From here:

Communion Partner Response to the Consent for Consecration in Los Angeles

It is with profound sorrow that we, the Communion Partner Bishops and Rectors, express our deepest regret to our brothers and sisters in the Anglican Communion for the action of the majority of the diocesan bishops and standing committees of the dioceses of The Episcopal Church in voting to consent to the consecration as a bishop of a woman living in a sexual relationship outside Christian marriage. Unfortunately, where restraint was respectfully requested by the leadership of the Communion, it has been ignored. Where the General Convention has counseled study of the Anglican Covenant, this action has rendered that counsel moot.

Therefore, we disassociate ourselves from this action and grieve the state of separation that exists in The Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion. This separation is a witness to the need for the Anglican Covenant as the means through which dioceses and congregations in The Episcopal Church can affirm their commitment to the Anglican Communion.

The Rt. Rev. John C. Bauerschmidt
Bishop, Diocese of Tennessee

The Rt. Rev. Peter H. Beckwith
Retired, Diocese of Springfield

The Rt. Rev. William C. Frey
Assisting Bishop, Diocese of the Rio Grande

The Rt. Rev. Francis Gray
Retired, Diocese of Northern Indiana

The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe
Bishop, Diocese of Central Florida

The Rt. Rev. Edward S. Little
Bishop, Diocese of Northern Indiana

The Rt. Rev. William H. Love
Bishop, Diocese of Albany

The Rt. Rev. Russell E. Jacobus
Bishop, Diocese of Fond du Lac

The Rt. Rev. Paul E. Lambert
Bishop Suffragan, Diocese of Dallas

The Rt. Rev. D. Bruce MacPherson
Bishop, Diocese of Western Louisiana

The Rt. Rev. Michael G. Smith
Bishop, Diocese of North Dakota

The Rt. Rev. James M. Stanton
Bishop, Diocese of Dallas

The Communion Partner Rectors’ Advisory Committee

The Rev. Dr. Charles D. Alley
Rector, St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church
Richmond, Va.

The Rt. Rev. Anthony Burton
Rector, The Church of the Incarnation
Dallas, Texas

The Very Rev. Anthony Clark
Dean, Cathedral Church of St. Luke
Orlando, Fla.

The Rev. Dr. Russell Levenson, Jr.
Rector, St. Martin’s Episcopal Church
Houston, Texas

The Rev. Brooks Keith
Rector, Church of the Transfiguration
Vail, Colo.

The Rev. Leigh Spruill
Rector, St. George’s Episcopal Church
Nashville, Tenn.

View the original post

Although this statement is brief, it appears to express much of what I suspect a number of us are thinking.  As much as I personally like Mary Glasspool, I cannot but be saddened at the pretense of making her a bishop in the Church Catholic, particularly given how this further divides TEC and finalizes the split with the Communion.  The statement is correct in noting that this action renders any study of the Covenant moot.  Pretending to sign on simply won’t mean anything and I think it clear the TEC cannot do so - and any other signatories cannot accept TEC’s having done so - with any validity.  This is a sad event and TEC’s leadership cannot pretend to be catholic in any meaningful sense. 

I’m curious to see what dissociation from this action will look like.  Will it be possible for a faithful remnant within TEC to remain in communion with a covenanted Anglicanism or will we all be tarred with the same bush?  Will ACNA begin to loom as a more plausible body for those of us interested in properly catholic communion? What becomes of Catholic Anglicanism in light of this schismatic action?  Thoughts?

I suspect that, as things move forward, that the Anglican Communion will start to recognize only those dioceses in TEC that do not bless SSUs, do not ordain people sexually active outside of marriage and who withhold consents (or at least the dioceses where the Bishop withholds consent) from consecrations of people sexually active outside of marriage.

Eventually (it may take years) the Communion will only accept clergy or people from the Covenant communion dioceses for positions within the Anglican Communion bodies - such as the ACC or Lambeth or the Primates’ meeting.  Any bishop or person from a non-compliant diocese will simply not be seated if named a delegate. 

TEC, of course, will not put up with this and will start to withdraw financial support from the Communion as a whole.  After a while (and I suspect by 2018 or 2021) TEC will remove the clause about membership in the Anglican Communion from its preamble.  Thus the Anglican Communion will not “kick TEC out” but TEC will gradually withdraw until its support is nominal at best.

Eventually, TEC will continue to wither and lose membership and funds.  Even if it wins all the lawsuits, the sale of the property will only keep TEC alive for a while longer.  Eventually, the retiring clergy will far outnumber the active full time clergy paying into the Pension Fund and it, too, will dry up to pay the promised allotments.

Sometime around 2050 or 2060, TEC will be a small church with active congregations only in major cities with concentrations on the coasts and people will wonder how this happened.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Fr. Snyder - I suspect that you’re pretty much correct with regard to the general direction of TEC.  It would be shrinking anyway as its experiment in catholicism without a magisterium has pretty much always doomed it to be an odd combination of chaplain and handmaid to the surrounding culture, one which embraces Christianity as much due to inertia as conviction.  As the inertia ebbs, decline is inevitable.  I am not convinced, however, that a complete collapse of confidence in the Christian intellectual tradition amongst TEC’s leadership, such as we have witnessed over the past few decades, was inevitable.  I would like to think it just a phase - that as some of our seminaries get their house in order (the emergence of Duke would seem hopeful; some of the others - Sewanee and Berkeley perhaps? - may recover from an extended “silly season” of incoherence and intellectual unseriousness), our current round of seemingly unsure and poorly formed clergy do only moderate damage to otherwise orthodox parishes (limiting their influence to half-hearted political agitation and self-indulgent non-sermons but otherwise leaving the unwashed laity to be formed by the magnificent words of the prayerbook) until better trained people can assume their place, that enough bishops (the unfortunate habit of political liberals to believe their own propaganda is a two-way street after all) actually believe their continual nattering about “inclusiveness” (which concept is obviously a far cry from catholicity) and leave orthodox parishes to continue on with orthodox clergy and that in the long run a recovery is made that focuses not just on good citizenship - seemingly the chief desideratum of the current episcopal majority - but of Christian seriousness, at least in those dioceses not wholly dominated by urban and coastal elites.  And yes, I think you are right that the only growth available to the politically very liberal, protestant-by-default, vaguely Trinitarian spiritual boutique that most of TEC is likely to become will be in urban areas and mostly on the coasts.  There will always be a small minority of both the homosexual community and its ideological enablers that will want to feed its sense of spiritual need.  Both groups will continue to be small, but sizeable in relation to TEC.  And we should not discount the possibility of some spiritual good done by even so warped a version of Christianity. It’s certainly possible that God worked through Marcionite Churches in the lives of recovering pagans in an earlier time.  Such a thing would not seem impossible in our day.

Meanwhile, the fate of orthodox parishes will be an interesting, albeit likely a painful, one.  I think the scenario laid out above an unrealistically rosy one that underestimates the corrosive effect of political ideology, the spiritual fecklessness of the laity, and the depth to which TEC has sunk in its fatuous idolatry.  There is also the fact that Americans are poorly prepared to understand either catholic communion or covenantal vice contractual thinking.  I suspect that inertia will carry orthodox parishes for a time but that Christian believers with any confidence in the Christian revelation will continue to drift away as TEC’s leadership continues its current habit of substituting worship of the God of Israel with that of the Civil Rights Movement.  This idolatry will not stand for long, but there’s no guarantee that it won’t drag TEC down with it.  Then again, there’s always hope, which of course, is not the same thing at all as optimism.

Of course civil rights are, by definition, the rights of citizens vis a vis the state. There are no civil rights as such within the church. On the other hand, I believe that the church was on the side of the angels during the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s. Moreover, I pray that the church would uphold and defend the civil rights of LGBT folk wherever the state attempts to deny those rights. Part of our problem all along has been pretending that the so called “rights” of LGBT folk within the church (to marry and be ordained)are analogous with the civil rights of African Americans during the civil rights movement. Black folk have been discriminated against because they are black. Being black is not a behavior, it is a given of being. LGBT folk may also be LGBT because they are born that way. The church has not condemned that. The church has condemned behavior that is clearly proscribed in Scripture and in the teaching of the Church for over 2,000 years.

One wonders however, in light of our attitudes toward divorce and adultery, why we have chosen this particular behavior as a ditch we wish to die in.

It is the ditch that pecusa is willing to die in; those of us who have left have done so for a number of reasons.  Sexuality was the presenting issue but there are plenty of other issues as well.  Issues like Christology and soteriology, for example.

What kind of organizational structure will exist for those in Dioceses recognized by Canterbury? Will they join together to form a new Episcopal Church? Where will they get their clergy from? Who will train and ordain them? There won’t just be a difference in Canterbury, there will be a difference in the U.S. too. If they are recognized and TEC is not or a lesser status, will they then become the franchise? Will it align with ACNA? Lots of questions.

Dale I think we have to sit lightly on “organizational structures”. One of the failings of the orthodox in the past three decades has been to concentrate on structure, and these structures have almost inevitably developed into rival jurisdictions.

  In this high tech age, it is possible for us to return to earlier missional methods, to proclamation and evangelism and allow structural forms to develop from the Gospel rather than containing the Gospel within the structure. Relationships, rather like those established as first the Evangelicals and then the Anglo Catholics established in their revivals, will energize and sustain the faithful. Parishes, groups, dioceses will relate to each other and the Communion not in the form of rival structures to canonical order but rather as supportive engines of mission and revival.

It was obedience to the Great Commission which created the forms and structures of the Church Catholic. Our pattern should emulate the great movements within the Church which brought new life to things old. It is a tragedy that we have adopted as our template the form of revival which was accompanied by schism rather than those which revived the church. We perhaps need a good more of the Franciscan spirit than that of Geneva.

Tony, 

Dale I think we have to sit lightly on “organizational structures”.

Is this another way of saying that you don’t believe structures will emerge or that you don’t want to discuss the possibility?

I am saying that “content” must drive structure and not the other way round.  We cannot know how God will use faithfulness to the Great Commission until we exhibit trust in His purposes and become active agents of those purposes. If we squander our energies on creating the vehicle without determining the purpose of the vehicle and the route it is to travel, we will inevitably construct a refuge instead of a vehicle.

Tony,
I think this is a prophetic insight you have stated. Vision must precede structure. Our Diocese (Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin)is looking at this now. There is also a need to reexamine the role of all of the Orders in the church from the Role of Bishop to the lay order. The ACNA has reemphasized the role of the lay order in the church. For me, it is tending the roots while others want top growth with church planting.

Of course should the C of E begin blessing SSB’s, a likely outcome of the various laws in motion and a fact on the ground already, then what?  It will be laughable to have the ++ABC suggest sanctions for a province or parts of a province whose actions will be little different from those in his own church.

Fr. Tony Clavier - 21 March 2010 05:35 PM

Dale I think we have to sit lightly on “organizational structures”. One of the failings of the orthodox in the past three decades has been to concentrate on structure, and these structures have almost inevitably developed into rival jurisdictions.

  In this high tech age, it is possible for us to return to earlier missional methods, to proclamation and evangelism and allow structural forms to develop from the Gospel rather than containing the Gospel within the structure. Relationships, rather like those established as first the Evangelicals and then the Anglo Catholics established in their revivals, will energize and sustain the faithful. Parishes, groups, dioceses will relate to each other and the Communion not in the form of rival structures to canonical order but rather as supportive engines of mission and revival.

It was obedience to the Great Commission which created the forms and structures of the Church Catholic. Our pattern should emulate the great movements within the Church which brought new life to things old. It is a tragedy that we have adopted as our template the form of revival which was accompanied by schism rather than those which revived the church. We perhaps need a good more of the Franciscan spirit than that of Geneva.

It depends on what we mean by “structure.” Things like provinces and general conventions and so on are indeed unimportant. But the principle of one bishop in one place is a part of Sacred Tradition as surely as anything is. (I don’t mean that it’s equally important, but that its historical credentials are clear.)

Edwin, one bishop/one locale is a great principle in principle.  However, we have one pecusa bishop, one R.C., and one Orthodox overlapping locales as well as the oft-mentioned overlapping of Anglican bishops in Europe and other places.  We also have the instances in Sacred Tradition of heretic bishops and orthodox bishops claiming the same jurisdiction which seems a whole lot closer to the present crisis in Anglicanism than the hard and fast principle of one bishop/one locale.

Tony+ et al., I am enjoying this thread as I spend 2 weeks of “hols” back in Vermont.  The quote below Tony needs a comment.

Fr. Tony Clavier - 21 March 2010 05:35 PM

Dale I think we have to sit lightly on “organizational structures”. One of the failings of the orthodox in the past three decades has been to concentrate on structure, and these structures have almost inevitably developed into rival jurisdictions.

  In this high tech age, it is possible for us to return to earlier missional methods, to proclamation and evangelism and allow structural forms to develop from the Gospel rather than containing the Gospel within the structure. Relationships, rather like those established as first the Evangelicals and then the Anglo Catholics established in their revivals, will energize and sustain the faithful. Parishes, groups, dioceses will relate to each other and the Communion not in the form of rival structures to canonical order but rather as supportive engines of mission and revival.

It was obedience to the Great Commission which created the forms and structures of the Church Catholic. Our pattern should emulate the great movements within the Church which brought new life to things old. It is a tragedy that we have adopted as our template the form of revival which was accompanied by schism rather than those which revived the church. We perhaps need a good more of the Franciscan spirit than that of Geneva.

I agree that structure MUST follow mission.  In theory this should work.  However there are two polarities at work.  The first is the desire to leave and we have seen that in operation.  The second is the desire to force out people from TEC. 

Some who have left to create another structure(s) have done so for reasons that I shall call purity.  Others have left because their diocese made life intolerable and “forced” them - I think of demands for financial support of heresy, or “loyalty oaths.”  Usually these folk who have left find them selves in a situation where both these questions are very real for them.  On the second polarity is what we have already seen as the “intolerance” shown towards those who dissent from the majority on matters that the AC is at a different place from TEC, such as Lambeth 1.10 and the recent GC resolutions.  I call it a form of totalitarianism.  It is the same totalitarianism that was exhibited when repealing the conscience clause re. WO.

The result Tony is that I have no faith in TEC allowing for conscience or dissent on attitudes to homoerotic behavior, attitudes that are founded on Scripture and upheld by the AC.  In other words as TEC continues its course of “fatuous idolatry” (thanks Dan Muth+) away from the AC those who are AC minded will be isolated, if not further proscribed. 

I suggest that an escape plan is in order.  The alternate jurisdiction such as ACNA may well provide a meaningful place to start conversation even if one does not wholly approve of its formation.  I do not trust Canterbury to provide such an escape, but then I believe that Canterbury is doomed.  We shall see - I may be wrong.

Tony+,

I must say that I would feel better about ACNA, AMiA, et al, if they were to adopt a more traditional relationship of bishop to a geographical area as the norm. While I acknowledge there might be exceptions to that rule, e.g., +Sandy Millar as a Suffragan of Uganda to serve Alpha Course-influenced churches in Britain, Whitby established geographical boundaries for dioceses as the norm for England and its spiritual children.

I could accept for a short time the overlapping jurisdictions of the REC as they are attempting to come back into relationship worldwide Anglicanism, but I really see no warrant for Rwandan and Ugandan and Nigerian and Kenyan Anglican jurisdictions in the United States. That they cannot work out a more historic way of organizing their jurisdictions, namely to establish geographically-based dioceses, shows their inability or unwillingness to work together. It also amounts to bishop choosing rather than being truly under the authority of a bishop. And, of course, AMiA has a tenuous relationship with ACNA and seems to be a special case within ACNA where what applies to the rest of ACNA doesn’t necessarily apply to AMiA.

In our own several county area we have churches under the jurisdictions of Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya, and Southern Cone. Is that either honoring to God or respecting traditional Anglican and Catholic ecclesiology? If they cannot work together at this nascent age, how in the world do we expect them to cooperate as their organizations become more entrenched? It may be that none of them really wants a geographical basis to their dioceses, but that does not seem very Anglican to me.

I know of a bishop in one of these jurisdictions that met with the vestry of one of our congregations in a vestry member’s home because he did not want the bishop, my bishop, to get wind of the fact that he was meeting surreptitiously with one of our churches who were considering leaving the diocese. And this man claims to be a friend of my bishop? Doesn’t sound very honorable to me.

Anglicanism has historically valued good order in how we order our common life. The ecclesiology that ACNA and AMiA are exhibiting does not seem to live into that value at this time. All of this is to say that there is a lack of righteousness on both sides, and it is all grievous to the soul.