North American Reunification: Danger and Hope [TEC]

Stand Firm ^ | 1/16/2007 | Matt Kennedy

[sionnsar]

I desperately hope, as I’ve said before, that the Network APO dioceses and bishops rather than the Windsor bishops form the core around which this reconstituted structure will form. Unless orthodox principles and truths, like those of the Network charter or those currently being articulated by the Common Cause partners are established as the boundaries and foundations of this new structure, the new structure will be subject to the same creeping revisionism that destroyed the old and many of our separated orthodox brethren will be unable in good conscience to take part in the reunification.

---

On both the right and the left there has been a good deal of comment with regard to the breadth and variety of vessels into which or through which departing Anglican congregations have fled the Episcopal Church. CANA , the AMiA, and the Network’s Seventh Convocation (itself comprising parishes belonging to Ugandan, Kenyan, Latin American and other provinces) are the three primary homelands offered to fleeing parishes. Some also flee to one of the various Common Cause jurisdictions or to other parts of the continuum.

Many lament this “alphabet soup” of Anglican affiliations. And, were the present structure (or lack thereof) intended to remain permanent, it would indeed be lamentable.

But it is not. As I noted in one of my comments on a recent thread, several orthodox leaders have likened this alphabet soup to Dunkirk . The Global South primates have recognized the dire situation in North America and have listened to the cry for help from harried parishes in revisionist and/or hostile centrist dioceses. And they have, despite ill-informed criticism from those on the right and left who’ve not taken the time to read and heed the Dromantine Communiqué, launched rescue vessels of every sort and kind to ferry beleaguer parishes to safety. And the parishes themselves, cornered by conscience and/or by law (canon or otherwise), have jumped aboard whatever vessel will hold them.

But it should be noted at this point that the evacuation of northern France at Dunkirk was never intended to be a permanent one. Dunkirk was a tactical retreat that served to preserve the lives of many of the same soldiers who would one day return to France by way of Normandy beach on D-Day.

In the same way, the present circumstances are not intended to last. Not only is the quite un-Anglican discontinuity difficult for isolated parishes in far off heretic dioceses, but the Global South primates have already indicated that their provincial oversight is temporary, contingent upon the establishment of the “separate structure” described in the Kigali Communique.

The present, then, is not wet concrete. One day CANA , the Seventh Convocation, and (I pray) the AMiA and Common Cause partners will return from exile and be reunited structurally with the orthodox dioceses in an orthodox Anglican body.

But this future is not yet assured.

I desperately hope, as I’ve said before, that the Network APO dioceses and bishops rather than the Windsor bishops form the core around which this reconstituted structure will form. Unless orthodox principles and truths, like those of the Network charter or those currently being articulated by the Common Cause partners are established as the boundaries and foundations of this new structure, the new structure will be subject to the same creeping revisionism that destroyed the old and many of our separated orthodox brethren will be unable in good conscience to take part in the reunification.

There are two crucial lines or boundaries that, in my opinion, must not be blurred. First, there is the Windsor line. All those bishops and dioceses promising to uphold the principles articulated in the Windsor Report as accepted and amended by the primates at Dromantine, have stepped across this line. By virtue of this crossing, these bodies and leaders have identified themselves as Anglican and ought justly to be given the opportunity to join the new body that forms from the dead and dying husk of the old.

But, while the Windsor line certainly protects bishops and dioceses from expulsion and represents communion participation and standing for the same, it does not ensure orthodoxy. A new Body formed on the basis of Windsor principles alone would sit on a poor foundation.

Such a body would require boundaries wide enough to encompass both orthodox and heterodox leaders. Such an embrace necessarily would necessarily come at the cost of clearly defined biblical faith. Definitive truth, as is the pattern, would inevitably be compromised for the familiar dogmatic obfuscations and deceits which permit broader unity. Ultimately, the new structure would be just as subject to revisionist influences and false teaching as the old. History would repeat itself.

Moreover, a simple Windsor line would permit abusive centrist bishops to continue their abuse unabated. What, for example, would happen to those Alabama parishes hounded by “Windsor Bishop” Parsley? How could an ascendant Windsor based structure accommodate the reunification of the orthodox in the Episcopal Church with those beyond her jurisdictional reach? Would it not rather serve to continue the ostracization of the boldest defenders of orthodoxy? Persecuting institutionalist bishops, so long as they tow the Windsor Line, would be rewarded with communion fellowship and continued institutional power while, if they had anything to say about it (and they would), the orthodox parishes they persecuted would be left out in the cold.

They must not, in my view, have anything to say about it. Heterodox and abusive institutionalist Bishops must come to the new body as supplicants not overlords.

This is why a second line or boundary must be drawn. Those wishing to form a single Anglican entity in North America must, in my opinion submit to certain core orthodox Anglican principles. A good model, in my opinion, is the working Common Cause document. In any case, some sort of confessional standard based on the Articles of Religion and the other Anglican formularies would, in fact facilitate a far broader and more comprehensive reunification than Windsor requests. It would provide a safe foundation for the Common Cause partners, the Seventh Convocation, and CANA. It would also be open to any heterodox Windsor Bishop willing to submit his personal views to the classical teaching of the Church.

All of this seems, unfortunately, to depend on external circumstances. If the Communion as a whole does not split, who will the Archbishop of Canterbury (or, if it does split, who will the new southern-based Communion primates) recognize as the leader of North American Anglicanism?

If the choice is Bishop Wimberley or someone like him, then we can expect that the new structure will look a lot like the old sans same-sex blessings and non-celibate homosexual bishops. The Common Cause partners will remain estranged and the Anglican diaspora will continue.

If the choice is Bishop Duncan or someone like him who has already recognized the necessity for a confessional standard then there is true hope for North American reunification and true, lasting, reform.

[sionnsar]

Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams.

FReepmail sionnsar if you want on or off this moderately high-volume ping list (typically 3-9 pings/day).
This list is pinged by sionnsar, Huber and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com
More Anglican articles here.

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15