I am anticipating that dioceses, parishes, and individuals who understand that we are part of the Church universal need to be very mindful that we hold dual citizenship, as Episcopalians and as Anglicans.

As concerned as I or others may be at the predictable acts of this General Convention, it seems to me that neither “leaving”, nor being silent are options, for those of us who are concerned by the theological and communion vectors of the majority of General Convention. We are members of the Episcopal Church, and, if clergy, especially, vowed to that church. We are also members of the universal church, both Triumphant (and they do keep voting and praying) and the Militant and living elsewhere. The serene conviction of those who believe that they are answering the call of the Spirit will itself be tested. Meanwhile, leaving mires us into gridlock, lawsuits and backward looking attempts to deal with a divorce.

The history of the people of Israel and history of the Church are replete with occasions when it seemed that the church had abandoned their roots and the scriptures and, on occasion, tradition. Councils have and will continue to err. God always raises up a response. (Hosea, Amos, Luther, Wesley and Bonheoffer demonstrate that.) We need to wait and witness to the universal character of the church and the consistency of the Scriptures and tradition until He does so.

The temptation is to renounce one of our passports. I am holding on to both passports. It is like being the adult child of parents who are bitterly fighting; I still love both parents, even if I have strong and fixed opinions about one or the other’s behavior and their fixed insistence on the rightness of all their actions.
View the original post

You are touching on the exact point of pain I am feeling.

What if the “bigger” entity (the AC) gives me a replacement passport (ACNA) for the old “smaller” (TEC) entity?

Living with fighting parents is very hard. When they separate and/or divorce, it is very hard. What happens when the custodial parent remarries?

Who gets to decide the correspondences in my analogy to the real world? Is TEC my custodial parent or is the AC?

The Communion Partners, Charlie.  That’s the way to go.

“I looked up unto the hills; from whence cometh my salvation?...”

(BTW, by rector is a CP rector)

Charlie,

from whence cometh my salvation?

The Lord, via the nearest CP Bishop, last time I checked Fond du Lac to the East and North Dakota to the Northwest

I appreciate the image of two passports, but it seems to already buy into the erroneous perception held forth by TEC - namely that there are two memberships, rather than one.  Yet, the Preamble of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church says clearly that

The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer.

I don’t see how one can claim to have two passports, given this sort of constitution.  Rather, one has one passport, that demands a twofold participation: that within the national church, and that of the international communion.  By way of analogy, I am a citizen of the state of Florida, and a citizen of the United States of America.  Yet, I do not have a twofold citizenship, but one: I am a citizen of the USA, whose citizenship is exercised within the geographically determined (and, therefore, arbitrary) borders known as the state of Florida.  If Florida were to secede from the USA, I would have to decide which - Florida or the USA - determined my identity.  A dissolution of the constitution of either renders my loyalties to both null and void, and therefore in need of reconstitution.  It is the same here, I believe.  A fundamental change in the constitution of TEC - one in which the entire Preamble is now rendered null and void - effectively undermines the vows of loyalty that were once pledged.  If one side renegs on an agreement, then that very well may excuse the other from being bound to the original terms.  Examples could be multiplied, but I don’t think it is necessary to do so.  I welcome any critique or correction of my view, and I do wish to point out to all concerned that I am well aware that my own views do not reflect the majority of perspectives held by those in Covenant.  Nonetheless, this seems to me to be the sad reality of the situation.  There are not two passports, but one and only one, which now appears to have been rendered inconsequential, because the terms of the original passport no longer exist - and, therefore, are no longer binding.

I would agree with Ben on this one.  It brings to mind the issue of Quebec’s secession from Canada and the then threatened secession of First Nations people from Quebec to rejoin Canada if Quebec left.  It’s not a case of two passports, there is one passport, and the holder will have to determine which entity holds his or her allegiance.

This goes for the Communion Partners as well.  Within a relatively short time (I would guess), they will be offered the choice by official TEC (unless official TEC gets spooked by a lawsuit based on the constitutional Preamble) if they make the explicit choice to remain connected with the Communion.

Mark my words, once TEC has officially either left or been rendered to a second class status in the Anglican Communion, it will not be very long at all before any claim to Communion membership will be considered to be an “abandonment” of TEC.

I think the 2 passports analogy applies.  TEC has in a very official way distanced itself from the rest of the Anglican Communion, regardless of the claims of desiring some means of continued full participation and recognition therein.  For me, Anglican Communion connections and identity are very important, likewise Episcopal connections and identity—in spite of the deep sorrow I feel for the direction taken by General Convention. James, I note your warning with dread and hope.  I dread the potential reality of your admonition, but have a hope that the supposed non-contentious tenor between the majority and the minority might mitigate that from coming to pass.

I have written some of my thoughts on the problem with TEC and what to do about the apostacy of its leaders at my blog The Deacon’s Slant.

We’ve been here before.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder