What's going to happen?

[Aymn27]

to the Anglican Communion? What do you all think? I know PV and others think DES has been addressed, but if you've been reading internet articles I would say that most "conservatives" disagree - CAPA, etc certainly does....and the Bishop of my local Diocese (a Windsor compliant Bishop) thinks it fell flat as well...His convention speech even hit on the topic of how the Diocese would split from TEC....

What do you all think? Just curious.

[Albion]

to the Anglican Communion? What do you all think? I know PV and others think DES has been addressed, but if you've been reading internet articles I would say that most "conservatives" disagree - CAPA, etc certainly does....and the Bishop of my local Diocese (a Windsor compliant Bishop) thinks it fell flat as well...His convention speech even hit on the topic of how the Diocese would split from TEC....

What do you all think? Just curious.

Well, DES has not been addressed...and let's not forget the other issues that were stonewalled. No, saying that DES has been addressed is little more than a debating device.

But that aside, you ask for a guess about the future. My guess is that TEC will remain in the Anglican Communion so long, at least, as Abp Williams is in office. Something like half of the Communion's provinces will either boycott Lambeth and all such wastes-of-time, but without leaving the Communion itself. If not that, they will finally form an alternative Communion. In either case, Anglican unity--as represented by the Anglican Communion--is forever finished.

The Global South provinces will recognize a second province in North America when ACN, AMiA, probably CANA, and several Continuing Churches, plus whichever Episcopal dioceses withdraw from TEC complete their work of forming a new church in the USA and Canada.

Although they will tend to be shoved into the background by the gravity and newsworthiness of the above developments, the larger of the Continuing Anglican Churches will probably join together into a united Anglican body of their own. This will be more conservative in doctrine and practice than the second province recognized by some Anglican Communion members, but quite Anglo-Catholic, even Anglo-Papal. Conservative evangelicals will opt for the second province. The churches likely to form the new Continuing Anglican body in the USA this would be the ACC, APCK, and UECNA.

[PaladinValer]

How many of the "opposing views" of TEC's reply actually address it in the context of TEC's ecclesiastical polity and structure?

So far, none. I in particlar noted the Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East's mistakes in his reading of the House of Bishop's statement and we had one member who posts her who actually witnessed something of the matter.

What remains is this:

1. No more Blessing of Rites for same-gender relationships. This is what was asked of us.

2. No more ordination of non-celibate folks who are inclined to the same gender to the bishopric. This is what was asked of us.

3. Both of these until Lambeth says otherwise. This is what is classically done in Christianity after all.

4. Alternative pastoral oversight is being addressed by ++Schori and she has selected individual bishops who are probably best fit for the role.

[longhair75]

Friend Albion, Although they will tend to be shoved into the background by the gravity and newsworthiness of the above developments, the larger of the Continuing Anglican Churches will probably join together into a united Anglican body of their own. This will be more conservative in doctrine and practice than the second province recognized by some Anglican Communion members, but quite Anglo-Catholic, even Anglo-Papal. Conservative evangelicals will opt for the second province. The churches likely to form the new Continuing Anglican body in the USA this would be the ACC, APCK, UECNA, and (now that its initiative towards the Vatican has failed) ACA, i.e. the US province of the TAC.

At this point a second, conservative, US province of the Anglican Communion would be the best solution to the problem. Chances are though, even if this were to come to pass, the argument would still continue. Most likely, neither side would accept the other, and it will just go forward from there. Probably, our grandchildren will still be arguing this.

[Albion]

Friend Albion,

At this point a second, conservative, US province of the Anglican Communion would be the best solution to the problem.

Possibly so, but THAT is the one development that will not happen.

To clarify, I spoke of a "second province" made up of those breaking away from TEC. These are more conservative than TEC, if you want to put it that way, but the actual conservatives are the Continuing Anglicans who made their break 2 or more decades ago. We are seeing the development of three Anglican presences in North America--liberal, moderate or moderately conservative, and conservative.

As to whether our grandchildren will be arguing this still, I suppose so. However, it will tone down considerably and be no more impassioned than the feelings Lutherans or Baptists have about the different bodies each of those "families" has.

[PaladinValer]

You cannot have two provinces however in the same area.

[ContraMundum]

This current phase of agitation in Anglicanism will pass- all the fads and trends always have before.

It might look like it is falling apart at the seams, but the central core will remain, God willing.

Perhaps the generation of our grandchildren will have the chutzpah to stand up for the truth and reverse the damage done to our communion and to the wider unity of the church by the generation preceeding ours (and its effects still echo in its offspring- our generation) and God willing the theological pendulum will swing again, as it has always done.

Until then: obey the scriptures (Rom 16:17, Titus 3:10) yet never give up on the quest for unity (Jo 17:11) and you won't go far wrong.

[ContraMundum]

You cannot have two provinces however in the same area.

Of course you can. It's not like it's physically impossible. Think outside the box.

[ContraMundum]

As to whether our grandchildren will be arguing this still, I suppose so. However, it will tone down considerably and be no more impassioned than the feelings Lutherans or Baptists have about the different bodies each of those "families" has.


Good point.

[PaladinValer]

No, it is not canonically possible.

The only reason why the Utrecht Union doesn't want to reinitiate a new juristiction in the US is because there exists its In Communion body, the Anglican Church, there.

Furthermore, the Windsor Report makes it clear that no two provinces can have authority in the same area.

[Albion]

Good point.

Thanks. What I should have added is that the world will also take for granted that there are two or three branches of Anglicanism in the USA, just as it does with the Lutherans, etc. TEC will--for awhile--attempt to keep alive the idea that there is only one and that the others are imposters, but that claim loses steam every day and already is on life support.

It will still be argued by TEC that this is how everyone should look at the situation, but the real world looks at the way things actually are. TEC's statements about being in the Anglican Communion, as though that matters towards some kind of validity, will become one of those archane theological points of doctrine that only researchers and religion professors bother with.

[ContraMundum]

No, it is not canonically possible.

Canons can be changed- all you need is one party to be willing to give up a little power.

Furthermore, the Windsor Report makes it clear that no two provinces can have authority in the same area.

The Report is not infallible, and if canons are changed, then it will become irrelevant on that point.

But, then again, some people are served very well by the canons and just adore them for it. They help keep the money coming in, and if the money comes in, the denomination survives, or so the story goes.

The question a Christian should ask is this: do the canons serve the church, or do they serve God? If that balance is not struck, then the canons are mere "traditions of men that nullify the commandments of God" and should in turn be changed.

But temporal power is at stake here, so I won't hold my breath.

[ContraMundum]

Thanks. What I should have added is that the world will also take for granted that there are two or three branches of Anglicanism in the USA, just as it does with the Lutherans, etc. TEC will--for awhile--attempt to keep alive the idea that there is only one and that the others are imposters, but that claim loses steam every day and already is on life support.

True. No one looks at you funny these days when you tell them that you are an Anglican but from a different communion.

Just like the Lutherans, the Orthodox, the whatevers.

It will still be argued by TEC that this is how everyone should look at the situation, but the real world looks at the way things actually are. TEC's statements about being in the Anglican Communion, as though that matters towards some kind of validity, will become one of those archane theological points of doctrine that only researchers and religion professors bother with.

Unity for unity's sake at the expense of theological truth is false anyway- and everyone can see it.

[Albion]

Canons can be changed- all you need is one party to be willing to give up a little power.

Yes, but it doesn't really matter. If Canons are not changed, we will have 2/3 or so of the Anglican Communion recognizing the new, second province as the only one in North America. Meanwhile, 1/3 or so, representing a minority of the world's Anglican population, will recognize TEC instead. How will the world generally, the media, and all the rest, look at the situation? Not as a main force and a scattering of splinters. That might be the case with the Continuers, but not with the second province.

With family feuds, the onlookers always tilt towards whoever has the most members, not who has the most technical claims to make. It will be like recognizing Taiwan or Mainland China. Taiwan is the Republic of China, the direct continuation of the state formed when the Manchus were overthrown, but few in the world other than the Chinese themselves give a fig for that fact when deciding how to see and understand either of them.

[PaladinValer]

Canons can be changed- all you need is one party to be willing to give up a little power.

Canons however cannot go against that which has been established by Ecumenical Council.

The Report is not infallible, and if canons are changed, then it will become irrelevant on that point.

The Report is for the good of the Anglican Church.

As for it not being infallible, it makes no such claim to be infallible. It has always been meant to be a process, although some think it more concrete (and they usually ignore the parts they don't like, interestingly enough).

But, then again, some people are served very well by the canons and just adore them for it. They help keep the money coming in, and if the money comes in, the denomination survives, or so the story goes.

Oh yes; it is always about the money. :doh:

If it were, TEC would have gone its own merry way and not gone through the lengths it has to ensure its continued involvement in the Anglican Church.

The question a Christian should ask is this: do the canons serve the church, or do they serve God? If that balance is not struck, then the canons are mere "traditions of men that nullify the commandments of God" and should in turn be changed.

Since the Church is God's Kingdom on Earth, the canons are God's rules on Earth.

And while canons can change, they cannot, as I've said above, go contrary to what has been previously established as absolute. Interpretations can change, assuridly, but the truths in which we make our interpretations of cannot.

But temporal power is at stake here, so I won't hold my breath.

The Church is not temporal.

[Inside Edge]

What I should have added is that the world will also take for granted that there are two or three branches of Anglicanism in the USA, just as it does with the Lutherans, etc. TEC will--for awhile--attempt to keep alive the idea that there is only one and that the others are imposters, but that claim loses steam every day and already is on life support. It will still be argued by TEC that this is how everyone should look at the situation, but the real world looks at the way things actually are. TEC's statements about being in the Anglican Communion, as though that matters towards some kind of validity, will become one of those archane theological points of doctrine that only researchers and religion professors bother with.
I think this is largely true, provided all elements of your projection come to pass. The end-world-image of TEC or the Anglican Communion (in your case here) depends on all those Continuing or splinter bodies hooking up into some formalized Communion themselves, which to me seems a lot to expect. Not only is there a lot of variance as to "how conservative" the groups are, but they are also relatively inaccessible in many areas of the countries involved. TEC and the ACC have definitely manage to tick off many (if not all) conservatives; however, they are not all ticked off for the same reason(s), and not all those who have left have established or joined a continuing or alternative Anglican church.

It may well be the case that the world will simply have no clue what the Anglican Communion, or "Anglican" in general is, or means. There will be Anglican churches everywhere, but it will be anyone's guess as to what exactly you're walking into when you visit any given church. Another exodus will just even out the proportions among 'types' of Anglicanism, but no one branch will have enough population, resources, or market share to actually establish any sort of worldwide recognition.

[ContraMundum]

Canons however cannot go against that which has been established by Ecumenical Council.

Yes, they can in some cases, if they're only canons of discipline and not doctrinal. How many examples can you think of? I can think of quite a few.

Oh yes; it is always about the money. :doh:

Sadly, yes, it almost always is.

If it were, TEC would have gone its own merry way and not gone through the lengths it has to ensure its continued involvement in the Anglican Church.

It's about the money but also other things.

Since the Church is God's Kingdom on Earth, the canons are God's rules on Earth.

There's different types of canons, PV. Some are doctrinal, some are merely disciplinary.

Are disciplinary canons applicable forever? I don't think so. You already argued this very day against the canons denouncing vegetarianism, so you can't have it both ways.

And while canons can change, they cannot, as I've said above, go contrary to what has been previously established as absolute. Interpretations can change, assuridly, but the truths in which we make our interpretations of cannot.

True...so why argue about this? The canons can change.

The Church is not temporal.

Yes it is...it is however not merely or only temporal. It is much more, as everybody already knows. However, if it is not temporal- are you having your meetings in another dimension or something? Is that why you have "Q" as your avatar- has he granted your church meetings in an unseen, non-temporal world? :)

[Albion]

I think this is largely true, provided all elements of your projection come to pass.

Well sure, but the main thing in doubt is which groups will go where. The basic scenario is pretty certain.

The end-world-image of TEC or the Anglican Communion (in your case here) depends on all those Continuing or splinter bodies hooking up into some formalized Communion themselves, which to me seems a lot to expect.

Not sure which groups you have in mind. I only projected several of the larger Continuer churches coming together--something that has begun already--not all of them. And if a few of the ECUSA groups do not join in with the Second Province, it probably doesn't adversely affect much. But these are all already working together and have agreed to the plans for a Second Province, so I am guessing that the defections, if there are some, will not destroy the effort.

Not only is there a lot of variance as to "how conservative" the groups are, but they are also relatively inaccessible in many areas of the countries involved.

I don't think this matters much in the overall.

TEC and the ACC have definitely manage to tick off many (if not all) conservatives; however, they are not all ticked off for the same reason(s), and not all those who have left have established or joined a continuing or alternative Anglican church.

Well, the several million who have left Anglicanism altogether are a significant number, but they weren't part of the guessing about the future for the reason that they are no longer identified with Anglicanism in any variety. If this means that the cause is weakened overall, I wouldn't disagree with that. The comparison of over three million Episcopalians a few years back with less than two million divided between three church groupings of Anglicans/Episcopalians in the near future can fairly be said to represent a decline.

It may well be the case that the world will simply have no clue what the Anglican Communion, or "Anglican" in general is, or means. There will be Anglican churches everywhere, but it will be anyone's guess as to what exactly you're walking into when you visit any given church.

I doubt that it will be that way. After all, all the variations currently exist somewhere in the Communion already, even in ECUSA if we consider it alone. You don't know for sure, as a visitor, if you are going to face High Church or Low Church or Charismatic or what degree of traditionalism when visiting any ECUSA church cold. Right now we are merely seeing the types of Anglicans separate and go to different corners.

Another exodus will just even out the proportions among 'types' of Anglicanism, but no one branch will have enough population, resources, or market share to actually establish any sort of worldwide recognition.

There will be a diminution of the recognition factor, and there certainly will be diminution of the importance of the Anglican Communion in the eyes of other communions. But ECUSA will, after all, still be part of the Anglican Communion headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury while a rival of equally international federation will arise alongside it with most of the world's Anglican communicants.

And one more thing, it is possible that the wrangling and dislocation will hasten the number just giving up on Anglicanism in any form, but with a stronger organization than the Continuers have, the Second Province may be able to attract back some who previously thought they had no good alternative to ECUSA (and so became inactive or started attending some other denomination's churches).

[PaladinValer]

Yes, they can in some cases, if they're only canons of discipline and not doctrinal. How many examples can you think of? I can think of quite a few.

We are talking however about doctrinal canons.

Sadly, yes, it almost always is.

It's about the money but also other things.

Contradiction.

The rule of addition is you add "or," not "and."

PvQ is true so long as one or the other is true. It is only false if both are false.

P/\Q is true only if both statements are truth. Otherwise, it is always false.

Please clarify what you believe: is it just money or is it due to multiple reasons?

In any case, if it were about money, TEC would simply walk its way. The truth is, TEC supplies the Anglican Church's coffers in probably the largest part. We can very easily fund our own province so if we really wanted to go our own way, we'd not only have the Apostolic Succession but we'd have the complete ability to fund our own journey.

The Archbishop of Canterbury very recently told the House of Bishops that TEC needs the Anglican Church and the Anglican Church needs TEC. Money is not what is being addressed here: even without TEC's portion of the collective plate, the provinces in other Western nations can probably cope. Sure, it'll be a bumpy right and concessions will have to be made, but if TEC were to leave, the Anglican Church would continue and eventually achieve economic stability once again. No, money is not what His Holiness meant, and even if so, it would be a small, insignificant part.

It is a history. It is a fellowship. It is truly first proof of a multistate Anglican Church. Scotland...Ireland...all a part of the State of England. Now here comes the United States, completely independent yet with a truly and undeniably Anglican presence and church. Perhaps that is often forgotten by both sides, but I personally am mindfull of it each day. TEC is a living symbol of the Anglican Church.

Yes it is...it is however not merely or only temporal. It is much more, as everybody already knows. However, if it is not temporal- are you having your meetings in another dimension or something? Is that why you have "Q" as your avatar- has he granted your church meetings in an unseen, non-temporal world? :)

The Church is only temporal as the people who make it up, the buildings that are affiliated and embodied in it, the bishops and other clergy who tend it, and the laity who minister in it.

The Church is only temporal as it completes its mission laid out by the Holy Spirit, providing a vehicle of salvation for all people, providing care for all people, providing hope for all people.

Yet the Church on Earth: the Church Militant, is merely God's Kingdom on Earth. It is a Kingdom that has come, yet not fully as it will be when this world is fully transfigured. It is a Kingdom that does reign, and it is a Kingdom not of this Earth, though it inhabits this Earth, but a Kingdom of God's Abode. And there, there is no time.

[karen freeinchristman]

The truth is, TEC supplies the Anglican Church's coffers in probably the largest part.
I've never understood why people sometimes say this. Are you saying that you believe TEC actually supports (to a large degree) the rest of the Anglican Communion? If this is what you mean, I disagree. I have never heard of any money from TEC coming into the CofE for example. Where does that money supposedly go? What exactly does it support (outside of TEC)?

[PaladinValer]

I've never understood why people sometimes say this. Are you saying that you believe TEC actually supports (to a large degree) the rest of the Anglican Communion?

I believe its contributions represents a very significant portion of the pie. I do not believe, however, that its slice constitutes 50%<. I would have to do a little research before I would suggest anything like that.

If this is what you mean, I disagree. I have never heard of any money from TEC coming into the CofE for example.

That is only one province of 38. What about the other 36?

Where does that money supposedly go? What exactly does it support (outside of TEC)?

The Episcopal Relief Fund has provides many provinces in the third world with a great deal of assistence...or at least it provides for those who accept its generosity (I think one or two no longer do, but I may be mistaken). It should also be remembered that TEC has often in the largest part initiated the beginnings of whole new provinces.

Its monies provide funds for anything from education to calamity relief. In addition, it isn't just money but actual things like books and clothes.

[Albion]

I've never understood why people sometimes say this. Are you saying that you believe TEC actually supports (to a large degree) the rest of the Anglican Communion? If this is what you mean, I disagree. I have never heard of any money from TEC coming into the CofE for example. Where does that money supposedly go? What exactly does it support (outside of TEC)?

It seems that I read this quite frequently. As to it's truth, I wouldn't know.

However, I don't suppose that the monies go to the C of E, but rather to poorer countries, especially those in Africa. We remember that when several of the African provinces (I don't recall if that was Uganda, Rwanda, or just which) criticised ECUSA over the gay bishops matter, they stated that they were refusing to accept any more money from ECUSA and that this would work a hardship, but one they felt they felt they should bear.

[ContraMundum]

We are talking however about doctrinal canons.

We are?

Contradiction.
Not a true contradiction, if you think about a little.

The rule of addition is you add "or," not "and."

PvQ is true so long as one or the other is true. It is only false if both are false.

P/\Q is true only if both statements are truth. Otherwise, it is always false.

I've never laughed so hard at a comment in a post as hard as I just laughed then. I literally sprayed lemon juice on the keyboard and screen!

I'm not gonna get over this bellyache caused by side-splitting laughter for ages.

I wish I could put this in my signature! ^_^ :thumbsup:

Please clarify what you believe: is it just money or is it due to multiple reasons?

Multiple- but MAINLY money.

In any case, if it were about money, TEC would simply walk its way. The truth is, TEC supplies the Anglican Church's coffers in probably the largest part. We can very easily fund our own province so if we really wanted to go our own way, we'd not only have the Apostolic Succession but we'd have the complete ability to fund our own journey.

I don't think we're actually talking about the same thing. Maybe we are, maybe not.

The Archbishop of Canterbury very recently told the House of Bishops that TEC needs the Anglican Church and the Anglican Church needs TEC. Money is not what is being addressed here: even without TEC's portion of the collective plate, the provinces in other Western nations can probably cope. Sure, it'll be a bumpy right and concessions will have to be made, but if TEC were to leave, the Anglican Church would continue and eventually achieve economic stability once again. No, money is not what His Holiness meant, and even if so, it would be a small, insignificant part.

When a congregation is contemplating following the Lord in obedience to his commands by leaving a large heterodox denomination, the first things that come up are always fiscal- because the property will be fought over and questions raised about every conceivable aspect of running expenses in the local church. Many, many churches stay in their denominational cages because of the fear that they will lose too much in the way of bricks and mortar and retirement packages for their pastors.

Elevate this concept to a diocesan level (or thereabouts) and you'll see where I'm coming from.

It's a tough decision- to follow the Lord in faith, hoping He will provide (which He always does) or to stick to the material security they (might) already have. For me, it's a no brainer, but for some congregations, the decision is tougher.

It is a history. It is a fellowship. It is truly first proof of a multistate Anglican Church. Scotland...Ireland...all a part of the State of England. Now here comes the United States, completely independent yet with a truly and undeniably Anglican presence and church. Perhaps that is often forgotten by both sides, but I personally am mindfull of it each day. TEC is a living symbol of the Anglican Church.

Kinda, sorta, maybe. Yes and no. No and yes.

How does the formula go again? :D

The Church is only temporal as the people who make it up, the buildings that are affiliated and embodied in it, the bishops and other clergy who tend it, and the laity who minister in it.

The Church is only temporal as it completes its mission laid out by the Holy Spirit, providing a vehicle of salvation for all people, providing care for all people, providing hope for all people.

Yet the Church on Earth: the Church Militant, is merely God's Kingdom on Earth. It is a Kingdom that has come, yet not fully as it will be when this world is fully transfigured. It is a Kingdom that does reign, and it is a Kingdom not of this Earth, though it inhabits this Earth, but a Kingdom of God's Abode. And there, there is no time.

Correct.

[ContraMundum]

We remember that when several of the African provinces (I don't recall if that was Uganda, Rwanda, or just which) criticised ECUSA over the gay bishops matter, they stated that they were refusing to accept any more money from ECUSA and that this would work a hardship, but one they felt they felt they should bear.

...what faith! :crossrc: