Under whose or whats authority was ACNA formed?

I believe the answer is that it is sort of autochthonous.  Then blessed by those from outside who helped those inside by offering covering.

Charlie Clauss - 14 June 2010 04:58 PM

Under whose or whats authority was ACNA formed?

I find this thread fascinating and yet sad.  The inside/outside strategy folk need to be united while following different strategies.  Certainly no church is perfect.  However when the leadership espouse heretical teaching and persecute the orthodox who dissent the question is raised of apostasy.  The oft quoted and readily available teaching of the PB and her bishop allies and many seminary teachers seems to teach a new and different religion than that of the Creeds and Church Catholic.  They may follow traditional formularies and liturgies but the content is different as familiar words and doctrines are promulgated utterly differently from their historical and traditional meaning.

The recent letter form the PB seems fanciful and an unbelievable distortion of the historical record.  Her reinterpretation of history to fit her facts and agenda is horrifying as propaganda.  In a better governed Church she would have been out on her ear long ago - in accord with the 39 Articles.  Now those in error rule the councils of this little branch of the AC.  Those who resisted have found themselves either forced out or in a crisis of faith and practice that requires them to cut ties.  I am so glad that other commentators and threads are doing a great job of making manifest her errors.

ACNA was formed by “us” locals.  It was enabled by those overseas but has become what it was ever intended to be, a home grown alternative to TEC.  I for one am grateful for its recognition as authentically Anglican by the GS.  The same GS folk have largely cut ties with TEC save for the faithful within.  In fact Albany this last weekend endorsed and committed itself as a diocese to the Anglican Covenant so as both to differentiate itself from the majority of TEC’s leadership as well as to say to the rest of the AC that they in Albany are indeed an orthodox part of the AC and want to be recognized as such.  Certainly Canterbury seems willing to do so for which I am grateful.

Ian and Tony, in a sense I’ve been pushed into something of a devil’s advocate role in this thread. I do see ACNA fulfilling one (personal) requirement for a separation which I do not see being fulfilled in earlier “continuing” divisions, for instance; I’m not as opposed to its formation as this exchange would appear to paint me. The part that continues to make me uncomfortable in this is the underlying argument in this that ECUSA is so bad as to authorize almost any negative relationship with it, and on the flip side by the assertion that there is nothing wrong in crating the division that now exists. I’m particularly bothered by that word “apostate”, and it could stand by itself for all the rhetorical excess which issues forth from the members of one party in the conflict. The presiding bishop’s theology is at best muddled, and there are surely clerics in ECUSA whose theology is worse than muddled. Nonetheless the word is inaccurately strong, as of yet. And if one has to resort to that in justifying leaving, then I have to say that the division is not without sin.

Thanks for being so gracious.

Charles Wingate - 15 June 2010 06:30 AM

Ian and Tony, in a sense I’ve been pushed into something of a devil’s advocate role in this thread. I do see ACNA fulfilling one (personal) requirement for a separation which I do not see being fulfilled in earlier “continuing” divisions, for instance; I’m not as opposed to its formation as this exchange would appear to paint me. The part that continues to make me uncomfortable in this is the underlying argument in this that ECUSA is so bad as to authorize almost any negative relationship with it, and on the flip side by the assertion that there is nothing wrong in crating the division that now exists. I’m particularly bothered by that word “apostate”, and it could stand by itself for all the rhetorical excess which issues forth from the members of one party in the conflict. The presiding bishop’s theology is at best muddled, and there are surely clerics in ECUSA whose theology is worse than muddled. Nonetheless the word is inaccurately strong, as of yet. And if one has to resort to that in justifying leaving, then I have to say that the division is not without sin.

In my situation I have simply walked away without cutting the ties.  I am as a missionary overseas resident in another Province but retain residency in TEC (I am sure that this is an anomaly by TEC understandings) and when back visit from one supporting church to another on either side of the “divide.” In fact I have three canonical “citizenships” C of E where I was ordained, TEC where I worked for over 30 years before retirement, and Peru/Southern Cone where I work now.  Hence a desire for more reconciliation between the “insiders and outsiders.”

Meanwhile - the use of the word Apostate.  I believe that it is properly used when talking of one who was Christian but has clearly abandoned the “faith.”  It is the stage beyond heresy.  Because I believe that it applies to persons and not as such to churches as institutions I find that I am compelled to use the word when describing some of the leaders of TEC at this time as well as historically.  Their heresy has taken them outside the boundaries of the Church Catholic, and they promote a different religion. 

As to the institution - the issue for me is the question of its being recognizably Christian.  This in the AC is where the verdict is of other Provinces comes into play.  A number have now broken or live in impaired communion with TEC.  The latter has within it the hope of repentance and return but is also a recognition that there are those in TEC who are faithful - evidence is the ABC’s continued reference to the Communion Partner community.  For those in broken communion the issue is does TEC have the marks of a Church so that it can be recognizably Christian.  The answer is NO in many places.  The issue is not one simply of externals but the teaching and doctrine.  Into this difficult situation comes the NT teaching of what to do with someone who has abandoned the faith, AND how to treat an organization that used to be part of the fellowship but now follows another religion.  Sadly TEC is more and more regarded as promulgating another religion.  Hence the recent treatment of TEC by the ABC in the “faith and order” representation of the AC.  TEC folk are no longer recognizably able to represent the teaching of the AC nor to represent the AC to our ecumenical partners.  This was, BTW, lucidly explained by Archbishop Drexel Gomez at the Diocese of Albany Convention last weekend.

So the question that is being worked on by those way above my pay grade is that of how to deal with the “new religion” of TEC.  It is a Communion matter and as the GS said in Singapore it is a salvation issue.  When the word apostate is used is it a giving up of hope?  I do not think so so long as there is hope of repentance and reconciliation.  Meanwhile the word does aptly and sadly describe a person with whom we should not share fellowship until they repent.  On a practical level this means that I cannot receive communion from or with KJS, until she repents and returns. 

The issue of NT discipline is the stuff for another thread I think.

Ian, I think you and I are not so far apart. One should also consider how Fr. Spike appears in the Screwtape Letters; we have a lot of Fr. Spikes in ECUSA. For my part I think there are also a lot of clerics out there who hang some small faith on Jesus, but who have become so syncretic and/or unitarian that they cannot, as you say, represent the teaching of the church. I wouldn’t call them apostate, but I would say that theirs is a level of heresy that cannot be lived with, as it leads often enough to apostasy.

On the other hand I think there is a very large body of Episcopal clergy who hold to classically orthodox views on almost all other matters, but who are liberals when it comes to sexuality. I suspect that they are the largest single party in the church. The failure of Forrester to gain consents should have been a wake-up call that there are other issues out there through which the Forces of Tradition could regain influence; I have seen stirrings about communion without baptism out there, and I think that this is another issue which could serve as a fulcrum to push the radicals out of the driver’s seat. The kind of extreme rhetoric tossed about delivers the liberal mainstream into the hands of the radicals, because, labelled “apostate”, they have nobody else to go to except those who are effectively apostate.

I think Cantuar is quite right to start separating ECUSA from the communion, and for all his excessive tolerance Williams has been clear that this was coming, sooner or later. We should not be permitted to represent the communion when we are saying that the bonds of the communion mean essentially nothing as far as how we do things. The presiding bishop has in essence proclaimed that we are going to go it alone when it comes to theological process and tradition, so there’s every reason for the communion to say that “alone” really means alone.

Charles and Ian,

“How good and pleasant it is when brothers live together in unity!” (Ps 133:1)

You provide a textbook case of the difference between when a word (apostate) is used in an ill-defined, and perhaps, pejorative way, verses a well defined, clear way. Maybe a forum like this needs a glossary to define words in a common way to avoid misunderstanding.

So the question that is being worked on by those way above my pay grade is that of how to deal with the “new religion” of TEC.  It is a Communion matter and as the GS said in Singapore it is a salvation issue.

This got me thinking that there is no such thing as an “outside” strategy. From a catholic (small ‘c’) perspective, there is only inside.

This is part of the rub about the formation of ACNA, a multitude of problems come together: The TEC “problem” is a *Communion* problem, but the ACNA solution came only from a subset. This is understandable because the fractures in the AC as a whole kept the AC from acting in a united way, and some within TEC needed more immediate help. The ABC has seen more clearly then most the fact that this is a whole Communion problem, but has not, IMHO, seen clearly just how fractured the Communion is (especially TEC). We have lived in this perfect storm for a while now. Are these new moves by the ABC a sign that that time is coming to an end? I hope so!

Bass’ piece (which this thread is about) shows for me just how out of touch many in TEC are with the actual state of affairs. No wonder the ABC’s words caused shuch a reaction.

I brought my copy of Oden’s The Rebirth of Orthodoxy home from the office.  Oden defines apostasty, saying

“Historically, it refers to a (generally massive) falling away from the apostolic truth consensually received.”  p. 135

So, according to Oden, it doesn’t refer to individuals as much as to churches (or institutions that used to be churches).

Tony, I and most of the rest of the world would prefer a definition along the lines given in the Catholic Encyclopedia: “the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself[.]”

Helpful - thanks

Charles Wingate - 15 June 2010 02:10 PM

Tony, I and most of the rest of the world would prefer a definition along the lines given in the Catholic Encyclopedia: “the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion such as Paganism, Judaism, Mohammedanism, etc., or merely makes profession of Naturalism, Rationalism, etc. The heretic differs from the apostate in that he only denies one or more of the doctrines of revealed religion, whereas the apostate denies the religion itself[.]”

So, Charles, given your definition would a denomination that accepts a form of gnosticism as pecusa has done in General Convention or the PB has done in public statements qualify.  I would guess that both definitions get us to the same place when one recognizes the gnosticism of pecusa.

Could you spell out exactly the words in which General Convention made us all gnostics, with a citation?

All gnostics, Charlie?  Isn’t that a bit extreme?  When GC and the PB say that the HS has spoken to them in ways different that to the consensus of worldwide Christendom, isn’t that a form of gnosticism?

I don’t know that I’d accept exactly that representation of what they say, but in any case I do not think that a fault in theological process provides an adequate bridge back to the doctrines espoused in the Nag Hammadi manuscripts.

I just came across Diana Butler Bass’s commentary on “mitregate” here, where she engages in the typical hyperbole / deceit which I think was begun by Jim Naughton, and now, with the crisis getting hotter, is apparently being used by Episcopalian loyalists whom I normally wouldn’t suspect of such - she is describing those who oppose Schori as

[people who do not] want their gay and lesbian friends and relatives to be part of their church communities.

I’ve never met, that I know of, an Anglican who doesn’t want this, and it’s also in blatant disregard of what Lambeth I.10 teaches.  The other descriptions are also not really characteristic of what’s going on in TEC.  I’ve responded here with an article reminding us of the likely election fraud at the PB’s election - since the issue of “honesty” is once again brought before us by TEC loyalists.

This is a great pity.  Diana Butler Bass had seemed a “moderate” voice within TEC, willing to look at some aspects of the church with candour and perspective.  We will probably be seeing more “moderates” shifting position with the extra pressure being put on TEC.  Things are becoming ugly and possibilities of gentleness in dialog are becoming scarcer.