Originally posted at Fulcrum. Co-published, with permission, with the Church of England Newspaper, 9 February 2010.

CEN: On Wednesday 10 February, General Synod will be debating the private member’s motion, proposed by Lorna Ashworth: “That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America [ACNA].” What do you think of the motion?

GK: I consider it to be too narrow and too early.

CEN: Why too narrow?

GK: Because the background paper, the details of which have been severely challenged, stresses that the debate is not about the Covenant process, nor about remaining in communion with The Episcopal Church (TEC). However, both are key parts of the context of these discussions.

CEN: In what ways?

GK: The Anglican Covenant is the official way forward for intensifying relationships in the Communion, keeping it together and responding to actions which are in danger of splitting the Communion. The autonomous launching of ACNA, only 9 months ago, was entirely outside of the Covenant process and was based on the premise that TEC is a wholly apostate church, from which it is right to split.

CEN: Is ACNA likely to affirm the Covenant?

GK: That is not yet clear and that is also why this motion is too early, as well as being too narrow. A key ACNA theologian, Stephen Noll, an American based in Uganda, is recommending it, but others, it seems, are not so sure.

CEN: Why?

GK: Well, it would commit ACNA to working fully with the four instruments of communion of the Communion. Some have, in the past, voiced serious questions about the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Lambeth Conference. The fourth, the Primates’ Meeting, is the most acceptable to ACNA. It would also be committed to avoid any more trans-provincial consecrations.

CEN: Was that not how most of ACNA began?

GK: Yes, many of the ecclesial groups of ACNA began with trans-provincial consecrations by the archbishops in Ruanda, Nigeria, Kenya and Uganda. The Anglican Communion has repeatedly called for three moratoria: against the blessings of same gender unions, the consecration of people as bishops in such unions and the intervening consecrations of people in other provinces. ACNA are happy with the first two, but the third seems to be part of its DNA and considered to be less serious than the first two. In fact, just before the launch of ACNA, the Province of Rwanda announced more such consecrations. If ACNA is serious about desiring to be recognised as Anglican, which I believe it is, then the process is first affirming the Covenant and then second applying for membership of the Anglican Communion.

CEN: Is that application likely?

GK: Again, too early to tell. I had a very valuable three hours with an ACNA bishop in June last year in Dorset. It seems that many are wary of applying at the moment, but we shall see. He is an American bishop, consecrated by an African archbishop, to work in America, but became part of that African province’s House of Bishops, with two weeks previous experience in the country. Perhaps these consecrations are more to do with expediency than experience.

CEN: So that bishop is part of two churches — the African province and ACNA.

GK: Yes. A key question is, “do such bishops fully trust their future to ACNA?” They seem to be in an interim period at the moment, trying to keep positions in African provinces, and some in the Province of the Southern Cone of South America, as well as ACNA. That is also why this motion is too early to put.

CEN: Don’t you have sympathy with the four dioceses, which split off from TEC to form ACNA, complaining about TEC’s attitude to the first two moratoria?

GK: I do indeed and don’t think it appropriate, or Anglican, to consecrate people who are in sexual relationships outside of marriage. There are many bishops and rectors in TEC who hold that position but have not split off from TEC and formed their own autonomous church. About 15 such dioceses are known as “Communion Partner” dioceses, and this motion does not mention them at all, though the background paper does very briefly at the end.

CEN: We are still awaiting how many bishops and standing committees will consent to the election of Mary Glasspool as a suffragan bishop in the Diocese of Los Angeles. What do you think is likely to happen?

GK: Well, the trajectory of the TEC since General Convention last year implies that autonomy will again trump interdependence in the Communion and that the House of Bishops and the standing committees will give enough consents. However, you never know about the bishops. There are a few hints that some who are liberal on sexual issues, but value the Communion more highly, may not give their consent. If the percentage of bishops (“Ordinaries with jurisdiction”) who consent in the House of Bishops is below 50%, then consent is not given.

CEN: And the Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori?

GK: Her response will be very significant. If sufficient consents are given and she goes ahead with the consecration, as scheduled on 15 May 2010, then it is difficult to see how she could, with integrity, still be a member of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. Even if she insisted, then the Primates’ Meeting in January 2011 would not be likely to vote for her membership again.

CEN: Mouneer Anis has resigned from that Standing Committee. What do you make of that?

GK: I understand his reasons for resigning and those do relate, partly, to the presence of the Presiding Bishop of TEC on that committee. Ironically, that may be solved if the consecration goes ahead on 15 May as I mentioned just now. He is also concerned with the balance of participation of the Primates’ representatives on that new committee — the balance of “bishop-in-synod” does not seem right at the moment. There is also the large question, as pointed out by the Anglican Communion Institute, of whether this Standing Committee is the same as the Standing Committee mentioned in the Covenant and whether it was constitutionally right to collapse the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates’ Meeting and of the Anglican Consultative Council into this new Standing Committee. I agree that does need urgent attention from the Primates’ Meeting, the ACC and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Mouneer Anis is still fully behind the final text of the Covenant and the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury in that process.

CEN: To return to the motion this Wednesday, the Bishop of Bristol, Mike Hill, on behalf of the House of Bishops, has moved an amendment which changes the whole motion to read: “That this Synod (a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family; (b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and (c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.” Do you think that is helpful?

GK: Yes, it is eminently sensible. As well as the arguments mentioned already, the constitution of the ACNA mentions the word “initially” far too many times to make it appropriate to vote on the original motion at this stage. As it stands, it is likely to fail: as amended, it is likely to be passed.
View the original post

A very disappointing response from an allegedly moderate evangelical bishop of the C of E. The situation calls for decisive action, not delay. As a “fulcrum” exponent, he could have used his leverage to advance orthodoxy in North American Anglicanism. He has chosen not to do so and has therefore, in my view, lost much of his credibility as an Anglican leader.

Dick,

Your comment presumes that the only way to defend orthodoxy is to endorse or encourage schism. But, if one believes schism is itself a counter-sign to the gospel, ACNA seems less than helpful.

One does not need to be an abject apologist for TEC to find ACNA (and it various subsidiaries)to be as much a contibutor of mischief and confusion in the Anglican Communion as any other entity. As Bishop Kings suggests, it is not altogether clear at this point that ACNA is cohesive enough to sustain long-term viability. Nor is it clear that given the spirit of many of it leaders that they are any more interested in submitting to a covenant than are many progressives.

Dick Wire’s comment is, IMV, an example of the impatience that has become so common in certain quarters. My view, which I have put fporward repeatedly, is that the crisis, if we want to call it that, has been decades or longer in the making and that there are no quick fixes that won’t make matters worse. While I am not sure about the Covenant, I think that it may well provide us with a way, over time, to deal with the divisions in the Communion. I am convinced that the hasty action of calling an emergency meeting of the Primates in 2003 and the reactions of Global South leaders, esp., cross-border actions, made the situation worse.

The most amazing part of this ACNA push is how the C of E or the rest of the communion can overlook the participation of the REC. A related question is why the Reformed Episcopal Church would be part of it at all. Their split was based in a fundamental difference over baptismal regeneration.  Unless they have modified their view, or we have modified ours (as Anglicans) how can they now be sewn together?

In considering the other groups that are part of ACNA, why would the Synod want to bring in every disaffected group of the last 100+ years?  Surely the splinters that oppose women’s ordination will be loathe to join as the movement towards women bishops moves forward.  With British evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics now threatening their own schism, why would the C of E bring into fellowship a group that will only exacerbate that threat?

Dan - you wrote the following:

Dick Wire’s comment is, IMV, an example of the impatience that has become so common in certain quarters. My view, which I have put fporward repeatedly, is that the crisis, if we want to call it that, has been decades or longer in the making and that there are no quick fixes that won’t make matters worse. While I am not sure about the Covenant, I think that it may well provide us with a way, over time, to deal with the divisions in the Communion. I am convinced that the hasty action of calling an emergency meeting of the Primates in 2003 and the reactions of Global South leaders, esp., cross-border actions, made the situation worse.

While I understand where you are coming from I was also privy to the consequences of what I can only call the TEC steamroller as it crushed dissent.  TEC miscalculated the degree of the response and in a series of actions that had been going on certainly since the 1979 BCP introduction have been intolerant of dissent.  I note the conscience exception that was to be extended re the 1928 BCP Communion Service.  In our diocese it was respected but NOT in so many others.  Peoples’ consciences with respect to WO were at first allowed and then proscribed.  In this recent case that had been brewing for some time there was already a fear of the same tactics and very soon there was clearly no respect for dissenters.  The rescuers of the dissenters may indeed have been crossing boundaries but through the Dar es Salaam primates’ meeting this was an understood response to save the lives and ministries of a persecuted minority.  It never had any kind of equivalence to the manner in which TEC tore the fabric of the Communion.

Was there impatience - yes.  Meanwhile some of us stayed and tried, and tried and tried.  I counseled colleagues to leave property and endowments and to start again.  I was a part of the Communion Partner group for quite a while.  I just gave up.  I am now at the point where I feel so betrayed by both the PB (and her allies) and Canterbury that I have simply walked away from TEC.  I still have relationships with some folk, some local churches and when in the US continue to attend one from time to time. 

Dan - you are maybe a tad younger than I and by now have longer in the retirement fund than I did when I retired.  It is a blessing no longer to be on the front line.  At last I am in a place where I do not have to worry about my back and where I can trust the other clergy.  Impatient maybe but patience can only last for so long.

I have some sympathy for Kings’ position, but I think that the better solution would have been to take the initial motion and add to it, rather then to replace it.  Something along the lines of:

“That this Synod
(a) express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the bishops and churches in the Anglican Church in North America [ACNA];
(b) accepts to the extent possible, that those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America remain within the Anglican family;
(c) acknowledge that this desire and acceptance, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(d) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.”

This makes it clear that there is the *desire* to be in communion with the “bishops and churches” in the ACNA (thereby sidestepping the thorny question of the ACNA itself), that there is a recognition “to the extent possible” that the members of ACNA remain within the Anglican family, yet also recognizes that there is more work to be done to formalize this relationship.

I like this James

This makes it clear that there is the *desire* to be in communion with the “bishops and churches” in the ACNA (thereby sidestepping the thorny question of the ACNA itself), that there is a recognition “to the extent possible” that the members of ACNA remain within the Anglican family, yet also recognizes that there is more work to be done to formalize this relationship.

I fear that the TEC presence will try to blow it all out of the water.  However if I read +++Canterbury’s address correctly this would fit what he would prefer as a both and solution, and a continuance of conversation rather than a shunning which is the TEC approach usually.

A similar ‘recognition’ motion passed the Sydney Diocesan Synod this year, I believe, but I think has been referred to either General Synod and/or the Appellate Tribunal of the Anglican Church of Australia. The effect of the motion would be to retain links to the TEC while establishing links with ACNA, thus recognizing two Anglican provinces in North America, or perhaps three if ACNA takes in Canadian members. It may also imply that dioceses outside the Southern Cone Province might become members of ACNA. The recognition of the Episcopal Church is already widespread outside the Americas. In relation to Michael Russell’s post The term Anglican/Episcopal is widely used in Asia and Africa.

One of the obstacles to the admission of ACNA to the Anglican Communion while TEC and the ACofC remain members is the problem of two Churches having jurisdiction within the area. In those places where that problem has been resolved, e.g, in Europe where both TEC and CofE have parishes, it has been in accordance with provisions such as those in Canon I.11.4 which requires a concordat adopted by the competent authority of each of the Churches. I would not be optimistic about such a concordat being adopted by any of the three Churches in North America.

Daniel raises a good point re: competing jurisdictions.  I think that Kings addresses this in his comments on the Covenant.  I think that what Kings is suggesting is that commitment to the Covenant and overall Communion discernment ought to be govern which body(ies) will ultimately be recognized by the C of E and the Anglican Communion.  Kings rightly points out that the ACNA was birthed outside of any common Communion discernment.  But he also rightly points out that TEC is on a trajectory which has rejected and is likely to continue rejecting the Communion’s discernment.  Perhaps the best result would be to put both TEC and the ACNA in “time out” in which both are recognized as being “Anglican on probation” while each works out whether it will accept the Communion’s discernment on its future behavior.

Sometimes timing is everything. Although some are encouraging patience, it seems to me that the longer it takes the CoE to recognize the ACNA, the less likely it will be. The CoE may be losing Anglo Catholic and Evangelical membership in the future which would diminish the chances for the ACNA. I just don’t see why the CoE is fretting about recognizing the ACNA when other Provinces have done so already. I too am disappointed that Graham Kings is against recognition.

I am, as it were, a dual citizen of both TEC and the Church of England, and I don’t honestly see the C of E fretting about recognizing ACNA, other than this resolution at General Synod I hardly see it on the radar scope of the church. What has happened is that a conversation has been started by the resolution being debated today, but just as there are processes in the Episcopal Church so there are processes in the Church of England that need to run their course. I don’t read Graham as saying he is against anything, but that the thing has to be thought out before any decision one way or another is made. With his American roots, the resolution by Bishop Mike Hill will enable the nuances of all this to work themselves out.

David Virtue reports that the ACNA has been recognized by the General Synod. From VirtueOnline:

A spirited debate by the Church of England Synod saw the newly formed Anglican Church in North American recognized by all three houses – bishops, clergy and laity in an overwhelming vote.

The final vote was 309 in favor, 69 against and 17 recorded abstentions.

The following is the final draft of the resolution.

“That this Synod aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America, recognize and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican church in North America (ACNA) to remain within the Anglican family; acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.”

comment: This obviously isn’t a done deal, but I would think that it is heartening to the ACNA.

Thrilling news and a great morale boost for ACNA.  The majority is telling.  At last the truth will begin to be told in England about the devastation caused by the TEC’s leadership as they have persecuted and prosecuted dissent.  C of E is still the mother church so this really matters.  It will be interesting to see how 815 spins this.

TEC’s spin will be interesting, but conservative spin so far has already been interesting - basically “the vote is meaningless.”