20 May 2009. Vigil of the Ascension

Dear Bishop Duncan,

I thank you for your invitation to attend as an observer the inaugural Provincial Assembly of the Anglican Church in North America, which is to gather in Bedford, Texas, from June 22nd to 25th. I congratulate those who will assemble on their movement out of the Episcopal Church. Whatever else we agree or disagree about, we believe that that movement is correct.

Those of us who left the Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion a generation ago believe that the ordination of women was then the central problem in the Canterbury Communion. The notion that women can receive the sacrament of Holy Orders in any of its three parts constitutes, in our view, a revolutionary and false claim: a claim false in itself; a claim destructive of the common ministry that once united Anglicans; and, finally, a claim productive of an even broader and worse consequence. That worse consequence is the claim that Anglicans have authority to alter important matters of faith and order against a clear consensus in the central tradition of Catholic and Orthodox Christendom. Once such a claim is made it may be pressed into service to alter any matter of faith or morals. The revolution devours its children. Many of the clergy represented at GAFCON and now joining the ACNA seem to us to accept the flawed premise and its revolutionary claim in one matter while seeking to resist the application of the premise in the matter of homosexuality. This position seems to us to be internally inconsistent and impossible to sustain successfully over time.

In brief, then, we would suggest that the only sound basis for Continuing Anglican life is something akin to that already established in the Affirmation of Saint Louis with its clarity concerning the subordination of all Anglican authorities to the central tradition of Christendom.

We make this suggestion with a strong recognition of our own personal and ecclesial failures. But the failure of the Continuing Churches to unite and grow sufficiently does not at all alter the cogency of our observations about your own fundamental principles. Our own history teaches us that anything other than clear agreement on all significant doctrinal issues at the outset will lead eventually to division and decline.

To put matters another way, already now at the beginning of your enterprise, your dioceses and bishops are only in a state of impaired communion with each other. Some of your bishops do not recognize the validity of the priestly ministry of a significant body of clergy in other dioceses. Such divisions and problems at the beginning will not resolve themselves in time, but rather will grow. Ambiguity, or local option, or silence cannot undo the damage of essential disagreement concerning Holy Orders and authority in the Church.

In summary, then, we see in the ACNA the fundamental alterations in traditional Anglican faith, worship, order, and practice that led to the formation of our own Continuing Church in 1978. We would be glad to establish conversations with your ecclesial body in hopes that you may, having freed yourselves of the Episcopal Church, continue further on the same path by decisively breaking from a corrupt Anglican Communion and by returning to the central tradition of Christendom in all matters, including the male character of Holy Orders, the evil of abortion, and the indissolubility of sacramental marriage. We recommend to your prayerful attention the Affirmation of Saint Louis, which we firmly believe provides a sound basis for a renewed and fulfilled Anglicanism on our continent.

We suspect that any Anglican body that permits the ordination of women, or otherwise fails to return to the central tradition of Christendom, will soon move from what we might call neo-Anglicanism, which is already removed in ministry and worship from classical Anglicanism, and will eventually merge into the general stream of evangelical Protestantism. While faithful Protestantism of that sort is far preferable to what the Episcopal Church has become, it is not the Catholic Faith which we hold, it is not the Anglicanism that formed us, and it does not seem to us to have a bright future.

We have already communicated with persons in the ACNA about the Anglican Catholic Church’s prior use of the name you have adopted (ACNA). We are certain that this matter can be successfully resolved to our mutual satisfaction, but pending such resolution we do note our prior use.

I fear that this letter in response to your kind invitation may seem somewhat abrupt. I do not mean it to be such. I wish instead to indicate clearly that our first principles seem to be very different. A fruitful dialogue would need to begin with those principles, and the plans outlined in your letter for the Bedford meeting do not seem to encompass such fundamental questions. I would be happy, however, to assist in the establishment of such dialogue in the future if the ACNA is not wedded to its position on the ordination of women and the authority of Anglican bodies to alter matters of faith and order.

With all good wishes, I am,

Faithfully yours in Christ,

(The Most Reverend) Mark Haverland, Ph.D.

Acting Primate, Anglican Catholic Church
View the original post

Hi,

While I certainly disagree with Archbishop Haverland’s theology, I respect his consistency and his boldness in stating it to ACNA.  I have mentioned this same inconsistency regarding ACNA as well, although not nearly as articulately as Archbishop Haverland has done in this letter.  I recall a few months back that Bishop (or is it Archbishop now?) Duncan had sent a letter to the Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church informing him of the move to break from the Episcopal Church.  The Archbishop replied affirming that move and, if I recall correctly, assuming that women were not ordained.  To Bishop Duncan’s credit, he wrote back to clarify that women are ordained in some dioceses of this new “province”.  I believe that ended that dialogue.

For a group that is basing its existence on doctrinal purity, ACNA simply has to address this glaring contradiction.  Unfortunately for those women in Holy Orders who have chosen to leave TEC for ACNA, I don’t think the outcome will be helpful for them.  They will find the scope of their ministries narrowed further and further.  I suspect that ACNA will not continue to ordain women as it is so problematic for them.  If they do, then they will crumble.

In Christ,
Shawn

The best part of Haverland’s note is the suggestion that ACNA stole the name!  This is just the first bit of how these schismatics will bite and devour each other.  It will be very entertaining to watch.Like all splinter groups the only thing they really know how to do is splinter.

I had to read the letter twice to be sure it was not a prank!

I’m glad you are amused, Michael. I find it terribly sad all around.

I cannot say that I find it to be necessarily “amusing”, but at the same time, I cannot help but wonder how it feels for one of the ring-leaders of the “purity” crowd to have that “purity” brought into question. Needless to say, Bishop Haverland did take Bishop Duncan down a peg or two.

Scott is indeed correct, as it is terribly sad for all concerned. Once TEC is taken out of the equation, their need for dissention and strife turn inward as they begin to splinter further and further. I am afraid this is only the preface to many more chapters to come, and that is indeed sad.

Michael Russell - 09 June 2009 12:47 AM

It will be very entertaining to watch.

Dear Fr. Russell,

There are those who likewise find it “very entertaining” to contemplate the predicted continued slide of TEC into the oblivion of a dead denomination. Even as a layperson currently in the process of seeking acceptance into the Catholic Church, I would be embarrassed, if not actually ashamed, to unrepentantly express or hold such a view. There are souls at stake, on both sides of the issues. I would hope and pray that both I and you, as brothers in Christ, would be granted the grace of God and the humility to recognize that we do not know with absolute certainty God’s will in these questions, and to express that humility in our words and actions, irrespective of any differences in our working hypotheses on the questions at hand.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

Hi,

No, I can’t say it will be entertaining.  I’m especially concerned for two groups of people, the average parishioner and the priests who are women.  I think the average parishioner was fed a line of ______ that if they didn’t vote to leave TEC, then they would end up being kicked out of the Anglican Communion along with TEC.  Well, now the exact opposite has occurred, which I predicted oh so many years ago.  The ACNA is not recognized by the Anglican Communion…is a LONG way from even beginning that process…and I predict will not get recognized by the Anglican Communion (and by the Anglican Communion, I mean those people in communion with the See of Canterbury….which may or may not include GAFCON in the near future).  So, in essence, their very fears have come true.  They are not part of the Anglican Communion.

Now, it is possible (and I think highly likely now…didn’t think this a few years ago…but things are changing) that we will have a big split down the middle in the Anglican Communion with the CoE, TEC, ACoC, New Zealand, Scotland, etc. on one side and GAFCON on the other side.  If folk wish to define the “Anglican Communion” as the GAFCON side, then they may choose to believe they are still members of the Anglican Communion.  That’s not only possible but probable I think.

I’m also concerned for the women of the Diocese of Pittsburgh and CANA.  (I think those are the only two “dioceses”/groups that ordain women in ACNA.)  Their scope of ministry has shrunk considerably.  I have a sense that they will be slowly pushed out and replaced by men.  I just don’t think Bishop Duncan and “Bishop” Minns are going to be fighting the fight for women’s ordination among their own ACNA membership.  We’ll see though.

In Christ,
Shawn

I’m not amused, but I’m not surprised either. The inability of the various continuing churches to unify indicated beforehand that, however ACNA was constituted, they weren’t going to be a part of it.

I have long thought that the churches of those who leave ECUSA over purity issues will prove to be fissiparous and will fracture again and again over other issues. The failure of the “Continuing Church” movement to be united was inevitable, although I would have been glad if unity had been achieved.

Keith Toepfer - 09 June 2009 01:43 PM

Michael Russell - 09 June 2009 12:47 AM

It will be very entertaining to watch.

Dear Fr. Russell,

There are those who likewise find it “very entertaining” to contemplate the predicted continued slide of TEC into the oblivion of a dead denomination. Even as a layperson currently in the process of seeking acceptance into the Catholic Church, I would be embarrassed, if not actually ashamed, to unrepentantly express or hold such a view. There are souls at stake, on both sides of the issues. I would hope and pray that both I and you, as brothers in Christ, would be granted the grace of God and the humility to recognize that we do not know with absolute certainty God’s will in these questions, and to express that humility in our words and actions, irrespective of any differences in our working hypotheses on the questions at hand.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

The better evidence is that the decline in membership among all American Churches has to do with the a rather prevelant view that Christianity as practiced in America is mean spirited. The decline in TEC can be as much attributed to the ongoing conflict as it can to the positions of TEC.  It is sad that conservatives fail to hear the message of books like “unChurched” which communicate a view from the 18-29 age group identifying Christian practice as mean, narrow and homophobic. 

Why am I entertained? Why do I find it amusing?  Oddly enough it is because I believe people’s well being is at stake and one of the ways to turn them from erroneous paths is to watch the panderers of such paths have their plans unravel in such ironic ways.  Realigners, who have presented themselves as morally and theologically superior first cherry picked the foreign bishops they would associate with based in who gave them the best deal.  So the divorced and remarried clergy, for example, had to find a foreign bishop who would accept their status.  Nigeria, for example, would not.  Now we discover a second grand irony, that those they seek an alliance with will now tell them that their own behavior is scandalous because they ordain women. 

Add to that that they haven’t replaced TEC in the WWAC and won’t; that their claims over property are collapsing; and you have to wonder how long they can hide all this from those in the pews they have misled to believe that there would be a grand realignment.  Perhaps this will begin to give them a clue.

So now the Common Cause folk are starting to pick at the former TEC folk. No news there. People whose existence is based in judging others incorrect or insufficiently pure will always devour one another.  Frankly, the faster their pretensions of grandeur crash and burn the better off it will be for those in their pews who have been so poorly led. 

I grieve for the wasted resources in a world with so much need. But frankly, no souls are at stake here since all the people in the conflict actually still share one thing: that in Christ we are saved, not in the structures of the church.  I do not cast the realigners from the faith as they have done with so many faithful Episcopalians; I believe they are sincere in thinking they are doing the right thing.  That error, however, does not send them to hell, unless it is the hell of Sartre or Cammus: the other people they choose to hang around with.

Daniel Weir - 10 June 2009 11:17 AM

I have long thought that the churches of those who leave ECUSA over purity issues will prove to be fissiparous and will fracture again and again over other issues. The failure of the “Continuing Church” movement to be united was inevitable, although I would have been glad if unity had been achieved.

Fissiparous is such a perfect word!  I have introduced it to many people as the best designator for the realigners.

From everything I’ve read about the Ridley-Cambridge proposal, it only postpones the inevitable. As of yet, no one has an answer to how to handle gay marriage/ordination other than banning the “local option”. At some point down the road, a standard will be needed. I agree, unilateralism of ECUSA is the immediate problem. But it goes deeper. Ephraim Radner identifies the issue with a deformed gospel that removes ‘repentance’ from ‘communion’, i.e, the radical “theology of affirmation”. TEC has a lot to answer for, and an unequivocal accounting must be given at some point in time—either from ECUSA or Canterbury. If not, GAFCON will leave. Indeed, there is little to be amused about. We are looking at a very grave situation for all concerned. The irony of Haverland’s letter is that Continuuers along with ACNA both fall into the general stream of ‘divided’ Protestantism. There is no innocent party.

I am a member of the continuum. However, I have high hopes for article 4. Perhaps departed Methodists along with ACNA/Continuum/REC/APA will be able to find a way back. The Continuum has much to share with TEC/ACNA. I believe we have all suffered by the abridgment of past standards. Taken as a whole these would include Chicago Quad, BCP 1928 (or earlier), Articles, two Testaments, Creeds, ecumenical councils of first millennium, the summas of our reformation divines, the See of Canterbury, and the Crown. Perhaps there are other symbols of unity and faith, but these come first to mind. In a conciliar church where there is no central authority, constitutional documents are needed.

Charles Bartlett - 10 June 2009 12:56 PM

From everything I’ve read about the Ridley-Cambridge proposal, it only postpones the inevitable. As of yet, no one has an answer to how to handle gay marriage/ordination other than banning the “local option”. At some point down the road, a standard will be needed. I agree, unilateralism of ECUSA is the immediate problem. But it goes deeper. Ephraim Radner identifies the issue with a deformed gospel that removes ‘repentance’ from ‘communion’, i.e, the radical “theology of affirmation”. TEC has a lot to answer for, and an unequivocal accounting must be given at some point in time—either from ECUSA or Canterbury. If not, GAFCON will leave. Indeed, there is little to be amused about. We are looking at a very grave situation for all concerned. The irony of Haverland’s letter is that Continuuers along with ACNA both fall into the general stream of ‘divided’ Protestantism. There is no innocent party.

I am a member of the continuum. However, I have high hopes for article 4. Perhaps departed Methodists along with ACNA/Continuum/REC/APA will be able to find a way back. The Continuum has much to share with TEC/ACNA. I believe we have all suffered by the abridgment of past standards. Taken as a whole these would include Chicago Quad, BCP 1928 (or earlier), Articles, two Testaments, Creeds, ecumenical councils of first millennium, the summas of our reformation divines, the See of Canterbury, and the Crown. Perhaps there are other symbols of unity and faith, but these come first to mind. In a conciliar church where there is no central authority, constitutional documents are needed.

(bold emphasis added)

The gay marriage issue is simple to solve.  Permit it and move on, letting time test the spirits.  I disagree with Dr. Radner’s view quoted above that TEC has removed repentance from communion and replaced it with affirmation.  What it has done is to disagree with Dr. Radner about what it is that must be repented.  But in general it has also eschewed the sort judgmentalism that characterizes the conservative world.

It has also stepped away from the sort of purity demands made by the realigners in favor of a sense of living in tension as we journey together. What is true is that an impasse has been reached over a number of significant issues and we are unlikely to see those resolved.

That is why Dr. Radner and others promote the punitive path. They have not persuaded by the force of their argument so all that is left is an attempt at power playing. GafCon does the same.  If they leave, they leave and are welcome to each other.  It is sad, but it is their choice to schism and abandon the tension of discourse on these impasses. 

Than GafCon has not yet left is simply an indicator that for all their numbers, they do not have the capacity to leave and sustain themselves.  Section 4 of the Ridley Draft is yet another desperate attempt at some punitive format and as a way to change the power equation by “defining in” authority which the fictive four instruments were never intended to have.

I will say again that an International Constitution and Canons is the best way to go.  The Anglican Covenant is a dead document.

But in general [TEC] has also eschewed the sort judgmentalism that characterizes the conservative world.

While judgementalism is a bad thing, TEC has also abandoned a sensible position of discernment about theology (the Thew Forrester case being a hopeful counter-example).

And as an evangelical, I feel TEC’s judgmentalism towards evangelicals. Replacing one kind of judgmentalism (a ‘blue collar’ kind?) with a different kind (elitist?) is not progress.

That is why Dr. Radner and others promote the punitive path.

You advocate a punitive path with regard to the illicit taking of property when a group leaves TEC.

I will say again that an International Constitution and Canons is the best way to go.  The Anglican Covenant is a dead document.

An International Constitution and Canons is a great idea, but without some kind of intermediate step like a Covenant, there is not the level of trust needed to do that kind of work.

{TEC]has also stepped away from the sort of purity demands made by the realigners in favor of a sense of living in tension as we journey together. What is true is that an impasse has been reached over a number of significant issues and we are unlikely to see those resolved.

This seems to be the key thing: How do we restore the possibility of living together in these tension?

Charles,

I don’t see the defending of TEC property rights as punitive. Litigious, perhaps, but not punitive.

Charlie Clauss - 10 June 2009 02:30 PM

But in general [TEC] has also eschewed the sort judgmentalism that characterizes the conservative world.

While judgementalism is a bad thing, TEC has also abandoned a sensible position of discernment about theology (the Thew Forrester case being a hopeful counter-example).

And as an evangelical, I feel TEC’s judgmentalism towards evangelicals. Replacing one kind of judgmentalism (a ‘blue collar’ kind?) with a different kind (elitist?) is not progress.

That is why Dr. Radner and others promote the punitive path.

You advocate a punitive path with regard to the illicit taking of property when a group leaves TEC.

I will say again that an International Constitution and Canons is the best way to go.  The Anglican Covenant is a dead document.

An International Constitution and Canons is a great idea, but without some kind of intermediate step like a Covenant, there is not the level of trust needed to do that kind of work.

{TEC]has also stepped away from the sort of purity demands made by the realigners in favor of a sense of living in tension as we journey together. What is true is that an impasse has been reached over a number of significant issues and we are unlikely to see those resolved.

This seems to be the key thing: How do we restore the possibility of living together in these tension?

Sorry Charlie, but when people take what is not theirs it is fair to do what is needed to get it back.  You seem to acknowledge it is illicit.  Would you not pursue criminal or civil recourse against a treasurer who embezzled from your parish?

There has been 30 years of discourse on this issue, which seems sufficiently acceptable to me.  Since we have no central curia to “authorize” theology, exactly what else in this realm has TEC stepped away from?