The Rev. Dr. Bryden Black, a priest in Christchurch, writes at anglicantaonga.org:

A good Kiwi saying goes, “Don’t fix what ain’t broke!” Sadly, the truth of it is, it is broke.

The Anglican Communion’s relationships need fixing — and badly. “There’s the rub!” To be sure, there was a time in the not so recent past when “the bonds of affection” (as they were initially termed, capturing our global history, describing our present relationships) was an idea sufficiently strong in itself. Yet today levels of trust have sunk to the point where we may no longer simply rely on such an idea as these “bonds of affection.”

Rather, some means have to be discovered and implemented that will, in the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, “intensify existing relationships.” Such is the Covenant, which churches are being invited to sign on to.

The full text is here.
View the original post

It grants us the means to continue as a global Church, as a catholic community of churches.

I find this one sentence from Dr. Black’s essay intriguing, as it lays out, perhaps unintentionally, what I see as two different - and possibly incompatible - ways of understanding the Communion. Has the Communion ever been a global church? Certainly in the British Empire it was, but that was then - and there - and the Communion has to find a post-colonial self-understanding. My sense is that catholic community of churches is not bad short-hand for this post-colonial self- understanding. But that is clearly not what Dr. Black wants and for reasons that include a desire for clearer ecumenical realtionships.

Without such a device now as the Covenant, other parts of the universal Church simply would not know who speaks for whom, and who acts for whom, and by what authority.

I like clarity, but in a fellowship of national and regional churches as diverse as the Communion, it is not likely that there will be clear agreements on some important matters. I think we will have to get used to telling other Christian bodies that each of our member churches speaks and acts for itself, and that at times member churces disagree with one another. The Communion has already lived with differences about the ordination of women. That has not always been a comfortable situation for some - I would have been unwilling to be licensed to officiate in England when women priests weren’t. But discomfort with differences or a desire to present a united front on all issues is not a good enough reason to become a global church. I continue to be encouraged by the missional relationships that exist between member churches that hold different convictions on same-sexuality and I hope those relationships will serve as models for the Communion as we move forward.

I am still open to the possibility that a Covenant can serve the Communion as a post-colonial community of churches, but not as a way to transform the Communion into a global church.

Daniel Weir - 13 May 2010 09:53 AM

It grants us the means to continue as a global Church, as a catholic community of churches.

I find this one sentence from Dr. Black’s essay intriguing, as it lays out, perhaps unintentionally, what I see as two different - and possibly incompatible - ways of understanding the Communion. Has the Communion ever been a global church? Certainly in the British Empire it was, but that was then - and there - and the Communion has to find a post-colonial self-understanding. My sense is that catholic community of churches is not bad short-hand for this post-colonial self- understanding. But that is clearly not what Dr. Black wants and for reasons that include a desire for clearer ecumenical realtionships.

Without such a device now as the Covenant, other parts of the universal Church simply would not know who speaks for whom, and who acts for whom, and by what authority.

I like clarity, but in a fellowship of national and regional churches as diverse as the Communion, it is not likely that there will be clear agreements on some important matters. I think we will have to get used to telling other Christian bodies that each of our member churches speaks and acts for itself, and that at times member churces disagree with one another. The Communion has already lived with differences about the ordination of women. That has not always been a comfortable situation for some - I would have been unwilling to be licensed to officiate in England when women priests weren’t. But discomfort with differences or a desire to present a united front on all issues is not a good enough reason to become a global church. I continue to be encouraged by the missional relationships that exist between member churches that hold different convictions on same-sexuality and I hope those relationships will serve as models for the Communion as we move forward.

I am still open to the possibility that a Covenant can serve the Communion as a post-colonial community of churches, but not as a way to transform the Communion into a global church.

Isn’t each of our member churches speaking and acting for itself the same thing that Dr Black describes as “a loose conglomeration of local bodies with only a cultural history once held in common”—in other words, a federation? IMO the phrase “catholic community of churches” describes an entity with significantly more cohesion than is provided by a shared history. If each member church speaks and acts for itself, ISTM they will continually diverge both from that shared history and from each other over time unless there is some kind of centripetal influence, such as the Covenant, counteracting that tendency. In your view, how would the Covenant’s serve the Communion, if not as such a centripetal influence?

Karen

Daniel,

Does John 17 mean anything?  We should be about coming together in unity because that is what our Lord asks us to do!  We should be more concerned about harming our brothers and sisters in Uganda or Nigeria or the Sudan than we are about our own Vaunted Autonomy.

The Christian Life is a life which should reflect the inner life of the Holy Trinity.  Whatever we can do to make our lives more reflect God’s reality is good. 

I support the Covenant, not because I believe it is perfect, but because I believe that almost anything that requires Americans to think of others before themselves is a good thing.  We Americans think that we own the world and that the world should dance to our tune.  We need to be disabused of that notion.

I don’t know if the Covenant can or will transform us into a global Church.  But I believe that is the direction we should go!  Part of the Catholicity of the Church is its global reach.  I was not ordained to be a deacon in a small US denomination.  I was ordained to be a deacon in Christ’s one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. 

I believe that we should work towards a union of the Anglican Communion into one global church with a diversity of expressions of the Truth of the Gospel.  Beyond that, we should work for a reunion with Rome and Constantinople.  (Of course such reunions would also have to deal with the issues of authority, the place of the Pope and/or the Patriarchs, etc.)

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I don’t understand how autonomy fits into any biblical ecclesiology.  Maybe someone here can explain it.

Tony Seel - 14 May 2010 06:55 AM

I don’t understand how autonomy fits into any biblical ecclesiology.  Maybe someone here can explain it.

I think autonomy only makes sense as one aspect of discernment. Decisions - which we hope are guided by the Holy Spirit - are made at every level of the church. Some decisions need to be confirmed at a “higher” level, e.g., the election of a bishop, but many don’t. There is, therefore, limited autonomy for parishes and dioceses within TEC. For better or worse, there have been no analogous processes within the Communion. Decisions made by the member churches do not need confirmation at the Communion level.

Dr. Williams has emphasized the importance of member churches being able to recognize one another as Anglican. While the presenting issue now seems to be human sexuality (and the interpretation of Scripture), I see the possibility, already raised by Arbp Duncan, that the BCP will become the focus of controversy. As prayer book revision continues in member churches there will be some disagreements about whether or not revisions are faithful expressions of the Christian faith. That happened in TEC in the 1960s and 1970s and I suspect that it happened in other member churches. In the future such disagreements might become communion-wide and might even result in some viewing a proposed BCP revision as communion-breaking.

I don’t see any simple answers for the Communion. We are certainly not likely to vest in any person or body the kind of authority that the Pope exercises. The proposed Covenant may provide a clearer way for member churches to consult with one another about decisions and to discern what are the limits on autonomy.

Daniel,

How about we let the Communion decide what is and is not a communion breaking issue.
For example, if the Church of Uganda were to start baptizing “In the Name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” then that would probably be determined as sub-Christian and not a valid baptism. 

We have freedom in non-essentials.  But in something that affects the whole communion needs to be decided by the whole communion and if a part of the communion is not willing to abide by the shared discernment, should it continue as part of the communion?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil Snyder - 14 May 2010 08:27 AM

Daniel,

How about we let the Communion decide what is and is not a communion breaking issue.
For example, if the Church of Uganda were to start baptizing “In the Name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” then that would probably be determined as sub-Christian and not a valid baptism. 

We have freedom in non-essentials.  But in something that affects the whole communion needs to be decided by the whole communion and if a part of the communion is not willing to abide by the shared discernment, should it continue as part of the communion?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Phil-

I don’t disagree with you, but the question that needs to be answered is: who speaks for the Communion? There is still disagreement about who gets to define an issue as communion breaking. The Primates made that judgment in 2003, but there was never much discussion nor a decision by the Lambeth Conference or the ACC that the Primates had that authority.

The other question is how we define an issue that affects the whole Communion. With more rapid - though not necessarily better - communication, many actions effect significant parts of the Communion. TEC is in some way effected by the decisions of other member churches to support harsh penalties for same-sex intimacy. Do those actions need to be subjected to discernment at the Communion level or is it sufficient for TEC and others to express disapproval?

I think we are far from working out how to be the post-colonial Anglican Communion and those who want quick and easy solutions are going to be disappointed.

Daniel

Thanks Phil.

In the Communion, if it were a Communion, then this would happen.  However we are no longer a Communion.  Singapore was very clear that the actions of TEC and ACoC have caused broken or impaired communion.  This is due to the actions of the aforementioned that in the minds of the GS TEC and ACoC are not recognizably Christian.

Daniel,

How about we let the Communion decide what is and is not a communion breaking issue.
For example, if the Church of Uganda were to start baptizing “In the Name of the Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer” then that would probably be determined as sub-Christian and not a valid baptism.

We have freedom in non-essentials.  But in something that affects the whole communion needs to be decided by the whole communion and if a part of the communion is not willing to abide by the shared discernment, should it continue as part of the communion?

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

I realize that folk disagree about what makes a Church recognizably Christian and I believe that Karen has it right.  Having quoted Bryden Black - “a loose conglomeration of local bodies with only a cultural history once held in common” - she says:

IMO the phrase “catholic community of churches” describes an entity with significantly more cohesion than is provided by a shared history. If each member church speaks and acts for itself, ISTM they will continually diverge both from that shared history and from each other over time unless there is some kind of centripetal influence, such as the Covenant, counteracting that tendency.

My concern, and it had been my hope, for the Covenant was that it work towards two goals.  The first was to maintain boundaries as to what was or was not true to the Apostolic Faith.  The second was to ensure that the destruction to the Communion caused by TEC and to a lesser extent ACoC, might be prevented from reoccurring.  I do believe that it is necessary for there to be something effectively that would be a Global Anglican Church.  I still do.

What heartens me about Singapore, GAFCON and the GS, ACNA et al is that this is somehow being redesigned beyond our traditional shared cultural history.  It is being taken out of the hands of the entrenched “colonial” institutionalists.  It is emerging as a new and vigorous Gospel entity centered geographically outside the “West” and with the Kingdom of God and Mission at its heart with Jesus manifestly as its Lord.  Meanwhile the decaying, and to my mind, heretical/apostate entities such as TEC protest as they are losing people, power and find that their money cannot buy friends.

This new “entity” will need a more robust Covenant than the current one - they already have the Jerusalem Declaration.  This proposed Covenant is clearly inadequate in practice.  You cannot reconcile what is irreconcilable except at the foot of the Cross in repentance.  I see no inclination towards repentance and tomorrow - May 15, 2010 - is the most telling public indication of TEC’s direction towards perdition.

It is now too late for this Covenant as submitted to the AC.  It is being /has been effectually blown out of the water.  We need another and a better one.

Let me give Bryden the last word.

A good Kiwi saying goes, “Don’t fix what ain’t broke!” Sadly, the truth of it is, it is broke.

Daniel,

Who speaks for the Communion?  How about the Bishops in the Communion?  Given that it is the charism of a Bishop to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church, then I would think that Lambeth would be the ultimate arbiter on items that are communion breaking.  Given that Lambeth is held only every 10 years, the Primates could be a good substitute.  They are, after all, bishops.  I would not mind letting the ACC have a voice either, but we need to reform it from its colonial markings such that it is more representative. 

How about we organize the ACC somewhat along General Convention’s lines.  We let the Primates form the equivalent of the HOB and then apportion delegates based on Average Sunday Attendance so that you get one delegate for every 100,000 (or so) people in church on a Sunday (self reported).  The ACC would then be more representative of the people in the communion.
The delgate apportionment would then be determined every three years.  The number of delegates at the next ACC meeting would be determined by ASA at this ACC meeting.

I recognize that the whole process of becoming a global church and recovering our catholicity will be long and difficult.  But I still believe it is worth the effort!

Ian,
Yes, the WWAC is broken and I believe that TEC (and like minded individualistic members) is primarily responsible.  But I still hold out hope that Jesus is Lord and that My Gracious Lord of Canterbury isn’t and neither is my Lord of Abuja nor 815 nor Kampala nor Dallas.  The Church has been in far worse shape than it is today.  We declared ourselves Arian in the middle of the 4th century - even after Nicea!  We corrected ourselves at Constantinople.  I believe that God allows the Church to fall into error and secular thinking over and over again so that He can recall it to Himself.  I believe that Judges is an excellent history of the Church.  The people of God follow Him and keep the Covenant.  This leads them to properity.  In their properity, the believe that they have earned their wealth by the work of their own hands.  They forget God and His Covenant.  The begin to worship other gods.  God raises up a “rod of my anger” and the people fall and are enslaved.  They cry out to God.  God delivers them.  They keep their Covenant with God.  This leads to properity and repetition of the cycle.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Amen dear Brother.

I believe that Judges is an excellent history of the Church.  The people of God follow Him and keep the Covenant.  This leads them to properity.  In their properity, the believe that they have earned their wealth by the work of their own hands.  They forget God and His Covenant.  The begin to worship other gods.  God raises up a “rod of my anger” and the people fall and are enslaved.  They cry out to God.  God delivers them.  They keep their Covenant with God.  This leads to properity and repetition of the cycle.

However the punishment is oblivion usually and then God raises up a new leader and a new era, beginning with repentance and restoration, emerges.  I believe that this new action on God’s part is what is happening with ACNA et al. Their leaders remind me of Amos. None of our “leaders are substitutes for Jesus as Head of the Church.  However I do believe that God has anointed some of those you have named.  Sadly I believe that Canterbury’s anointing has probably been removed.  +++Canterbury reminds me of Eli.  Pitiful but God is good and here is raising up “children of Abraham from these stones.”

[

Ian Montgomery - 14 May 2010 11:10 PM

Amen dear Brother.

I believe that Judges is an excellent history of the Church.  The people of God follow Him and keep the Covenant.  This leads them to properity.  In their properity, the believe that they have earned their wealth by the work of their own hands.  They forget God and His Covenant.  The begin to worship other gods.  God raises up a “rod of my anger” and the people fall and are enslaved.  They cry out to God.  God delivers them.  They keep their Covenant with God.  This leads to properity and repetition of the cycle.

However the punishment is oblivion usually and then God raises up a new leader and a new era, beginning with repentance and restoration, emerges.  I believe that this new action on God’s part is what is happening with ACNA et al. Their leaders remind me of Amos. None of our “leaders are substitutes for Jesus as Head of the Church.  However I do believe that God has anointed some of those you have named.  Sadly I believe that Canterbury’s anointing has probably been removed.  +++Canterbury reminds me of Eli.  Pitiful but God is good and here is raising up “children of Abraham from these stones.”

I also see parallels between the history of ancient Israel and the situation in the Anglican Communion today, but ISTM that whenever God renewed the nation, he raised up a leader—a prophet or judge or righteous king—within Israel. The faithful people who gathered around that leader remained in Israel, and the renewal, when it came, also took place within Israel. The only time I can recall that the faithful are told to make their home elsewhere is in Jeremiah 29: “Build houses and settle down; plant gardens and eat what they produce. Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease.” But this word was given to people who had already been carried involuntarily into exile, not to people who made their own decision to leave. The OT parallels seem to me to point more toward those faithful who remain in TEC than to ACNA.

Karen

Thanks Karen - I take your point.  However I see ACNA as faithfully Anglican and accepted as such by a huge percentage in the AC.  It is the remnant.  I can see your point too and there are some who remain AND remain faithful.  No analogy is perfect.  Some passages do speak louder than others.  In our own history the Whitfield/Wesley controversy is apt.  Wesley died an Anglical clergyman, however rejected by his Church.  Such is the case with many in ACNA.  Others have simply left.

I am still comforted by Lot and Amos and well as challenged by Jeremiah.  I am again in another part of the “diaspora’ from TEC as I serve overseas now.  Had all this not gone on would I have accepted a missionary call?  Who knows.  Meanwhile the orthodox cannot be “shooting” at each other.  So far as I am concerned we support each other as God has led us respectively.  We unite in our opposition to those who have subverted and hijacked the Church in TEC.

I should also add that we are united in seeking to understand all this Biblically!

Blessings - Ian

Ian Montgomery - 15 May 2010 11:55 PM

Thanks Karen - I take your point.  However I see ACNA as faithfully Anglican and accepted as such by a huge percentage in the AC.  It is the remnant.  I can see your point too and there are some who remain AND remain faithful.  No analogy is perfect.  Some passages do speak louder than others.  In our own history the Whitfield/Wesley controversy is apt.  Wesley died an Anglical clergyman, however rejected by his Church.  Such is the case with many in ACNA.  Others have simply left.

I am still comforted by Lot and Amos and well as challenged by Jeremiah.  I am again in another part of the “diaspora’ from TEC as I serve overseas now.  Had all this not gone on would I have accepted a missionary call?  Who knows.  Meanwhile the orthodox cannot be “shooting” at each other.  So far as I am concerned we support each other as God has led us respectively.  We unite in our opposition to those who have subverted and hijacked the Church in TEC.

I should also add that we are united in seeking to understand all this Biblically!

Blessings - Ian

Pardon me while I think out loud. I am still trying to understand a catholic (small c) view of the church and how it applies to the current situation. I have not gotten much further than I was when I joined Covenant—just able to see that I have had a big blank spot in my formation as a believer and don’t understand ecclesiology well enough to be able to recognize what is orthodox and what is not in that aspect of Christianity or even have accurate pictures of what the different views are. But having said that, I don’t think the fact that ACNA is seen as faithfully Anglican, by its own members or other Anglicans, whether they be many or few in number, determines whether in fact it is faithfully Anglican. After all, the majority of TEC’s leadership thinks their current direction is faithfully Anglican, too. Obviously, it’s impossible for both those views to be correct. What if both TEC and ACNA are, each in a different way, doing something that they simply ought not to do? What if the same criticisms that are made of TEC’s actios—that they are unbiblical and inconsistent with the Church’s tradition—are equally applicable to ACNA’s actions? I am not trying to shoot at anyone, and I can also see plenty of problems with staying in TEC. Sometimes I wonder if my staying in is due to faithfulness or just inertia or fear of leaving where I have been my whole life, but I’m puzzled by what you’ve written. The only comfort for the faithful that I see in the book of Amos is that God promises to restore Israel after the terrible events prophesied in the middle chapters. Maybe the same will be so of TEC and/or the Communion after our current judgement has fully fallen. I hope so. I don’t see anything at all comforting about the story of Lot. Do you mean his flight from Sodom? I’m inclined to think he had no good excuse to be in the city in the first place!

I just don’t see how the history of Israel in general, or the particular passages you find comforting, provide any support for leaving* a church that has gone bad. Can you explain?

Karen
*people who’ve been kicked out are in a different category IMO

Good morning Karen.

Thanks for the reply.  As I think about your question I am tending two ways.

I don’t see anything at all comforting about the story of Lot. Do you mean his flight from Sodom? I’m inclined to think he had no good excuse to be in the city in the first place!
I just don’t see how the history of Israel in general, or the particular passages you find comforting, provide any support for leaving* a church that has gone bad. Can you explain?
Karen
*people who’ve been kicked out are in a different category IMO

In the first place what does “left” mean?  Sadly this may sound Clintonesque as regarding “is.”  I am convinced that those who have left TEC have not left the Church.  They are Anglicans, even institutionally, because they are enfolded by other provinces of the AC.  Then I am not convinced that it is they who have left, but TEC has done so by espousing a set of beliefs that are not congruent with the Apostolic Faith as we have received it.  TEC’s error is so gross, and indeed a “salvation issue” as Singapore put it, that those departing could not continue to participate or pour money into TEC as that would be being complicit with TEC.  I do believe that heresy IS schism and that TEC is the schismatic group with the apparent leavers being those who have not only stayed faithful but stayed Anglican.

My second set of thinking is from the NT where separation from the heretic, the Christian who is an unrepentant sinner.  Matthew 18:15ff comes to mind. This is a salvation issue and those in error are leading people astray to damnation.  John in his second epistle is emphatic.  Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him stakes part in his wicked works. (2 John 9ff.)Saints Peter and Paul are equally stern.  What we are dealing here is NOT a second tier issue as some maintain.  It is a salvation issue - this was the substance of part of another post Singapore thread. I am reminded of Jesus’ damnation of the Pharisees, their rules and institutionalism that deny salvation and life.  The promise is of a “New Wineskin.”

Regarding Lot.  Maybe he should not have been there to begin with.  My point is that Lot and his family were told to leave if they were to be saved and not perish with the Sodomites.  It was a salvation issue for him and his family.  Lot’s wife died because she looked back.  All her reasons are left unsaid.  Meanwhile Jesus asks us to remember Lot’s wife in Luke 17 where he speaks of the end times.  We are to hold on to salvation.  TEC is, in its new teaching, leading people to damnation.  Many in ACNA are firm in their belief that God has told them to do the same with respect to TEC.

Much in the end is a personal decision and as such fallible.  As we/I read the Scriptures so we understand our guidance.  To those who stay in TEC God bless you and your witness.  By now I am sure you are aware of a kind of martyrdom that awaits.  To those who have left and/or been kicked out, keep the faith and support those who stay.

Thanks for your reply. I have got you beat then, as I think I am headed in three different and possibly mutually exclusive directions.

Ian Montgomery - 16 May 2010 07:35 AM

Good morning Karen.

Thanks for the reply.  As I think about your question I am tending two ways.

I don’t see anything at all comforting about the story of Lot. Do you mean his flight from Sodom? I’m inclined to think he had no good excuse to be in the city in the first place!
I just don’t see how the history of Israel in general, or the particular passages you find comforting, provide any support for leaving* a church that has gone bad. Can you explain?
Karen
*people who’ve been kicked out are in a different category IMO

In the first place what does “left” mean?  Sadly this may sound Clintonesque as regarding “is.”  I am convinced that those who have left TEC have not left the Church.  They are Anglicans, even institutionally, because they are enfolded by other provinces of the AC.  Then I am not convinced that it is they who have left, but TEC has done so by espousing a set of beliefs that are not congruent with the Apostolic Faith as we have received it.  TEC’s error is so gross, and indeed a “salvation issue” as Singapore put it, that those departing could not continue to participate or pour money into TEC as that would be being complicit with TEC.  I do believe that heresy IS schism and that TEC is the schismatic group with the apparent leavers being those who have not only stayed faithful but stayed Anglican.

What does “left” mean? If a parish changes all their signage from “Episcopal” to “Anglican”, or the same congregation suddenly disappears from where they had been and appears across town under a different name, if the rector starts reporting to a different bishop, the delegates start going to a different diocesan convention, and they describe themselves as being in a different province than the one in which their geographical location suggests, then I think we can say they have “left”. OTOH, if the bishop comes around, changes the locks on the church buildings, deposes their priest and unseats the vestry, I think we can describe that parish as having been “kicked out”. I think it comes down to the question of who took the initiative in declaring that a particular congregation or priest is no longer part of TEC. I don’t “leaving TEC” is necessarily the same thing as “leaving the Church”, and that isn’t really the point I’m trying to get at anyway. Rather, I am trying to understand whether the actions of TEC justify the formation of ACNA, and if so, how? I agree that TEC was wrong, but that does not automatically make ACNA right. The Windsor Report criticized both TEC’s actions and the actions that eventually led to the formation of ACNA. Maybe the formation of ACNA is justified and was the (or a) right response, but so far, I don’t understand why this would be so. I don’t see that the formation of ACNA has promoted the unity that Christ prayed his Church would have, or that its existence assists in healing the breach in the Communion. But that is my view from the periphery. My only contact has been to attend one or two events that were sponsored by Common Cause before it morphed into ACNA, but that’s all.

I sympathize with not wanting to fund the actions of the national church, and I am happy that I am able to direct my contributions to support of the parish and its local outreach only. But as I was thinking about it this morning I don’t think I can support my own attitude from scripture. The prophet Malachi criticizes the Israelites for withholding their tithes (Mal 3:8 & ff), even though in the earlier chapters of the prophecy, the priesthood of that day is described as turning aside from the way, causing many to stumble by their instruction, as colluding with the people to offer defective animals in sacrifice, and as faithless to their wives. Nevertheless, God commands the Israelites to “bring the full tithe into the storehouse” and promises blessings on those who do so. So even though I would hate to think that a dollar that came out of my pocket ended up in David Booth Beers’ as part of his fee for pursuing lawsuits against departing parishes, I can’t help but think that if a corrupt, false-teaching priesthood were grounds for cutting off one’s monetary donations, it would have said so here.

Ian Montgomery - 16 May 2010 07:35 AM

My second set of thinking is from the NT where separation from the heretic, the Christian who is an unrepentant sinner.  Matthew 18:15ff comes to mind. This is a salvation issue and those in error are leading people astray to damnation.  John in his second epistle is emphatic.  Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him stakes part in his wicked works. (2 John 9ff.)Saints Peter and Paul are equally stern.  What we are dealing here is NOT a second tier issue as some maintain.  It is a salvation issue - this was the substance of part of another post Singapore thread. I am reminded of Jesus’ damnation of the Pharisees, their rules and institutionalism that deny salvation and life.  The promise is of a “New Wineskin.”

It is true that the NT says refute the false teaching, and don’t associate with unrepentant sinners or false teachers, but it’s the wrongdoers who are supposed to leave (until they repent), not the faithful. That is what Paul told the Corinthians to do with the man who was having an affair with his stepmother. I don’t recall anywhere in the Bible that the faithful are told to depart from either the land of Israel or the church in response to unfaithfulness among the leadership. Unfortunately, things have now reached the point where it is, in practical terms, impossible for the remaining faithful in TEC to obey this command, because the false teaching has gained the upper hand. Frankly, I don’t know what I should do in this situation. I feel that if TEC adds SSBs to the prayer book it will include a supposed “new revelation” as part of our official teaching, which in my view would make TEC a cult, not a church. I don’t think I could stay beyond that point, even though my home parish doesn’t teach that, but if I did leave my parish I don’t know where I would go. The nearest Communion Partner parish is I think two states away, and the nearest Communion Partners diocese is on the other side of the Continental Divide from here, so associating myself with that group isn’t a practical option. I don’t think I would end up in an ACNA paris, because I’m not sure enough that ACNA is part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Ian Montgomery - 16 May 2010 07:35 AM

Regarding Lot.  Maybe he should not have been there to begin with.  My point is that Lot and his family were told to leave if they were to be saved and not perish with the Sodomites.  It was a salvation issue for him and his family.  Lot’s wife died because she looked back.  All her reasons are left unsaid.  Meanwhile Jesus asks us to remember Lot’s wife in Luke 17 where he speaks of the end times.  We are to hold on to salvation.  TEC is, in its new teaching, leading people to damnation.  Many in ACNA are firm in their belief that God has told them to do the same with respect to TEC.

Yes, Lot was saved by leaving Sodom, but if I were ACNA I would not want to identify too closely with him. Leaving aside the question of whether he should ever have been in Sodom at all, his departure from there was not an unmixed blessing. In addition to salvation for Lot, it resulted in the founding of two nations—Moab and Ammon—that fell into idolatry and were perennial enemies of Israel, causing lasting difficulties for the chosen people. I hope there is no parallel to that part of Lot’s story in the future relations between ACNA and the rest of the Church.

Ian Montgomery - 16 May 2010 07:35 AM

Much in the end is a personal decision and as such fallible.  As we/I read the Scriptures so we understand our guidance.  To those who stay in TEC God bless you and your witness.  By now I am sure you are aware of a kind of martyrdom that awaits.  To those who have left and/or been kicked out, keep the faith and support those who stay.

Yes, I think martyrdom in various forms is probably in the future for those faithful still in TEC. I guess that was probably what happened to the few faithful who remained in Judah when Jerusalem was finally overrun. If they weren’t literally killed, they lost everything they had. But so far I do not see the probability or even certainty of martyrdom as a reason for parishes taking the initiative to leave. If obedience to God requires remaining in place unless & until kicked out (and at the moment I lean toward thinking that it does) then it also requires the faithful to submit to the martyrdom that is the result of this obedience, whether that takes the form of denial of voice and vote at diocesan conventions, deposition and other punitive actions by persecuting bishops, loss of parish properties or whatever. We traditionalists have been known to tell gay believers that obedience to God may be difficult and disagreeable but it’s still what is required of them. IMO, the same thing goes for orthodox North American Anglicans. I imagine the result of such obedience would be a sort of Babylonian sojourn, and many of the exiles would perhaps not live long enough to be among those who eventually return to the “land”, that is, to be part of a restoration of an orthodox province of the Anglican Communion in the US and Canada.