Thanks Karen for the thoughtful reply.  In the end we do what we do on a very Protestant basis.  We are convinced before God, even with our fallibility admitted, that we should do ABC as opposed to XYZ.  We have searched the Scriptures and taken our time of discernment.  I like the fact that many f my friends have taken that time of discernment.  I MUST honor their decisions even if I am not in the same place.  Sadly in the recent years we have taken to sniping at our own.  I want that to stop so we can unite more in confronting the error that started all this anyway.
Blessings from the diaspora.
Ian

Thanks Karen, especially for this, which made me think a lot:

We traditionalists have been known to tell gay believers that obedience to God may be difficult and disagreeable but it’s still what is required of them. IMO, the same thing goes for orthodox North American Anglicans. I imagine the result of such obedience would be a sort of Babylonian sojourn, and many of the exiles would perhaps not live long enough to be among those who eventually return to the “land”, that is, to be part of a restoration of an orthodox province of the Anglican Communion in the US and Canada.

I love the way you are able to think contextually with scripture in your remarks above.

I’m much in agreement with Ian.  I think we need to continue to candidly express our thoughts and concerns about what is going on - also if this doesn’t look very nice for ACNA, CP, etc..  But it’s also important that we dwell on what unity in the body of Christ means for us who are separated across this divide - how can we foster unity between those of us who are still dedicated to a risen Christ - and not “risen Christ” in with the redefined meaning of “teachings regarding liberation became more popular after Jesus’s death because of its rather dramatic unfolding” - or however it tends to be glossed.  How can we pray together more, how can we commune with one another more (not necessarily eucharistic communion), how can we work together more, how can we support one another more in ways that are in accordance with what we feel is true and right?  How can we pray, discuss, minister, and act together, so as to enable us to discern together?  I suppose what we are doing here is already significant.

It’s important also to appreciate the contexts of the others involved here, and respect whatever there is to respect in their positions, and yes, there has been sniping - but I am happy to see the sniping diminish as months go by.

Btw, I like the way you think about tithing in Malachi, but I don’t think we can necessarily map laws regarding the institution of the temple so easily unto the diocese - I think you can have a clear conscience if that 10% is going toward God’s work in whatever ministry you feel called to support.

My perspective is that there is no clear, right decision for catholic Anglicans in North America.  I continue to think that Kendall Harmon’s perspective of a few years ago - that we are ALL in a church under judgment (and he included both TEC and its various offshoots which have since become the ACNA) and we are in exile.  When we are in exile, I see it as being exile from certainty, exile from pride in ourselves, exile from order.  We are being broken by God, and in order to be broken, we must….well, be broken.

A few thoughts on this issue:
1. The reality is that neither TEC nor the Anglican Communion can reasonably claim to be “the” one true Church on earth.  Thus, it doesn’t seem credible to me that one takes a stand that says “no matter what TEC does, you can’t ever leave it because that would be uncatholic.”  The reality is that if one was to credibly adopt such a position, they should become either Roman Catholic or Orthodox.
2. We need to consider what the basic defining unit of the Church is.  It could be the parish, the diocese, TEC or the Anglican Communion.  For example, let’s say that TEC is leaving the AC, but my diocese is leaving TEC to stay in the AC, but my parish is leaving my diocese which is leaving TEC which is leaving the AC….  You get the point.  Who is leaving what, and when does it become the line we feel we can’t cross?  It seems to me that all liberals and many others have decided the basic unit is TEC.  Why?  On the other hand, for many conservatives, the basic unit is the Anglican Communion.  Well, all of these have deep problems associated with them.
3. What is the line that must be crossed which causes us to leave?  To a certain extent, Karen’s distinction of leaving vs. being thrown out is artificial.  If you are “thrown out”, it is almost always because the bishop has decided that you have “constructively” left anyway (i.e. you have taken actions which suggest that you have “left” TEC’s authority).  We are not free to divide whenever the fancy strikes us, but neither are we expected to stay no matter what heresy or apostasy is being taught by our church unit.  I believe that catholic order is meant to serve a larger purpose, and we must never lose sight of that.

From my perspective then, the basic, defining unit of the church is the Anglican Communion, followed by the diocese, followed by the parish.  I owe no allegiance to TEC at all, and was drawn to Anglicanism for its global, catholic character and not because of nationalistic, ingrown, denominationalism.  Once TEC is no longer Anglican, I have no more interest in it.  However, as I mentioned before, there are problems with all of the options.

In an ideal world, a Communion would have clear disciplinary procedures to be used when a church like TEC decides to ignore communal discernment and the catholic faith.  But such procedures do not exist here.  Instead, it seems to me that the Anglican Communion is entering into a Dark Age of sorts in which it will become a paper tiger sort of federation.  In other words, the system is broken.  Accordingly, I think that there is merit to argue that since TEC hasn’t officially been replaced, catholic Anglicans should remain within it.  On the other hand, I think there is equally as much merit to argue that as the trajectory is that TEC will leave the AC, catholic Anglicans should join with the ACNA as representative of the future.  However, there is also again as much merit to suggest that both the ACNA and TEC are acting with far too much “autonomy” instead of “accountability” so that both are part of the problem.

So my belief is that North American Anglicanism is a mess.  We are in the process of being broken down.  I do believe that the end result is that we will be formed into something better (and this might not be in our lifetimes) but in order to get from here to there will involve discomfort.  Right now, the library where I work is undergoing a serious renovation which is taking place in phases.  Old parts of the library are being shut down and torn apart.  Temporary pathways are being made and re-made through the construction zones.  Some of the new areas are sort of done, but put to a temporary use until the whole project is done.  This is how I see North American Anglicanism right now.

It is not so important to come up with the clear bright line solution for North American catholic Anglicans, because there is no such thing.  Rather, we need to keep in our mind the vision of a newly renovated North American Anglicanism and what characteristics ought to be present therein.  Then, whether we remain in TEC or join the ACNA, work within those organizations to see that the appropriate values, decisions, etc., are instilled or made in order to further that goal along.

Ian Montgomery - 15 May 2010 11:55 PM

(snip)Meanwhile the orthodox cannot be “shooting” at each other.  (snip)

Ian Montgomery - 16 May 2010 11:03 PM

(snip)Sadly in the recent years we have taken to sniping at our own. (snip)

Asking for further details or clarification is neither sniping or shooting. I was trying to understand the basis for ACNA’s actions, but I fear the same thing is happening as when I asked two other, (and now former) Episcopalians why they had decided to convert to Roman Catholicism. They told me the things that had led them in that direction, and the more they told me, the less convincing I found it. Either I could not explain clearly the problems I saw with their reasoning, or they could not explain clearly the answers to my objections. Further questions only led to frustration on both sides.

Maybe James is correct and there is no right answer, but I keep thinking there should be some guidance in church history. During the controversy over Arianism, there must have been individual orthodox laypersons whose priests were Arian, and orthodox priests whose bishops were Arian, who needed guidance. What did the Church Fathers of those days advise them to do? Or, what did they do, and what was the outcome?

Karen

James Wirrel - 17 May 2010 01:58 PM

(snip) 1. The reality is that neither TEC nor the Anglican Communion can reasonably claim to be “the” one true Church on earth.  Thus, it doesn’t seem credible to me that one takes a stand that says “no matter what TEC does, you can’t ever leave it because that would be uncatholic.”  The reality is that if one was to credibly adopt such a position, they should become either Roman Catholic or Orthodox.
2. We need to consider what the basic defining unit of the Church is.  It could be the parish, the diocese, TEC or the Anglican Communion.  For example, let’s say that TEC is leaving the AC, but my diocese is leaving TEC to stay in the AC, but my parish is leaving my diocese which is leaving TEC which is leaving the AC….  You get the point.  Who is leaving what, and when does it become the line we feel we can’t cross?  It seems to me that all liberals and many others have decided the basic unit is TEC.  Why?  On the other hand, for many conservatives, the basic unit is the Anglican Communion.  Well, all of these have deep problems associated with them.(snip)

I think however that we are arriving at a point where both TEC and the Communion, and perhaps also GAFCON/ACNA, will be claiming to be The Real Anglicans. Within the context of Anglicanism, I think that is a question which can be answered correctly or incorrectly, although some of the wrong answers may be less wrong than others. It also seems to me that if Anglicanism really is part of the Church Catholic, those who answer rightly will be moving toward, and those who answer wrongly will be moving away from, the Church. And, if the Covenant does increase the potential for closer ties between the Anglican Communion and other parts of the Church Catholic, that will be even more the case (assuming it’s adopted.)

When I wrote that I lean toward thinking that obedience to God requires remaining in place unless & until kicked out, I meant that’s what I think is required in the current situation, which is that at this time, TEC is the Anglican Communion in the US; but if the relation between TEC and the Communion changes in the future, what actions are required by obedience to God could also change. So I don’t mean that it would be un-catholic to leave TEC under any circumstances whatsoever, but that I lean toward thinking it is so at this time. What I have been leaving unspoken is that I am looking at all this through Anglican lenses. I know for sure that I’m not a Roman Catholic; I don’t believe what Roman Catholics believe. I don’t know whether I believe what Orthodox Christians believe, but in practical terms, the Orthodox Church isn’t an option for me—I’m planning to relocate in a few years and I don’t believe there is an Orthodox parish anywhere close to where I’m going. Of course there is always the possibility that God will knock me endways on the road to Damascus, but barring unforeseen occurrences of that nature, I won’t be swimming either the Tiber or the Bosporus. What I am trying to learn is, what catholic ecclesiology is and how it applies in an Anglican context—if the mere idea of applying a catholic principle to something that isn’t the whole Church is not an oxymoron.

Dear Karen
I was not directing any comment at you.  I apologize for giving that impression.  I was commenting on the sad fact that within this blog there is “sniping” between those who have left and those who have not.  For instance I do not ever call myself a catholic Christian, simply orthodox.  I am an evangelical nurtured in a Calvinist, Zwinglian and later charismatic part of the Church of England.  I now work in a very Catholic country and have served in some very Catholic dioceses.  The issues are Apostolic, orthodoxy, Biblical.  I have friends on both sides of the leaving question and some in the middle.  My plea is for them to be mutually supportive as they labor side by side.  The situation can get very testy!  For me it is about faithfulness to Jesus, faithfulness to Scripture and being led by the Holy Spirit.

Meanwhile you ask to understand ACNA’s actions.  I would simply say that these are essentially Protestant.  God gives us, nay often demands, our protests and these may be ones that lead to separation from institutional heresy and apostasy.  It is not that we are perfect but that we are to pursue holiness.  Meanwhile the Church is more the “body of Christ” worshiping in Spirit and Truth wherever it finds itself.  It is ecclesial but not institutional, if that makes sense.

Again, I apologize if I seemed to be critical of your questioning.  The opposite, we MUST question.  We need information.  Meanwhile it was and is a plea for the orthodox within and without TEC not to get so much on each others case.  None of us are perfect.  Meanwhile TEC is leading people into grievous error.  There is a salvation set of issues at stake.  As Jesus castigated the Pharisees for leading the “little ones” astray, so we MUST speak out.  I rather like the concept of the"Balaam’s Ass Society!”  WE PROTEST!

Meanwhile we are a people in exile.  Strangers in what used to be our home.  BUT at home with Jesus, because nothing shall separate us.

Ian, in Lima