Daniel,

You speak of impatience, but don’t you see that it has been the impatience of the progressive wing of TEC that has cause the majority of reactions?  Start with the illegal ordination of women and then the ordination of men and women who are sexually active outside of marriage and then the blessing of relationship in which the members are sexually active outside of marriage.  Add to that the high profile cases of bishops openly denying basic doctrines (such as the existence of God or the incarnation or the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection) without discipline or comment and you have a great recipie for “impatient” reactions.

Note that the “border crossings” didn’t start until after the Righter decision in which the trial court basically said that living a life of unrepentant sin was no bar to ordination because there is nothing in the creeds (e.g. core doctrine) that speak about sexual activity.

It is a law of physics that actions will generate an equal and opposite reaction.  In politics, the reactions are often greater than the original actions.

If TEC wants to stop “impatient” actions by the rest of the communion and by the conservatives within it, then it needs to redress the impatient actions that started the whole mess.

I say that we should return to the status quo ante where no public blessings of same sex unions are performed, no openly gay priests or bishops are allowed and we then agree to follow the resolutions of our own general convention where we said that we would not move forward on these issues until the rest of the communion had come to a different conclusion.

If TEC can’t stop its own impatient actions, then why should the rest of the communion?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Charlie Clauss - 10 February 2010 04:15 PM

TEC’s spin will be interesting, but conservative spin so far has already been interesting - basically “the vote is meaningless.”

Certainly there is no legal consequence of the vote. HOWEVER not all are so dismissive and this reflects the spectrum of ACNA.  Some care not a whit about Canterbury or the Communion at this point others still care deeply and want a restored and biblically renewed Communion.  Those who care not a whit seem to me often to have been the most hurt by the TEC persecution/prosecution.  My point is that this is an assurance that ACNA folk are not cast out into utter darkness by the “mother church” as they feel they have been by the TEC/815 leadership.

I am delighted by Archbishop Duncan’s public response.  For him this is far from meaningless.  I believe he speaks for ACNA very well.

Interesting developments today re S. Carolina in responding to these 815 tactics.  I am sure that they too are heartened, as am I. This means that 815’s activities have been noted.  I wonder if +++Rowan will have a serious conversation with the PB before she flies home having failed in her mission to derail this synod discussion and resolution.

Phil Snyder - 10 February 2010 04:20 PM

Daniel,

You speak of impatience, but don’t you see that it has been the impatience of the progressive wing of TEC that has cause the majority of reactions?  Start with the illegal ordination of women and then the ordination of men and women who are sexually active outside of marriage and then the blessing of relationship in which the members are sexually active outside of marriage.  Add to that the high profile cases of bishops openly denying basic doctrines (such as the existence of God or the incarnation or the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection) without discipline or comment and you have a great recipie for “impatient” reactions.

Note that the “border crossings” didn’t start until after the Righter decision in which the trial court basically said that living a life of unrepentant sin was no bar to ordination because there is nothing in the creeds (e.g. core doctrine) that speak about sexual activity.

It is a law of physics that actions will generate an equal and opposite reaction.  In politics, the reactions are often greater than the original actions.

If TEC wants to stop “impatient” actions by the rest of the communion and by the conservatives within it, then it needs to redress the impatient actions that started the whole mess.

I say that we should return to the status quo ante where no public blessings of same sex unions are performed, no openly gay priests or bishops are allowed and we then agree to follow the resolutions of our own general convention where we said that we would not move forward on these issues until the rest of the communion had come to a different conclusion.

If TEC can’t stop its own impatient actions, then why should the rest of the communion?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil,

Although it seems that I wasn’t clear, I am concerned about the lack of patience across the board. Perhaps the misperception is because it has been conservatives here and elsewhere who have been looking for quick fixes. To return to the status qou ante would not only mean reversing decisions made by TEC, e.g., the ordination of the Bp of NH, but the return to TEC of all those who organized ACNA and the resignation from the episcopate of all the bishops ordained for ACNA and its predecessors. Clearly that is not going to happen.

Daniel

Tony Seel - 10 February 2010 01:54 PM

David Virtue reports that the ACNA has been recognized by the General Synod. From VirtueOnline:

A spirited debate by the Church of England Synod saw the newly formed Anglican Church in North American recognized by all three houses – bishops, clergy and laity in an overwhelming vote.

The final vote was 309 in favor, 69 against and 17 recorded abstentions.

The following is the final draft of the resolution.

“That this Synod aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America, recognize and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican church in North America (ACNA) to remain within the Anglican family; 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 invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.”

comment: This obviously isn’t a done deal, but I would think that it is heartening to the ACNA.

It is intersting that the original resolution expressed the desire of the Synod for CofE to be in communion with ACNA. The final version says something more tentative. I am actually pleased that the Synod has left open the question of ACNA’s membership in the Communion. It is a question that needs careful consideration and passing the original resolution - or refusing to consider the question - would have been a mistake.

It is interesting that the original resolution expressed the desire of the Synod for CofE to be in communion with ACNA. The final version says something more tentative. I am actually pleased that the Synod has left open the question of ACNA’s membership in the Communion. It is a question that needs careful consideration and passing the original resolution - or refusing to consider the question - would have been a mistake.

Daniel - There seems to be a lot of confusion about the initial motion and subsequent amendment.  The initial motion, if passed, would not have decided the ACNA’s place in the Communion, nor would it have been authoritative as to whether or not the CofE was in communion with the ACNA.  I would suggest that the CofE is actually already and currently “in communion” with members of the ACNA - at least informally so (and I think that the language of the amendment reflects this - see my comments below).  However, aside from this fact, the initial motion simply spoke of the “desire” of Synod to be “in communion” with the ACNA.  Given my suggestion that (at the very least) a significant proportion of the CofE is “in communion” with a significant proportion of ACNA members, and that the initial motion simply expressed the “desire” of Synod that something be which already arguably is, the initial motion was less useful then many conservatives seem to have thought.

The amended motion is also, I think, much more important then many people think.  This resolution was always ever going to be “symbolic” in nature.  Parsing it out legally is of little use, because neither this motion nor the original one was going to make the ACNA part of the Anglican Communion.  The CofE Synod simply did not have that authority.

The resolution which was passed makes some important points:
1) The Synod indicated it is “aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada”.  This is very significant language.  Synod recognized what is going on in North America as a split WITHIN the “Anglican churches”.  How would the 815 leadership frame the issue?  They would say “distress caused by recent schismatic actions prompted by foreign bishops interfering in TEC.”  The Synod has framed this issue very positively for ACNA.
2) The Synod “recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family”.  Much is being made that it is only the ACNA “desire” that is being “recognized” and “affirmed” but I think that this mistakes the import of this declaration.  The terms “recognize” and “affirm” are not neutral terms - they imply a positive quality.  The motion did not say that Synod “acknowledged” the desire, but rather “affirmed” the desire.  If your daughter brought home a suitor and you met with this gentleman, and at the end you said “well, I recognize and affirm your interest in my daughter.  Let’s see how this relationship develops over the next six months”, the clear indication is that of tentative approval.  If you said “well, I acknowledge your interest…”, the indication is one of neutral or uncertain tolerance of the relationship, but not necessarily positive approval.  If you said “well, I recognize your interest, but my daughter isn’t dating right now”, the indication is one of rejection.  The CofE Synod chose to be positive.

I see this statement as saying basically “we are not rejecting you.  We’d like to continue a relationship with you, but we need to study this further and see how things shake out.”  Realistically, this was all that the Synod could really do.  I think that folks don’t seem to realize that this motion could have been shot down, there could have been a motion critical of the ACNA, or this motion could have been passed with very neutral language towards the ACNA.  None of this was done.

What we need to understand in Anglicanism is that we are in a fluid situation.  We will not move from black-and-white situation to black-and-white situation, but rather we have moved from black-and-white to dark grey to medium grey to light grey to white, etc.  It was always very unrealistic to think that this motion would have resulted in the ACNA being authoritatively brought into normalized relations with the CofE.  Rather, we need to look at what movement and in what direction this development represents.  That such a significant majority of the CofE Synod voted on a basically positive response to the ACNA is pretty amazing.

Amen James.

Growing up in England I see the nuances are all there but get lost on most in the US who want to dissect this legally.  The support is huge for ACNA as well as distaste for 815.  This reminds me of the vote on Lambeth 1.10 in 1998 which has never been accepted by the “progressives” who have parsed it to death and in spite of all the ABC and most of the Primates regard it as the authoritative mind of the AC.  They are also aware of how the “progressives” have manipulated a so called listening process to mean the opposite of what was intended.  I am thrilled by today’s actions, as are ACNA.

The point that many overseas Anglicans, and emphatically that is the case in Australia, are in practical communion with ACNA (and other para-Anglican bodies) reflects a long-standing view that the Body of Christ is a somewhat different concept to denominational membership. While always describing themselves as ‘local Churchmen’ Anglican Evangelicals (including many American bishops such as William Jones Boone of China, have not had difficulty in working closely with non-Anglicans up to sharing the Eucharist. I believe the same general principle has applied, at local and personal level, between Anglo-Catholics and Roman Catholics.

We cannot anticipate that ‘recognition’ of ACNA will be accomplished any time soon. There are so many correlates, such as the ‘recognition’ of the ‘Church of England in South Africa’ that remain unsettled. The Anglican Diocese of Sydney has been a firm friend of the CESA for near enough to a century and Australian Anglicans are active in that church. Sydney Synod has already passed a proACNA resolution that has largely been ignored.

The CofE General Synod resolution is a step on a long road that the Covenant is meant to pave smoothly but I am not optimistic that, governed as we are by our understanding of original sin and highly divergent interpretations of Scripture and ecclesiology, that we should look for a happy outcome any time in the near future.

Whoops. I wrote ‘local churchmen.’ I hope folk will read that as ‘loyal churchmen.’

I have found the various forms of spin about the Synod’s action interesting. I believe that the resolution as adopted is, in a very polite way, an expression of the unwillingness of the Synod to pass any judgment on whether or not ACNA should be admitted to the Communion. An attempt to add an expression of the Synod’s desire that the CofE be in communion with ACNA to the amended resolution falied, as did a motion to recognize the orders of clergy in ACNA. By my count, that was three times that the Synod voted against any kind of expression of a desire for CofE to be in Communion with ACNA. That,of course, does not mean that many members of the CofE have such a desire and already consider themselves to be in communion with ACNA. What I think it means is that the “middle” held and that those who wanted the original resolution to pass and those who wanted nothing to pass did not prevail. It is interesting to note that the day before the vote, Lorna Ashworth who presented the original resolution said that she would be unhappy if the expression of desire for CofE to be in communion with ACNA was not included in the resolution that was adopted. I suspect that in spite of how hopeful the resolution may be for ACNA Mrs. Ashworth is not at all happy with the Synod’s action.

Daniel:  Interestingly, your take on the CofE’s ACNA resolution sounds very similar to the “spin” that seems to be making the rounds on the liberal blogs.  I find this whole thing very interesting.  Let’s consider some things:

1) It was known prior to this vote that it was almost certain that the Bishop of Bristol’s amendment would be successful…yet TEC nevertheless sent a strong delegation (including the PB) to lobby against the overall motion.  Then, when it is passed, we are told that the motion actually undermines the ACNA.  Uh-huh.
2) Similarly, the ACNA had a lot of lobbyists there to lobby for Ashworth’s original motion and against Bistol’s amendment (though the Bishop of Bristol himself stated that he viewed his amendment as being favorable to the ACNA).  The amendment passed, and the ACNA official spin machine still lauds the passed motion as an “affirmation” by the CofE for it.
3) The liberals in the CofE worked hard to have both amendments defeated.
4) Some of the bishops supporting the Bristol amendment have demonstrated quite clearly that they already regard themselves as being “in communion” with some members of the ACNA.
5) Since passage of the amendment, liberals have adopted the new “spin” that the resolution is negative for the ACNA and they are joined by several of the more “impatient” ACNA members who were not actually in England.  However, the ACNA lobbyists who were at Synod, all unanimously regard the resolution as a victory for the ACNA.
6) There have been some reports that ACNA supporters in the CofE Synod are somewhat bemused at how the more impatient ACNA supporters see this resolution as anti-ACNA.  Apparently, most pro-ACNA members of Synod view this as an ACNA victory.

So what are we to make of this?  First, that Americans tend to view everything through American glasses.  I think it is a serious error to look at the ACNA motion simply as a piece of legislation.  The original Ashworth motion would have had no legislative effect, and neither did the passed resolution.  Had the ACNA wanted to be recognized as “part of the Anglican Communion” then it would not have applied to the English Synod. 

Second, I think that there is confusion about what being “in communion” means here.  I would suggest that the CofE is already “in communion” with most of the ACNA, but that that does not imply that they necessarily consider the ACNA to be part of the “Anglican Communion.”  I didn’t really get this distinction until later myself (think TEC being “in communion” with the ELCA and how that might affect the ELCA’s status as being in the Anglican Communion).  Let me be clear here, many people thought that the original motion said much more then it actually did.  And that’s not even pointing out that the original motion merely stated the Synod’s “desire” to be “in communion.”

Third, I think that there was some concern that things be done in an orderly fashion.  I have great sympathy for the ACNA, and were I ever to be ordained to serve in North America, I would almost certainly do so via the ACNA.  But having said that, I think that the ACNA is simply NOT yet ready to be recognized as a “province” in the Anglican Communion, and that it would be a mistake for other provinces to treat it as such.  Hence, I think that there was some perfectly justifiable concern on the part of Synod against making anything “official” until some more homework was done.

Fourth, I think it is interesting that the word “affirm” is being denigrated by both liberals and impatient conservatives, so that it is not seen as meaning “to support or uphold the validity of; confirm” as per the dictionary definition, but rather is suggested to be a mockery of the ACNA.  Sources on the ground at Synod say that after viewing the lobbying by both the ACNA and TEC, and seeing the evidence, most Synod delegates became much more positive towards the ACNA.  Thus it is suggested that the fact that Synod passed a motion supportive of the ACNA really means something.

So, in the end, I think it really quite silly to dismiss this motion as somehow representing Synod’s decision to “reject” the ACNA.  The evidence shows that had Synod wanted to do that, it would have supported the several liberal motions to kill any resolution.  On the other hand, it is also clear that Synod was not yet willing to call for an immediate and official recognition, they pointedly did not do so.  What seems to have happened is that Synod has recognized the deep divisions that have occurred in North America, and has indicated that it “affirms” the desire of the members of ACNA to remain in relationship with the CofE, and has asked the CofE’s leadership to look into the specifics of this and report back.

This is clearly no win for TEC or the liberals.  Nor is it the leap-frogged immediate recognition that some impatient conservatives wanted.  But all in all, I would say that this was a significant breakthrough for the ACNA.  Of course, all of this depends on what comes next, and many commentators fail to understand this.  My analogy is this - I have become out of shape and I need to start running as the first step to getting back in shape.  One evening, my wife says to me “tomorrow you need to get up early and go running before breakfast.  Will you agree to do it?”  I refuse to guarantee that I will go running, but nevertheless I set my alarm clock to go off early so that I can.  This is what the CofE Synod did.  They didn’t outright recognize the ACNA, but they took the necessary steps to get the ball rolling in that direction.

In the end, as with so many other things, Rowan Williams will need to process this request and he will end up pulling the strings so that his desired result will come to pass.  But he has been asked to begin the process.

By the way Daniel, I would like to affirm your contributions to Covenant (using the word “affirm” in a positive sense ).  Although we often have differing interpretations on things, I nevertheless always appreciate your respectful and thoughtful contributions.

There is to be an interview tomorrow, Feb 14, on BBC1 1:00 p.m. GMT. where we can hear what she has to say.

Daniel Weir - 13 February 2010 11:24 AM

I suspect that in spite of how hopeful the resolution may be for ACNA Mrs. Ashworth is not at all happy with the Synod’s action.

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=23139  I look forward to hearing what she has to say.  I am expecting her to be pleased with the result at Synod as I am - contrary to the TEC spin which I count to be delusional.

Four points for clarification:

1. Of course my comments are as much spin as anyone’s, although I think that I have summarised the Synod’s actions correctly.

2. I only took Mrs. Ashworth at her word. She may well have had a change of heart and be satsfied with the final resolution. It is interesting to note that although everyone knew about the prospects of the amendments, Mrs. Ashworth said the day before that she had no idea what amendments would be offered.

3. One feature of being in communion is the recognition of the validity of one another’s orders. That recognition has been witheld for ACNA by the Synod for the present. As I wrote earlier, there are many in the CofE who consider themselves to be in communion with ACNA, but that is not the official position of the CofE.

4. Even though Mrs. Ashworth’s resolution failed, I believe that the resolution that was passed leaves open, wisely,the possibility of a positive decision in the future. I think it was too soon for the Ashworth resolution to pass, and I admit that I would rather not have ACNA in the Communion. However that is chiefly due to my sense that ACNA may not want to be in the Communion if TEC is, and I don’t want TEC out of the Communion. If it were to pass that both ACNA and TEC were member Churches of the Communion, I would accept that.

The question of validity of orders has to do with a few issues.  First, what provinces recognize the depositions of pecusa - the majority don’t.  Second, what provinces would accept an ACNA clergyperson for ministry in their province?  I don’t know the answer to this one, but it will come up at some point.  I am sure that there are other issues as well; these two seem to me to be good reality checks.

...there are many in the CofE who consider themselves to be in communion with ACNA, but that is not the official position of the CofE.

and

The question of validity of orders has to do with a few issues.  First, what provinces recognize the depositions of pecusa - the majority don’t.  Second, what provinces would accept an ACNA clergyperson for ministry in their province?  I don’t know the answer to this one, but it will come up at some point.  I am sure that there are other issues as well; these two seem to me to be good reality checks.

Both very good points.  And I think that they point to the reality that the situation in the Anglican Communion right now is fluid.  Change doesn’t happen overnight, and this is where both the TEC liberals and the impatient conservatives have trouble seeing things clearly.  Daniel is quite correct that the CofE Synod chose not to explicitly recognize ACNA orders as CofE policy (though I think that such a decision would have been ultra vires the Synod anyway, though I am open to being corrected on that point).  And Tony is quite right that TEC’s purported “depositions” of ACNA clergy have not been recognized throughout most of the Communion, including the CofE.

Thus, it is (in my view) extremely short-sighted to simply analyze the Synod motion in terms of its immediate legal effect.  Rather, you need to look to the longer term trend.  Right now, I think the trend seems to be this:  TEC’s purported depositions are becoming increasingly not recognized by the Communion at large, and if Glasspool is made a TEC bishop, then TEC orders will become increasingly not necessarily recognized by the Communion at large.  On the other hand, ACNA orders are recognized by the majority of Anglicans worldwide, and there is now movement in the CofE towards such recognition there.

I admit that I would rather not have ACNA in the Communion. However that is chiefly due to my sense that ACNA may not want to be in the Communion if TEC is, and I don’t want TEC out of the Communion. If it were to pass that both ACNA and TEC were member Churches of the Communion, I would accept that.

Thanks for your honesty here, Daniel.  I think you hit upon a good point.  My theory is that Rowan Williams will try for the latter scenario of keeping TEC in the Communion, but also trying to keep the ACNA connected somehow.  I doubt Rowan will facilitate the ACNA’s recognition, but I doubt that he would pull too many strings to block it either.  However, I do think that the long-term trajectory is for TEC to self-select itself out of the Anglican Communion if it fails in its first attempt to transform the Communion into a western-dominated Federation.