From the Journal:
A proposal to separate The Episcopal Church (TEC) in the U.S. from the rest of the Anglican Communion has been rejected by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion in London. Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, told the Anglican Journal that he finds this decision “encouraging” and a step towards healing.
In a recent meeting, the committee decided that such an action, proposed by committee member Dato Stanley Isaacs of South East Asia, “would inhibit dialogue and… would therefore be unhelpful.” The proposal followed the consecration of Bishop Mary Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, in the diocese of Los Angeles.
The Episcopal Church’s decision to proceed with the consecration broke one of three moratoria outlined in the Communion’s Windsor Report. The report requested a period of “gracious restraint” during which there provinces would not proceed with the ordination of gay or lesbian people as bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions, and cross-border interventions by bishops outside their own province. In June, Canon Kenneth Kearon, general secretary of the Anglican Communion, wrote to members of The Episcopal Church to inform them that as a result of the Los Angeles consecration, their membership on committees for ecumenical dialogue had been withdrawn.
But the standing committee did not go further in that direction. Commenting on the meeting’s results, Archbishop Hiltz, said, “For lots of people, it’s very encouraging because there was a lot of anxiety…,” said Archbishop Hiltz of the standing committee’s decision. “… It’s pretty clear, in spite of a request that the Episcopal Church be [asked] to leave, that that was one voice and everybody else said, ‘No, that’s not the way forward.’ ”
In June, Archbishop Hiltz had expressed concern that all voices in the Communion be heard. He said that whether people resign or are excluded, fewer voices at the table can be damaging.
Several members of the Communion’s standing committee have resigned in recent months, including Bishop Azad Marshall of the diocese of Iran, Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda and his elected alternate, Archbishop Justice Akrofi of West Africa. Bishop Paul Sarker, moderator of the Church of Bangladesh and bishop of Dhaka, joined the July meeting as the elected alternate for Middle East president Bishop Mouneer Anis, who resigned his membership in February.
A step towards healing? Seriously?
Seems to me that in when two parties are in conflict, healing results from reconciliation, which itself comes from either a compromise or a repentance / forgiveness (depending on the nature of the conflict).
In this case we have a self-appointed liberal body, claiming to represent the Anglican Communion, exonerating the communion-breaking actions of TEC. That’s going to lead to healing?? All I can say is this must be a new and innovative use of the word.
Beware – ‘healing’, coming to a Church near you soon.
Of course Hiltz is encouraged. It tells him he can get away with anything he wants.
It seems that the CoE is drifting in the same direction (hell bound) as the ACoC and TEC. This trio continues to have the greatest amount of influence with the WAC, and they will fight tooth and nail to keep it. The most viable option for Anglicans who wish to remain Faithful is to leave the WAC and form a new Global Anglican Communion (GAC), perhaps based upon GAFCON.
There is no time to waste. As the CoE pushes through women Bishops large numbers of Anglicans (both clergy and lay) will leave the CoE for the RC Church (possibly forming an English Ordinariate). But with a new GAC the Church will be freed from the politics of being the “Established” Church.
Sadly, AMP, I’m feeling increasingly as if even that isn’t going to be a viable option; even if there is some sort of structure such as ACNA in place, there might not be anyone left to fill it. There are fourteen Anglican parishes in my county, with an ASA of about a thousand. The sad reality, though, is that there will be hardly anyone left in another decade or two if things don’t change. Looking at my own age group, I know of perhaps a dozen young adults involved in the church in the area. In the meantime, the Anglican church seems to get sketchier every year: I’m beginning to feel, in fact, as if I’m eventually going to have to become a Roman Catholic. Much as I still find certain aspects of their doctrine a little, shall we say, imbalanced in emphasis, my desire is to belong to a church that has a solid understanding of the Gospel, its place in history, and its ethical implications. If the Anglican church abandons this, it will no longer be worth sustaining.
We can all hear the cheers from the sidelines and we know the source of these cheers and it is not from those standing firm for the Gospel. Unless the claimed orthodox leaders stand up courageously against the apostasy that currently reigns and is taking over the communion, there will indeed be nothing worth saving. It is long past the time for all Anglicans to come to a firm understanding that you cannot blend apostasy and orthodoxy. You either stand for orthodoxy or you allow apostasy to take over and that is tragically what is happening.
Richard (#3) I hear you…….. I read recently that “churches” weren’t being built until the second century certainly the apostolic churches met in homes on the beach and in caves. Also interesting was the fact that early (Pre Roman influence) Celtic Chirstianity had no churches but met in monastaries. The point I wish to make (and AMP can jump in anytime) is that your prophetic fears are quite justified and the answer is the small group model of the early church, as well as the myriad behavioural instruction and direction. A retired Bishop once said to me “If your church does not work in small groups it will become a small group”. I believe this, and it is worth noting that I do not see small groups as a threat to Episcopal Tradition but for many reasons exactly the opposite.
It appears the gangrenous limb is here to stay . . . which imperils the survival of the whole.
It was a nice church while it lasted.
Hello everyone.
I am back from vacation. Well rested and sunburned (too much time on the beach).
The “small Church” / Congregation is a viable option, so long as most (preferrably all) of the members are committed to its long term sustainability and growth. My own small group in Hepworth has recently fallen apart, and I am afraid that I shall be attending St. George’s Owen Sound again (at least for the time being). The reason for the falling apart, simply a lack of concensus. But if our original group had been dedicated toward building a permament Anglican Congregation, I believe that we would have survived and grown.
Personally, I think that any congregation that is less than 100 ASA is going to have a financially hard time of it. Although Congregations of hundreds (say 400 or so) may seem to be a bit impersonal, these do offer many opportunities for smaller internal groups to flourish. Add into the equation the affordability for multiple Ministers (i.e. one who specializes in youth Ministry, another who specializes in outreach Ministry, etc), and the opportunity for new Ministers to gain practicle experience under the supervision of a senior experienced Minister.
But all of this hinges on taking to heart the Great Commission, and being prepared to accept the inevitable changes that growth will bring. A man that my Dad once worked for used to say “A chick either hatches or it dies”.
Was that the group of “Free Anglicans” mentioned on David’s blog? That’s unfortunate that it fell apart. Judging from the website, St George’s doesn’t look like a bad parish, though I haven’t seen great things from the Diocese of Huron. House churches do offer a much greater degree of interaction between individuals, which can be a blessing, but you need to have the right mix of people. Quite apart from financial considerations, the trouble I’ve found with house churches is that there can be much more potential for personal conflict than with larger congregations, especially in the absence of a strong leader. Yet every church needs to start somewhere.
Richard,
Yes, I think so.
Richard
“the trouble I’ve found with house churches is that there can be much more potential for personal conflict”
Given correct leadership, understanding, and motivation (faith) such potential is impossible.
Amp; I am very sad to here this news. One of the things I appreciated about your efforts was the name “Free Anglicans” so much better than “Orphans” in my opinion.
Richard (#8), your comment made me smile. I’ve seen pleny of conflict in larger churches, too. Very few of the 17+ churches I’ve belonged to in my adult life didn’t have a split in their past.
Amp send me an E-mail I attempted to contact you but the address I have doesn’t seem to work.
In Christ
#11 Warren; any idea why this circumstance of division exists?
Stuck/Warren: To clarify my “personal conflict” comment, I wasn’t actually referring to theological divisions so much as problems between individuals. I say that there is more potential for this sort of thing in house churches not only because members often interact with one another more, but because just a few people leaving can have a devastating effect on the group. For instance, one former house church with which I’m familar lost several members over the course of a few months because of slightly awkward things that happened between members (e.g. couples breaking up), and it completely fell apart after that, having lost its critical mass.
Stuck (#13), I do.
Richard (#14), do you think interpersonal conflict is more common, or is it just more evident because of the smaller numbers and closer relationships? In my experience, most people who join a house church left a traditional church that they weren’t happy with (or the house church started because a group of people left a traditional church they weren’t happy with).
#8 Richard I don’t know if you are coming back here but regarding Your comment;
“House churches do offer a much greater degree of interaction between individuals, which can be a blessing, but you need to have the right mix of people.”
My studies and training in small groups has taught that the right “mix of people” cannot be found. Any group must be nurtured and taught by sound and trained leadership yes some will leave some will join but eventually it will become a church worthy of the Headship of our Lord.