Channel: Anglican Communion News Service

12. There are continuing deep differences especially over the issues of the election of bishops in same-gender unions, Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions, and on cross-border interventions. The moratoria, requested by the Windsor Report and reaffirmed by the majority of bishops at the Lambeth Conference, were much discussed. If a way forward is to be found and mutual trust to be re-established, it is imperative that further aggravation and acts which cause offence, misunderstanding or hostility cease. While we are aware of the depth of conscientious conviction involved, the position of the Communion defined by the Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10 in its entirety remains, and gracious restraint on all three fronts is urgently needed to open the way for transforming conversation.
View the original post

I think it’s important also to notice the footnote to this:

11. WCG Report, paragraph 101:  The WCG therefore recommends that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in consultation with the Primates, establish at the earliest opportunity a professionally mediated conversation at which all the significant parties could be gathered.  The aim would be to find a provisional holding arrangement which will enable dialogue to take place and which will be revisited on the conclusion of the Covenant Process, or the achievement of long term reconciliation in the Communion.  Such a conversation would have to proceed on the basis of a number of principles:
There must be an ordered approach to the new proposal within, or part of a natural development of, current rules.
It is not for individual groups to claim the terms on which they will relate to the Communion.
The leadership of the Communion needs to stand together, and find an approach to which they are all committed.
Any scheme developed would rely on an undertaking from the present partners to ACNA that they would not seek to recruit and expand their membership by means of proselytisation.  WCG believes that the advent of schemes such as the Communion Partners Fellowship and the Episcopal Visitors scheme instituted by the Presiding Bishop in the United States should be sufficient to provide for the care of those alienated within the Episcopal Church from recent developments.

This is a most important development and puts pressure on all parties. One notes the appeal that ACNA should not proselytize and that the Communion Partners initiative should provide an adequate home for alienated people to remain in TEC. The PB voted for this but then has hedged her bets by stating that only General Convention may respond to this initiative.

I echo Fr Tony’s observation that this puts pressure on all sides, which is, I believe, a good thing. If this is truly a joint communique, then it means that Akinola, Nzimbi, Kolini et al signed on to it, which has implications for the behavior of ACNA. It also means that Jefferts Schori and Hiltz signed on to it, which has implications for TEC and Canada. Unfortunately, experience has turned me into a bit of a cynic, at least as far as TEC is concerned. KJS supposedly also signed on to the Dar es Salaam statement two years ago, which she promptly distanced herself from. At any rate, there seem to be no new demands and no new deadlines—just old ones reaffirmed. I especially appreciate the reaffirmation of Lambeth I.10.

I was heartened to learn that this was unanimously endorsed by the Primates, however,  I will believe the “no proselytizing” part when I see it. Thus far, there are certain Primates that have shown they have absolutely no qualms with proselytizing.

Of course it depends on what one means by proselytizing. One can hardly turn people away anymore than I turn away lapsed members of other churches who turn up on Sunday.

“Turning people away” is something I would not consider to be in any way an example of proselytizing. The problem is much more broad and detailed than just merely “turning people away”.

Any scheme developed would rely on an undertaking from the present partners to ACNA that they would not seek to recruit and expand their membership by means of proselytisation.

I would think this means the ACNA partners agreeing not to proselytize among current TEC members or parishes. The Primates don’t mean they want ACNA’s promise not to reach out to unchurched persons and nonbelievers, do they?

Good point, Karen. I think the communique uses proselytism as shorthand for “sheep-stealing.” Even if ACNA members were to commit themselves to this limitation, it could be very tricky figuring out whether the members are honoring the promise.

What are ACNA members to do, for instance, when individual Episcopalians or rectors approach them? This clearly will continue, in varying degrees, as people reach their respective points of “Enough already.”

Douglas LeBlanc - 09 February 2009 09:49 AM

Good point, Karen. I think the communique uses proselytism as shorthand for “sheep-stealing.” Even if ACNA members were to commit themselves to this limitation, it could be very tricky figuring out whether the members are honoring the promise.

What are ACNA members to do, for instance, when individual Episcopalians or rectors approach them? This clearly will continue, in varying degrees, as people reach their respective points of “Enough already.”

Maybe those who find themselves in that boat (and I will quite possibly be among them at some point in the future) can go into another denomination or non-denom between leaving TEC and arriving at ACNA?

Seriously, I think the mention of the Communion Partners and Episcopal Visitors probably indicates that the Primates would prefer people who disagree with TEC to look to them (CPP & the EV’s) rather than ACNA.

It seems to me that far too much is being made of the “no proselytism” clause.  In the dictionary I consulted (Meriam Websters) and from common usage, “proselytism” implies an active verb, not a passive one.  The act of accepting departing TEC parishes and/or dioceses into the ACNA is not “seeking to expand” through proseltyisation.  Furthermore, the “no proselytism” clause is clearly connected to a stated opinion about the sufficiency of the Communion Parners program.  What I think is being discouraged is the ACNA *ACTIVELY* courting existing TEC parishes and dioceses from joining ACNA *IF* the ACNA becomes officially recognized as an Anglican Communion entity.

The natural line from the ACNA, at that point, would be “look, we are every bit as officially Anglican as TEC, so what’s to keep you from joining us now?”  I really do not see this clause as effectively forbidding any future acceptance of “refugee” parishes or dioceses from TEC.

Furthermore, I think that the context of the WCG Report, from which the “no proselytism” clause comes, is one which opines that most TEC dioceses are actually trying to live within the moratoria.  If, in GC’09, TEC as a whole casts off the moratoria, then I think that “no proselytism” clause will become a complete dead letter, because the context in which it was written no longer applies.