ACNA motion is ‘not attack’ on TEC
Feb 9th, 2010 by David
From Christianity Today:
The Bishop of Winchester has said a motion asking the Church of England to affirm it is in communion with the Anglican Church of North America is not an attack on The Episcopal Church in the US (TEC).
The motion, put forward by Lorna Ashworth, is to be debated on Wednesday by General Synod, the Church of England’s governing body.
It asks Synod “to express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”, founded last year by breakaway conservative Anglicans angry over the liberal shift in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada.
The Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, a signatory of the motion, said it was the right question to bring before Synod, meeting this week in central London.
“It is important Synod has the opportunity to understand the good and godly life of ACNA and the ways in which God is using it at present,” he said.
“I don’t see it as an attack on TEC or the Anglican Church in Canada but an opportunity to be positive about ACNA and celebrate its presence and intentions, and to stand with it through its future.”
The bishop said a vote in favour “doesn’t affect anything” but would serve to inform the Archbishop of Canterbury when he responds to any formal requests in the future.
He said he was not aware of any attempt by TEC to stop the motion coming before Synod.
Ms Ashworth said the motion was “not about requesting formal processes” but rather fellowship and communion and “standing by brothers and sisters in Christ for the sake of the Gospel”.
Bishop David Anderson, President of the American Anglican Council, added that an expression of desire to be in communion would be “heartily received” given that ACNA now had more members than 12 provinces in the Anglican Communion, including those of Scotland, Wales and the Southern Cone.
He said: “We desire as close a relationship as possible and to keep that tie as real and present as we can.”
The Bishop of Winchester has said a motion asking the Church of England to affirm it is in communion with the Anglican Church of North America is not an attack on The Episcopal Church in the US (TEC).
The motion, put forward by Lorna Ashworth, is to be debated on Wednesday by General Synod, the Church of England’s governing body.
It asks Synod “to express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America”, founded last year by breakaway conservative Anglicans angry over the liberal shift in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada.
The Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt, a signatory of the motion, said it was the right question to bring before Synod, meeting this week in central London.
“It is important Synod has the opportunity to understand the good and godly life of ACNA and the ways in which God is using it at present,” he said.
“I don’t see it as an attack on TEC or the Anglican Church in Canada but an opportunity to be positive about ACNA and celebrate its presence and intentions, and to stand with it through its future.”
The bishop said a vote in favour “doesn’t affect anything” but would serve to inform the Archbishop of Canterbury when he responds to any formal requests in the future.
He said he was not aware of any attempt by TEC to stop the motion coming before Synod.
Ms Ashworth said the motion was “not about requesting formal processes” but rather fellowship and communion and “standing by brothers and sisters in Christ for the sake of the Gospel”.
Bishop David Anderson, President of the American Anglican Council, added that an expression of desire to be in communion would be “heartily received” given that ACNA now had more members than 12 provinces in the Anglican Communion, including those of Scotland, Wales and the Southern Cone.
He said: “We desire as close a relationship as possible and to keep that tie as real and present as we can.”
We all know that this is not a direct attack on either TEC or ACoC, but both of these organizations will see it that way. They both will lobby hard to prevent any recognition of ACNA and ANiC. Which shall come accross as being being very unchristian.
Frankly it would be very nice for ACNA to be granted full Provincial Status within WAC. But let us keep in mind that what really matters is being a One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Only in that way shall ACNA be a Church in the eyes of God.
ACNA is indeed a church in the eyes of God. The ACoC and TEC continue to try and enforce their apostate positions and in doing so will quickly, if they have not already done so, lose any claim to be a “church in the eyes of God”. The true marks of a Church demand two mandatory conditions:-
1. Acknowledging the uniqueness of Jesus Christ, and
2. Accepting the authority of Scripture.
In the Diocese of New Westminster we have a so-called bishop who denounces both.
Hello Frank (2)
I would suggest that the two mandatory conditions that you list are covered by the second Mark of Faith (Holy). If not, than they are most certainly covered by the preceeding parts of the Nicene Creed (”We/I believe in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Father…”, “We/I believe in the Holy Ghost…He has spoken through the Prophets…”)
But we must also have the other three Marks of Faith. We must be One Church (united in our Faithfulness to God and accepting of Jesus Christ as our “leader”). We must be a Catholic Church (in the sense of the word used in the 4th century meaning open to everyone, anyone can join). We must be an Apostolic Church (meaning that our Priests and Bishops can trace the succession of thier authority all the way back to the Apostles who were delegated their authority by Jesus Christ).
I’m sorry but Lorna Ashworth’s motion is not welcome. The Network has broken away from the Anglican church in much the same way as the Anglican Catholic Church did in the 1970’s.
What I don’t get is if you consider the ACC to be an apostate church why would you want anything to do with it.? If you loath it so much then leave? Do what the Anglican Catholic Church did. You are free to go. I’m not trying to sound hostile but if you don’t like TEC or the ACC why try and maintain the bonds of affection?
I suspect you are a bit put off that you can’t take the buildings that you were stewards of with you, but those buildings or only held in trust by successive generations to be passed on to the next.
The ACiNA is a new denomination not in communion with Canterbury. But the Vatican has opened it’s door wide…
#4: How can you interpret Lorna Ashworth’s motion as something you can welcome or not welcome? She isn’t talking to you or the ACC or TEC.
Irena, how low brow.
She is speaking to me. Lorna wants official recognition of a breakaway sect to the Anglican church in the eyes of the worldwide Anglican communion.
I’m confused. Why would you want to be a member of the communion if you are hostile toward some of the members? This makes no sense.
Okay let me get this rright. You take exception to local option: a position that essentially creates a sort of two tiered church - one that allows a blessing the other that forbids it. But when that doesn’t pass the test, you break away from that church in a funk but still want to be part of the communion along side the very brothers and sisters who you just broke ranks with. This makes no sense!
Lorna’s motion cannot pass as it will undermine the ACoC and TEC.
Don’t you get it? You’ve founded your own cosey denomination. That’s it. I feel like saying something in vain - but then I’d get into trouble - but i sense a real lack of sincerity here.
#6 said: “Lorna’s motion cannot pass as it will undermine the ACoC and TEC.”
I say with great sorrow that TEC and ACC have undermined themselves. I pray to God for repentance in these ecclesial bodies for the sake of the elect who remain, for whatever reason, within them.
Local option doesn’t work because the priest would have to send a same sex couple to a church that would marry them, which indicates, if not a tacit approval, at least aknowledgement that SSB is an “agree to disagree” issue amongst Christians, as WO is. That’s not acceptable.
We want to remain in fellowship with the worldwide Anglican Communion that haven’t revised themselves into oblivion. Does that make it a bit clearer for you?
We aren’t a breakaway sect. The ACoC and TEC are the ones who have broken away. We made new structures in order for us to remain Anglican and recognizably Christian.
Seems to me that Eph3:20, is, much like the trol from Grand Falls-windsor, Nfld. having the same impact as Randy had….. Eph3:20 is just that, A TROL, nothing more and nothing less.
It seems to me that the esteemed moderators give thought to monitoring his comments more closely and indeed, deleting some.
1. The original motion itself is not an attack. But the background paper provided in support of the motion is an all out assault. To speak of the motion as though the viscious and deceitful slander sheet had nothing to do with it is morally and intellectually dishonest.
2. Interesting comment from Gerry(10). Eph3:20s comments are hardly inflammatory, yet Gerry wants him banned as a troll. Nice to see that there are others here who don’t want to see their blog go the way of StandFirm and TitusOneNine where dissent is forbidden.
Malcolm, you are seeing slander where there is none. What exactly in the background paper do you think is slander? I’ve even provided a whole new post, have at it.
Macolm, I recently got “beaten up” on Stand Firm, but your comment about “dissent is forbidden” is a lie. If you choose to argue with the majority position you need a thick skin, but you have grossly mischaracterized Stand Firm. Only those who engage in personal attacks or slander others get the boot from what I’ve seen. Please point me to a liberal Anglican blog/forum that permits the level of dialogue and exchange that you have enjoyed on this blog. I could only imagine what things would be like if you ran a blog.
He does, actually, click on his name.
For No. 11 - Malcolm+
From his identification I must assume he is a bishop, active or retired. Yes indeed the background paper to the motion may have been an attack but the time has long since passed for senior clergy to attack - if that is the word you want to use - the apostasy that currently reigns within the ACoC. It is time for the clergy and laity to place their faith in our Lord and Saviour and not in the church. The church cannot be a Christian church if it insists on trading the God of the Scriptures for political expediency and social acceptance. If you are true to your vows you will take a position on the front lines on the war against apostasy.
No, bishops sign with the cross in front of their names. Malcolm is a priest.
There was a time in this fair land when a man was titled “Priest” WYSIWYG. Sadly Kate, no more.
As with Elvis, we left the building. But until we see there is nothing left to save we must remain spiritually bound to our roots. Thanks to people like Malcolm that link is being stretched ever more taut. It will reach a point (if not yet) were St. Paul’s warning to Timothy will apply; “From such turn away”.