Full Speed Ahead [CT 6]

Midwest Conservative Journal ^ | 7/27/2005 | Christopher Johnson

[sionnsar]

Now What?
Christopher Johnson, 7/27/2005


"I see my ministry now as helping our church to find a way forward that both preserves the unity of the church and honors the deeply held divergent points of view among us." - Frank Griswold to the Primates of the Anglican Communion, August 19, 2003

Are you planning on starting that ministry of yours any time soon, Frank?

The Rubicon has been crossed; open warfare has broken out in the Episcopal Church.  The question now is what, if anything, can ECUSA do to stop it.  As I see it, 815 has four options and three of them are bad:

(1) Frank convenes some sort of special bishops meeting and attempts to negotiate a solution.  A non-starter since there is nothing to negotiate.  Smith won't back down and the rhetoric of the recent Network letter to Smith means that if the Network backs down or accepts another "compromise," its credibility will be destroyed never to live again. 

And with the recent establishment of the Council of Anglican Provinces of the Americas and Caribbean(CAPAC), the Network doesn't need to back down.  Because CAPAC, along with its inspiration, the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa, gives the Network something ECUSA no longer has.  Membership in and enthusiastic support from a strong, vibrant international Anglican organization.

(2) Presentment charges are brought and carried through against the Network bishops.  Only if ECUSA has a death wish.  This action would outrage CAPAC, the African bishops and every other orthodox Anglican in the world, split ECUSA wide open and guarantee that Lambeth 2008 never happens.

(3) Presentment charges are brought against Andrew Smith who gets some sort of sham trial(see Walter Righter) at which he is found innocent.  See above as this will probably have much the same effect.

(4)  Presentment charges are brought against Andrew Smith and made to stick.  This might be ECUSA's only chance to slow down Network momentum and, ironically, I don't think it's out of the question.  The silence from liberal bishops regarding Smith's actions in Bristol may not indicate support for the Connecticut bishop. 

It's entirely possible that some liberal ECUSA bishops were appalled but, for reasons of their own, didn't want to say anything.  If the charges are strictly framed as a violation of the canons, they might find it easy to vote against Smith, thus taking a major Network issue off the table.  Much of the Episcopal left would be outraged but the left isn't threatening to bolt and isn't ECUSA's main problem right now.

Of the four, I think (3) is the most likely and, for ECUSA, (4) is the most necessary.  For what it's worth.

[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 and newheart.

Resource for Traditional Anglicans: http://trad-anglican.faithweb.com

Humor: The Anglican Blue (by Huber)

Speak the truth in love. Eph 4:15

[sionnsar]

The Shot Heard Round the World...
The Rev. Lee Nelson, 7/27/2005

This is where things take a turn.

Today, nine Bishops (including my own) signed a letter to the Bishop of Connecticut in which they pledge to:

1. Issue a presentment against +Smith
   
2. Issue and raise funding for the legal defense of the Connecticut parishes.
   
3. Provide episcopal care (assumedly unauthorized by +Smith) to those parishes.
   
4. License Fr. Mark Hansen in their dioceses.

I had heard that this was in the works, but I point it out as a major step in the present conflict as a whole. This is the first time that diocesan bishops of any stripe have simply pledged to override episcopal authority outside the geographical boundaries of their own dioceses. In this sense, it is a major statement, and falls very much in line with a paper I wrote a while back on the subject of episcopal jurisdiction. It is clear at this point that, at least among the named bishops, they no longer see any collegiality with at least Bishop Smith, although this number is likely to increase. So the battle is heating up - and I would expect that by the end of this calendar year, we will see one of the men on this list presented himself. But, nevertheless, in the end this is very good news indeed.

Read the whole text here.

[PAR35]

Provide episcopal care (assumedly unauthorized by +Smith) to those parishes.

If carried out, this will be the biggest step, and the one which will signal an open break. The other 3 are minor compared to this one.

[PAR35]

I was going to ask who signed the first but not the second, but I think I found that info. What is your interpretation for those names being absent? (Also, the 2nd letter says that 13 diocean Bishops signed the first one, but I only counted 12. Am I missing something there?)

Ackerman, Quincy
Herlong, Tennessee
Kelshaw, Rio Grande