Ian Welch - 08 February 2010 08:49 PM

Just in passing, and avoiding polemics. I know the terminology “TEC” is widely used.

Is this intended as a legitimisation of the TEC as a distinct and separate ‘brand’ of episcopal cum Anglican Christianity possibly outside the Anglican Communion? Put another way, an additional brand of episcopal Christianity, alongside Rome, Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Anglicanism?

Is it or was it to distance the Episcopal Church from the use of “Protestant?”

Although the terminology may have validity in the General Convention context, I wonder where that leaves individual dioceses. I notice on a variety of websites that PECUSA still appears and I have the impression that it is the legal name in many instances. I sense an issue of canon law v civil law (I.e., corporate legal identity). I mention this because it required parliamentary legislation in Australia in each State to change our provincial and diocesan Anglican identities from the United Church of England and Ireland in Australia (usually just CofE) to Anglican Church of Australia.

Please understand that this is a simple enquiry and I have no personal views either way. In my academic work on 19C Episcopal Missions in China I tend to use PECUSA as the label then in use, but to refer more generally to the Episcopal Church in order to distinguish the American Anglican work in China from that of British and Australian Anglicans.

Ian Welch

The Episcopal Church is used because we are a transnational church with Dioceses that are not part of the USA.  I do not think anyone has a notion of us becoming another international player as you suggest.  I will confess to you that I think TEC should.  If border crossing is now the norm, then I am all in favor of us offering TEC flavored Anglicanism on a world wide base to gather progressives and moderates.  I think it is time for us to have a direct presence in Africa and South America, offering them a broad church option.  But to be fair, I’d only start in those Provinces that have violated our territorial boundaries.

Hardly anyone in TEC agrees with me on this, btw, so the world is safe still.

Michael Russell - 09 February 2010 01:07 PM

If border crossing is now the norm, then I am all in favor of us offering TEC flavored Anglicanism on a world wide base to gather progressives and moderates.  I think it is time for us to have a direct presence in Africa and South America, offering them a broad church option.  But to be fair, I’d only start in those Provinces that have violated our territorial boundaries.

Hardly anyone in TEC agrees with me on this, btw, so the world is safe still.

I don’t agree with Michael, but I do think the day may come when there will be in some Churches of the Communion those clergy and people who wish to become part of a progressive expression of Anglicanism. I have a English friend who told his Bishop that he would transfer to TEC if the CofE declared itself to be no longer in communion with TEC. It would a much messier situation, but I think that it is possible for the divisions to be not only between member Churches but within some of those Churches. It is not something I desire, but often what I desire does not come to pass.

I have believed for some time that the Communion would split and that you would end up with two “brands” of Anglican in more countries.  We have actually had this in the US for since 1873.  It has been so in South Africa for some time now.  My American experience of a marketplace of Churches says that this is not all bad and that competition can promote ministry rather than self-satisfied-ly sitting on ones hands thinking we are the only act in town.