hopeful that the ACNA will be able to plant 1,000 new churches in North America to replace the diminishing churches of the ACiC and pecusa.

Thank you Phil.
I think you get to the heart of the dilemma and one with which I wrestled for years - indeed quoting Jeremiah and encouraged by Ezekiel.

John Wesley was disciplined by the CofE in his day but he died a CofE priest. 

He was indeed disciplined yet continued to operate outside the hallowed buildings of the C of E because he was confronted by the unjust and ungodly leaders of his day misusing canon and authority, rather than recognizing the true hand of God at work.  Some of us operate on this fringe from time to time, though not with the boldness of John Wesley.  I have often reflected on the positions of Wesley and his contemporary George Whitfield, who used to preach in a church that sent me to seminary and who is one of my heroes.  The issue of inside vs. outside strategy was a cause of division between the two.  However when Whitfield was asked if he thought that he would see Wesley in heaven he responded (please forgive my freehand remembering of his words) “NO, because he shall be so close to the throne of God and I so far away.”  My point being that we need grace to work as brethren at this time of heretical controversy and polarization.  We cannot afford - on the orthodox side - to be set one against the other.  Indeed it has been my hope and prayer that the ACNA and the CP community would see each other as brethren rather than rivals.  This is one of my sadnesses about Ephraim’s piece, that is talks scathingly of those who have left.  Some have had to because the pressures on them and their flocks were too great to bear. 

Officially, TEC is orthodox in its faith.  The fact that it lacks the will or ability to discipline errant leaders is a symptom of rot at the highest levels.  But the fault lies with those leaders and those who support them. 

This begs the further question that has led to so many leaving.  It is not simply an unwillingness or ability to discipline errant leaders.  It is actually the will, ability and action of the TEC leaders and a majority of the HOB, to discipline those who decide to dissent.  What do you say to a brother/sister when he or she is confronted with the venom and hatred of an MR (above) who actually has the power and uses it to persecute and prosecute?  Hang in there, “I feel your pain!”  You see it does not work.  I know that many have also left because they have had enough.  They are worn down to “nubs” and have to walk away and find fellowship some other way such as the succor of an orthodox province.  I know that feeling and am my self one so worn down having spent thirty years on the front line.  As a missionary and in another land I find that I am restored again spiritually - for which I thank God.  Meanwhile I operate on both sides of the divide as this is how our ministry is supported. 

Sorry this is not about me but about us needing IMHO, to be slow to judge as between the orthodox as between Wesley and Whitfield.  It is about supporting one another as we honestly and prayerfully seek not simply our own path, but to support each other even if we are called to different paths.  Meanwhile unutterably opposed to the ungodly heresies of this new religion that has - again IMHO - hijacked what used to be a Godly and wonderful, grace filled, Gospel driven Church.  Ever so sadly it is no more and I thank Ephraim for his epitaph.

Phil Snyder - 23 December 2009 09:20 PM

Tony,

No One (not Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, SE Asia, Southern Cone) has said that TEC is not a constituent member of the Anglican Communion.  Indeed, they see the fact that TEC is still in the Anglican Communion and has not been disciplined for its innovations is part of the problem.

snip

Michael, You write:  “but those I oppose have the monopoly on hate.”  I would urge you to look very closely in the mirror and find the hate that creates this statement!  Can you not see that the very act of TEC trying to export its “inclusivist” agenda is what may be driving the legislation that we all find so objectionable?  Because of the cultural imperialism of the United States in General and TEC in particular, many countries feel it necessary to protect their cultural morals.  In Africa, this includes a strong aversion to homosexual activities.  snip

Likewise legislation like this can be seen as a reaction to the cultural imperialism of Hollywood, New York, and TEC.  I would hope that you agree that our popular “culture” is far too sexualized and openly promotes fornication, adultery, and homosexual activity.

As I said earlier, you seem full of anger and hatred of anything that mitigates against your goal of “full inclusion.” 

If you want to change the teaching of the Church on homosexual behavior, then let’s have that discussion.  Bring up your arguments from Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.  But let’s not act on you new understanding until the communion as a whole either agrees that the new understanding is closer to God’s will or that it is not a communion breaking issue.  If you are not willing to abide by the Communion’s discernment, then why are you still part of it?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

There is no “Jurisdictional tresspass” because the Bishops and provinces in question did not and do not recognized TEC as an Anglican body.  They are not visiting and performing Episcopal Acts in TEC congregations.  They are providing pastoral support to fellow Anglicans that asked for it.

Phil, you can’t have it both ways.  You cannot say 8in one post they do not recognize us as Anglicans and in another say they have not rejected us as constitutent members.  They cannot poach the churches and Dioceses of Provinces of the Anglican Communion of which we are one and they are not free to define us out.

TEC has not exported anything at all, we have ordered our own house and outsiders have objected. Now we are fed up with the abuse and are being more forceful in our dealings.  This is a totally natural reaction to the effort of outsiders to impose their agendas on us.  Indeed such intervention was specifically strategized by ACNA, ACI and the rest.  we have not said that everyone in the Communion must do as we do, but we have said we will do what we believe is right.  You do not seem the least perturbed by the American fundamentalist exportation of homophobic hatred, how come?

I have spoken here often about my position on how scripture tradition and reason work differently than you see it.  You have not accepted my arguments, which is fine, but you do know them if you have read along with my material.

If you find me more strident, do not confuse that with hate.  The haters are those whose words and actions dehumanize portions of Christ’s body and then seek to marginalize, silence, imprison and kill them.  Those of “y’all” who support the legislation in Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda and 34 other countries in Africa alone who criminalize homosexuality have diminished and promoted violence against gay and lesbian people and those who support them.  Such behavior needs a forcible response, just as the Nazi extermination of gays, Catholics, Jews, gypsies etc needed a forcible response.  Those who promote such positions need to know they will be held publicly accountable for it.  You are welcome to dismiss me because I seem angry, fine and dandy, but silent support for the travesty of criminalization laws is the real emerging hate scenario of the present day.  The increasing hysteria promoted by bigoted reading and interpretation of scripture and willingness to overlook the implementation of laws that will lead to the death of people is appalling.

What all of us will keep doing is shining the light on the abuse of glbt people around the world and confronting those who implement or excuse it.  Already the position of moral leadership in this issue has been so eroded for the C of E that the ++s of York and Canterbury were forced to say something in public.  And what we have left in Africa are English colonial laws twisted out of shape by American and other evangelicals who hate glbt people. 

So as not to waste posts, I read Fr. Tony’s comment about tit for tat and would suggest he read Jeffrey Sach’s column on “Generous tit for tat” which is a negotiating strategy I endorse.

Such behavior needs a forcible response, just as the Nazi extermination of gays, Catholics, Jews, gypsies etc needed a forcible response.

Yet again the Nazi epithet and comparison.  So sad.

Michael, I share your grief regarding the Uganda legislation.  But I think that TEC is not the right place for launching an opposition to it.  We are all called to do different things; and some callings exclude other callings.  You feel called to remain within TEC, and TEC has rather lost its moral authority.  Did anyone in TEC protest Schori’s election - when her CV represented her as having been a dean of a school of theology, when in fact she was a Sunday school teacher?  And numerous other things.  I think that as an idealist, you perhaps feel you need to be loyal to TEC, but this keeps you away from sources of information which could be valuable to your judgment.  I think few of us would even want to begin on this “numerous other things” front.  TEC sources frequently point out that many of the complaints are “lies and fabrications ...” - but - in my experience, the reports usually are more or less true when we get back to the original sources - the TEC sources usually take a particular gloss or interpretation of the events, and prove that that particular interpretation isn’t true, while something else, which is truly worthy of concern, is indeed very much an outstanding issue.  And the announcement that the TEC source’s re-interpretation is not exactly a kosher interpretation, and that there are outstanding issues, is no longer newsworthy or blogworthy - so their bits stand on their diocesan sites or their blog sites.

I look forward to reading your criticisms of the ACI.  I have tremendous respect for the ACI, but am more than willing to subject their reasoned opinions to scrutiny, if there indeed are facts available which can show them in error.  Of course, they are a bunch of haters, but I’m rather taken aback and insulted at the insinuation that they and their allies have a “monopoly on hate,” since ... I also claim my own sizable share of hatred, thus they can’t have it all.  I don’t only hate LGBT people though, fortunately - I hate ALL people, especially heteros, since there are more of them.  My hatred condescends even to the realms of the animal, the vegetable, and the inanimate.  This is my sad reality which I must face daily.  But fortunately my Saviour is greater even than my hate, and helps me overcome - and thanks to His grace, I am capable even of love - on occasion.  Or so it seems from time to time.

If you want to launch a protest against the Uganda legislation, you could perhaps find a church or organization which people are more likely to trust in that regard?  Suppose a city is about to launch a tax on barbershops - if the League of Hair Professionals initiates a complaint, it tends to go unnoticed, sort of a logical consequence type of thing.

Dr. Radner, most excellent article.  Thank you for drawing up the moral courage to write a piece like this, it must have been heart-wrenching to write.

This business of haters is rather interesting, actually.  Rather Schleirmachian to no longer discuss “evil” but rather to internalize it as “hate” even though, in the end, we are really talking about the same thing.  So we can, in perfectly socially acceptable manner, describe how utterly despicable the haters are ... whereas speaking of “evil” as despicable might draw a few “relativizers” who wish to point out to us that this evil isn’t nearly as evil as we seem to think it is, but since we think of it as despicable we are therefore ... haters!  However the haters, oh yes, they are an abomination beyond comparison.  So ... when fighting injustice, lesson number one: do not speak of evil, or you will become a hater; you must uncover hatred, and decry that.  But where there is evil, there must also be hatred - so - just find your evil, and make sure you express it in adequately subjective manner, so as to avoid being added to the “haters” camp.

Of course, those who decry the haters themselves are not haters, they are “being strident.”  Perhaps if I someday learn how to be strident I will no longer be a hater ... we shall see.

Michael, I am not in favor of tit for tat.  We who have left pecusa believe that pecusa is beyond repair, it will not reemerge as a church, and it is all yours.  Those in ACI and CP believe that they are called to stay in what is a non-church.  You may call our church planting and evangelism poaching, but it is a shame that you won’t accord those who leave pecusa with the same self-determination that you want for yourself.  Your comparison with Nazis is odious and as has been remarked often really is a conversation stopper.  I would hope that you can get past your anger to a more rational place.

James I don’t think ad. hom. remarks about the PB or her CV advance our arguments either. Surely we ought at Christians to aspire to a level of discourse which sticks to concepts and practice and avoids personality attacks?

Tony I can’t really get my head around an ecclesiology which evaluates the “churchliness” of a Province on the basis of the behavior of its people or the wisdom of its synods. Perhaps there have been moments in church history in which notable sinners in high places have been in little evidence - or was that the absence of the internet - or in which synods confined themselves to their job in providing the means by which the church might prosecute its mission. There again it is perhaps significant that the two great transforming movements in Anglicanism took place when the CofE’s legislative bodies were suppressed!  The Articles admit that synods err. 

Now I would be the first to suggest that TEC is “Very far gone from original righteousness” at least as far as its media face admits. Yet across the country and perhaps particularly in TEC’s overseas “Empire” the Word of God is preached and the Sacraments rightly administered.” 

The flaw in Gafcon ecclesiology ironically is that it sets up a theory of the Church unaddressed in the Reformed Anglican Tradition and then finds TEC wanting.  Those of us who embrace a more robust ecclesiology than that suggested by the Reformers, are perhaps, in Anglican practice, more worldly-wise in our expecting fallibility wherever there are humans. This plays out in local pastoral ministry as an extension of our doctrine of the Church.

I in no way seek to mitigate the parlous state of TEC’s theology and spirituality. Yet I assert strongly that those of us who remain within do so for better reasons than mere expediency.  We seek to balance our exasperation with the Church militant, which includes our constant penitence for our own part in its failings, with the vision of the Church as God sees it, a bride prepared for its Groom, as it enters the New Jerusalem; a fitting vision on this Feast of St. John..

Tony, “a robust ecclesiology” leads to remaining in an apostate non-church?  There is fallibility and then there is total disregard of the Church - pecusa is most definitely fallible, as is the ACNA, and pecusa is also in total disregard of the Church.  You may recall Cardinal Ratzinger’s kind words that were telegraphed to the Plano meeting.  I would think that we all understand the import of Pope Benedict’s snub of the ABC as he made his overture to disgruntled Anglicans.  The Orthodox have broken off ecumenical relations with pecusa and have adopted ecumenical relations with the ACNA.  In time we expect that the majority of provinces of the Anglican Communion will recognize the ACNA.  So, you can belittle the efforts of reformation in North America as based on expediency if you wish.  I would think that a better reading of the situation is gospel mandate.  As for “robust ecclesiology” (which shows a level of self-deception that is astounding, imho) the ACNA will certainly come closer to planting 1,000 churches than what pecusa accomplished in the Decade of Evangelism (when pecusa actually lost members).  We know that the 20/20 goals have been ditched and we know why - because one has to have the genuine Gospel to proclaim to have any hope of achieving that kind of goal.

Frankly, I don’t see the high-minded reasons for remaining in pecusa.  Remaining in an apostate non-church does little to further the goals of the Heavenly City, again, imho.

Fr. Tony Clavier,

I am quite convinced that your reasons for remaining within TEC are not “mere expediency” (as you reply to Tony Steel) and have much admiration for yourself, your position within TEC, and many of your writings in the last few years.  You have been a beacon of hope.

As an Episcopalian, I’m sure you are used to seeing the Presiding Bishop slammed frequently, often without much thought by the person doing the slamming; and most certainly your first impulse is to defend her where she is being unjustly attacked, as you should.  I am also frequently disappointed at the manner in which she is sometimes attacked.

My remark concerning PB Schori was not intended as an ad hominem, which you could reasonably claim were I to be dismissing one of her views based on something that she had done.  I am not even sure whether she was responsible for the CV as published; it could have been published by someone else in the Church, but it was the official material presented for General Convention describing her (see attachment).  So I don’t know whether, on this matter, I have issue with her personally - but most certainly I do have issue with TEC as an institution, and all the institutions which are supposed to regulate TEC’s affairs.

Organizations which claim to hold elections according to due process should not allow dishonesties of this nature to go unchecked, and should at least launch inquiries into such irregularities when they are reported - if only to prevent such irregularities in the future, and to prevent setting a bad example to members - the example of lying on one’s CV in order to obtain a more desirable position than if one had been honest.  I do think that a lack of this kind of transparency entails a lack of moral authority - if not de facto (hardly anyone noticed or cared), at least de jure.  It could be that with the joy at the first woman to be elevated to the position of Presiding Bishop, it was deemed undesirable to check as to how this mistake occurred, given the considerable ideological weight this moment held.  Nonetheless, it reveals an organization more intent upon preserving its public image than one which is concerned with investigating serious electoral fraud - granted, we do not know (since there was no inquiry) whether this fraud was intentional or unintentional.

What’s even more disappointing here isn’t the lack of investigation - it’s that no one seemed to bat an eye at the fact that General Convention had been lied to.  “They lied to us - we elected Schori - who cares?”  Isn’t this rather too close to characterizations of Christians with respect to their religious authorities for comfort?

What makes this worse is the lack of clarity regarding who was responsible.  If it was PB Schori herself, her statements are justly questioned as to which degree she is “re-interpreting” things, given her previous re-interpretation of the position “in charge of some Sunday school programs at church” into “Dean of a school of theology” and the significant deception this entails for anyone reading her CV.  This would not be so much an ad hominem attack, as, if true, a character flaw which is most certainly relevant in judging the likely veracity of statements she makes, if uncorroborated by reliable witnesses.

However, having occurred at institutional level, and remaining so unchecked, we have all the less reason to believe statements coming from the institution as a whole - unless corroborated by reliable witnesses.  And this is sad indeed.  Even when evidence is brought to light showing likely intentional fraud (as was the case here) - no public statement is issued clarifying the error, or how it will be avoided in the future.  So cases of possible fraud which are known to a select few in the house of Bishops are even less likely to be subject to inquiry or critique.

This, I believe, constitutes an important loss of moral authority.

I hope you can understand, though, that utterances coming from TEC’s New York offices or from General Convention are difficult to take at their face value, and it is difficult to unravel what they should be taken to mean, or the degree of re-interpretation to be found in them.

My tone in the above posting wasn’t adequately congenial.  That was a flaw.  I was bringing too much to bear at once ...  One problem is - there are so many outstanding issues here, they all seem so intertwined, one often is tempted to throw them all together willy-nilly.  This happens too frequently on “both sides of the fence,” so the allegations are difficult to deal with in a thorough and respectful manner.

Michael, I think the Communion also let you all down here.  Too often the rest of the Communion sees this all as “that crazy situation over in the United States.”  Our bishops in other provinces could have encouraged your bishops to begin an inquiry into something which, I hope you agree, has serious implications for trust in TEC, in a manner which would have restored a degree of trust more than is now possible, after all this time.  I’m sure our bishops tell porkies from time to time.  But it’s important to go through the investigations to determine how to go forward and save as much trust as we can.

Father Tony, I know for sure that there are still many parishes in TEC where the Word of God is preached and the sacraments rightly administered, and I shudder at how my words could be used to bring them into disrepute.  But as an Anglican involved in ministry, I have too often encountered resistance with the suspicion that I am an unreliable mess, simply because I am Anglican (and I am not even in the United States).  I think that the time is long gone that we should be trying to do “damage control” and neatly sweeping our problems into tidy little piles away from public view - and that we all need to take a more active role in warning others that not all is right in the Anglican Communion - and letting them decide for themselves who they wish to deal with, on a case-by-case basis.  Michael, the current situation in Uganda is most certainly one of the things which is “not all right with the Anglican Communion.”  I have also found that simply admitting this, and explaining our problems, does a great deal to thaw the ice when dealing with people in other churches - and even when dealing with agnostics, who are looking for someone who believes in God, but who is under no compulsion to “re-create” a gospel which is likely to seem more socially acceptable, or “marketable,” than what Christ Himself taught us - whether that be for people “on the right” or “on the left”.

I pray for unity, especially amongst Communion-minded TEC folk, and other Anglicans.  Though I think that for many TEC folk, hope of unity is, tragically, no longer reasonable to hope for.  I hope that the two Tonies here in this thread will someday come together in prayer, though your differences be many.

The original CV: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/PB.Booklet.EnglishFinal.pdf

Ditto in my prayer for those inside AND those outside to be mutually supportive and NOT to deride or cut down the other.  I still take great encouragement from the expression used a long time ago by ++Rowan when he suggest the formation of a group of “confessing” Episcopalians.  That has happened in different ways and sadly with some acrimony.  While I have now withdrawn from the CP group due to a bishop there initiating a lawsuit against a congregation - I support those both inside and those outside TEC.  We NEED to do so.  When in my home state of Vermont during the summer that is what I try to do.  On the other hand I am not willing to support the party line that comes out of TEC as I do believe it to be ungodly and that TEC as an institution has departed the apostolic faith.  There remain within faithful folk who still need pastoring.  Meanwhile we oppose vocally and strongly those “sheep in wolf’s clothing,” who lead astray the flock of God.
BTW the CV of the PB was and is a scandal perpetrated upon TEC.  Thanks for again drawing attention to it.

James Coder - 27 December 2009 05:43 PM

Fr. Tony Clavier,

I am quite convinced that your reasons for remaining within TEC are not “mere expediency” (as you reply to Tony Steel) and have much admiration for yourself, your position within TEC, and many of your writings in the last few years.  You have been a beacon of hope.
....
Father Tony, I know for sure that there are still many parishes in TEC where the Word of God is preached and the sacraments rightly administered,
....
I pray for unity, especially amongst Communion-minded TEC folk, and other Anglicans.  Though I think that for many TEC folk, hope of unity is, tragically, no longer reasonable to hope for.  I hope that the two Tonies here in this thread will someday come together in prayer, though your differences be many.

The original CV: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/documents/PB.Booklet.EnglishFinal.pdf

“Father Tony, I know for sure that there are still many parishes in TEC where the Word of God is preached and the sacraments rightly administered, and I shudder at how my words could be used to bring them into disrepute.”

James, how do you know this for sure?  I served in four dioceses as a priest and was involved in another four dioceses as a layperson.  In none of those dioceses were the orthodox a majority and in all of those places but two you could count the orthodox parishes on one hand, maybe two if you have an elastic view of orthodoxy.

I see no point in trading anecdotal assessments in order to justify one’s calling. I am reminded ofthe squabbles in Cromwellian days between those who went into exile/underground and those who remained in their positions in parishes. Their arguments were pointless, divisive and ultimately destructive.

But I must say that I have much more confidence in God’s grace and power to use Liturgy, Lectionary and Sacrament despite the unworthiness of the parson and is his/her preaching than seems to be obvious in Tony’s responses. (By the way I am not seeking to “unchurch” ACNA!!)

I have seen first hand what reaction, bitterness and “purechurchism” can do and have suffered at its hand.  And in all this, what about the watching world. I would commend, in this context, an essay which appeared on Fulcrum today:http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=497

Tony Steel, I don’t know how many parishes would fit the description that Fr. Clavier gave - though I’d like to know, it would be speculation - there are obviously no direct stastics, and it would be enormously difficult to do a study to find out this kind of thing based on available “signs” - I suppose the best would be some sort of survey given to parishoners, but even such a survey would surely be controversial in TEC’s current situation, with people in Episcopal Life calling for the removal of the creeds from services, and Thomas Woodward, who seems to be TEC’s main apologist, publishing materials to help pastors convince their congregations that “nobody believes all of it anyway” - his methods already pretty slanted by suggesting that the word “Father” be said louder than the rest of the sentence, etc. etc..  What would happen if we found that a significant portion of Episcopalians * did * believe in the Apostolic or Nicene Creed?  Are they being improperly educated and “brainwashed?”  Are they all sexists or literalists?  Etc. etc..  For a simple guy like me, 10 is already “many” and I have no need to speculate beyond this number, I’m happy that there are many.

I know that this is an exceedingly touchy subject - “should I stay or should I go?”  I have tremendous sympathy for both choices.  I like the way you two gentlemen have been discussing this in what I have seen so far.  It’s possible though that even this point ... “to stay or to go” ... is one which shouldn’t be dwelt on too much.  Both Tonies have your own reasons ... some of this also perhaps would be more fitting in private discussions between the two of you, simply since when it’s opened up to other parties - all sorts of new “facts” can be brought to table, new temptations to rhetorical excesses arise, and in forums ... flaming tends to beget more flaming.  Sadly, the Communion is in the midst of a “flaming war,” and is likely to continue along this path for some time.  I hope that Covenant can be a good place for healing amongst all parties, but particularly the Communion-minded ones.

Some sites have already instituted the policy of no-toleration of comments promoting either staying within, or leaving TEC - this is harsh, and perhaps not necessary for Covenant, where dialog is much more serene than on many Anglican sites.  But I think it would be helpful when posting about either the “stayers” or the “leavers” - that we try especially to be sensitive.  Unity between those who stay and those who leave is exceedingly important at this time, for both parties.

I’ve noted that conversations tend to be more serene when discussing church history, the church fathers ... faith, etc. etc., and become more embittered when we come to matters concerning the actuality of the Church.  Our poor church is so embroiled in sin and controversy.

It will be interesting, also, to hear from people here: what helps in this kind of discussion? And what hurts? Are there moments that have strengthened relationships?  I’m a web developer and involved in community sites / social networking sites, in addition to being Anglican, and have a background in philosophy and interest in information architecture and networked social architecture.  I’m sure I could learn from your experiences here.