Anglican Unscripted 502 – Phyletism is alive a well
CANA - Convocation of Anglicans in North America
AMIA - Anglican Mission in the Americas
ACC - Anglican Consultative Council
----------------------------
CANA – Convocation of Anglicans in North America
AMIA – Anglican Mission in the Americas
26 COMMENTS
George’s mention of his formal clerical dress at an evangelical meeting reminded me that last week I went to a meeting where two of the three archbishops who addressed us (an Australian and an American) had open-neck shirts while I was sitting there in tie and jacket. I was just about the only man with a tie. I have noticed in Sydney Diocese more keen evangelical ministers wearing clerical collars at times and a greater willingness to wear robes when taking services than was the case about 30 years ago. There has also been a change (to take up Gavin’s point) since the late 60s till 80s when some clergy would not even answer letters from the Archbishop because they didn’t acknowledge his authority. The evangelical view of bishops will always be different from the “high” view but their role as head pastors in a diocese is I think well-accepted today in Sydney.
It’s very interesting.
The Lord used evangelical charismatic Anglicans to bring me to salvation, yet I remain a non Conformist with no definite denominational loyalty.
Yet despite my distaste for formalised worship, robes and deference I recognise the value of the CofE as our national Church and its power for good or ill as regards the faith.
So I recognise that there are many conservative evangelical members of the clergy who felt called into the CofE. I pray that more men and women will be raised up who will stand for the Gospel, encourage discipleship and outreach.
For all its current failings the Anglican Church is most associated with our national life in a way that neither the Methodists or Baptists are. We need a strong healthy and vibrant Church of England, despite all its odd and glorious ‘bumbledom’, to stand up for the Christian faith in the same way that the Catholic Church does.
Despite my non denominational faith my wife and I are involved with various churches working together. Consequently my understanding of Roman Catholicism has grown, we have attended RC services, and got to know and like individual Catholics. The Catholic service is very similar to the Anglican , but whilst enjoying the service and some of the hymns we would never go forward for a blessing; but we care very much for the parish priest and pray for him regularly.
There are aspects of the faith where we Protestants actually agree with Catholics although approaching from a different perspective. There are also aspects where we cannot agree -Mariology, Purgatory, Papal infallibity etc.
So what I admire is that the Roman Catholic Church does stand up for moral values and issues, where the Anglican Church only seems to stand up for the LGBT etc. community.
Yes-s-s,
I was anticipating that alphaT.
But the fact is that both hierarchical Churches have the same problems.
See from my pov, when humans adopt a hierarchy they also adopt elitism, power, corruption and fear.
I don’t see that in the Scriptures. In fact God was reluctant to allow the concept of kingship in Israel, because He knew all that went with it.
What we see in today’s Christian community is that the churches that revere power and rank are most likely to fall into error.
And most likely to want to cover it up because they have most to lose.
Our Lord made it clear that to be greatest is to have a servant’s heart.
Btw I appreciate your responses to my comments, so would you mind telling me your background because you phrase your comments in a style unfamiliar to me.
Now that I have done the very tedious task of listening to the whole pontification and watched the Cheshire Cat well practiced in the mirror facial expressions…I can now give some additional feedback to the now three guys with webcams. CANA is multi racial and very diverse, I can tell you that as an American Caucasian fully involved and well received into the life of CANA. Secondly, chaos in our local ACNA diocese, their lack of properly formed clergy, letting the unordained celebrate communion, replacing infant baptism with baby dedication, the failure to vest for services…all these things put such a barrier up and cause such consternation, that an ecumenical relationship allows for much better gospel advancement than fighting about these things, and certainly that the Bishop allows this makes subjection to him impossible. Truth to tell I agree with George about the evangelicals as he describes and ACNA is chuck full of them, many of their Bishops were never properly formed in Anglicanism. Finally, I also believe Episcopal bishops are fully in apostolic order, even if misguided and asymmetrically related to the Communion by the Communion’s own decision…and that ACNA is a bit delusional about their membership in the Communion, something to which Nigeria and TEC are both firmly connected. All that said I think George, who has nicely protected his TEC pension, lacks the credentials of sacrifice to be admonishing CANA, and from his seat so far from life on the ground simply has more speculation than real facts. After all these posts to think CANA West is staying in ACNA defies logic. To think the Primate of All Nigeria is not going to set to rights the CANA Diocese of the Trinity fails to understand the level of order and discipline upon which he insists. And actually it is not the Nigerians who have racist tendencies, but the CANA East diocese that seems to have racial uneasiness with Nigeria, and has already clearly stated their intension to leave CANA for ACNA.
And that is I want to be clear that our CANA diocese of the west is simply not at all about racism or tribalism, and there is something important to be learned from our situation. We are very nicely integrated in CANA because our Nigerian brothers and sisters simply don’t share in their our self-understanding the American black historical experience, and so our relationships don’t come burdened with all the sensitivities and complications that American black experience involves for whites and blacks. it is also difficult, I think, for people who have not been formed in the global Anglican Communion to have fully grasped in the core of their being and worldview that the Anglican Communion is primarily a Global South church, over 70%…so we are very used to living in and understanding our church to have long been more Nigerian than American. I was confirmed 58 years ago by Bishop Burgess in Massachusetts, one of the first black TEC Bishops. Not that long ago and maybe leaving TEC and its members like George and Kevin a little less integrated in their self-understanding than those of us who have lived more widely into communion life. So these racism claims, at least to a priest serving in an integrated diocese and integrated parish, really are offensive and simply unfounded, probably steming from something within their own context that is askew. Remember liberals always divert by accusing others about that which they are guilty.
So…although I don’t usually much respond to people in a vacuum, not knowing the who, what, and why of who they are, no context by which to frame their words…what I just wrote above was actually the results, the fruits, the reality of our life together in Cana West. That is not defensive, but simply to counter St George of TEC Conger’s attempt to opportunistically sow dissension and spin in the world of ACNA. You yourself need to be not so defended that you can’t even reveal who you are, and come out of the cheap seats of anonymity.
A moderator here, himself, uses an internet handle and understands the use for it. If you choose not to use one, fine… But criticizing someone for using one brings a frown to this moderator’s face.
What also brings a frown to this moderator’s face is when someone impugns someone’s motives or practice rather than focus on the subject matter itself.
Just saying…
I suspect I’m not the only viewer of Anglican Unscripted who, as a former Anglican, is interested to follow developments in Anglicanism, particularly the Church of England. So I generally appreciate the ‘show’, particularly the wider theological/philosophical insights and wisdom of Gavin Ashenden. I also have great respect for his stance against the capitulation of the Church of England to ‘the spirit of the age’. However, the minutiae of what Kevin refers to as ‘Anglican politics’ is of somewhat less interest … and I’m sorry to say that, for me, this episode was too full of this aspect, with too little of Gavin’s broader observations.
I am of a similar disposition but I accept that sometimes folk of a shared background may slip into ‘jargonese’. Not only that but anyway, where is there another platform on which our non conformist views are espoused? Up ’til now I haven’t found any, and I gave up on Premier Radio.
George Conger is outspoken and passionate, Kevin Kallsen is laid back and affable (But Hey! the show wouldn’t be there without his skills).
Gavin is a man of courage, intellectual honesty and diplomacy. As a brother in Christ I respect him immensely.
All three though need help and prayers so that they stay focussed on what the Lord is doing through Anglicans Unscripted, and resist the temptation to become ‘stars or oracles’ in their own right, rather than devoted servants of our God.
Thank you. I am beginning to understand how you phrase things, but more background information would be appreciated.
I’m a grain of sand too, and only have significance because our Creator God says I have.
I have no more significance than any other, so we come from a position of equality.
Gimme some background please!
Fr. Duncan went to Africa as a priest and came back an archbishop in the formation of ACNA. His gambit was to outnumber TEC and displace it in the eyes of Canterbury. Like in chess a gambit is a stirring up of the situation to avoid a stalemate. Winning isn’t guaranteed. Duncan accepted anyone and everyone to be one of the 1000 points of light with the promise of straightening it out later. It’s later and CANA is one issue abet a small one compared to other issues we don’t hear about. I’m not quite enamored with Duncan to the extent that George and Kevin seem. ACNA is sort of orthodox but seems to have lost it’s initial momentum. One local ACNA church I attended for 8 years was snagged by the Christian Episcopal Church and the other one is dominated by a petit tyrant. I drive 70 miles to another ACNA church where I’m more comfortable. George’s idea of congregational Anglicanism looks like the future.
On the question of phyletism….
The facts on the ground are that in any given place, there are multiple Anglican jurisdictions. If you push the point, why are there any “new” ACNA dioceses at all? Why did they not just use the pre-existing REC geographic dioceses, and just leave it at that? Fold in all the CANA, AMiA (and PEARUSA), and various jurisdictions of Uganda, Southern Cone (now province of South America), etc.? Instead, there are ACNA dioceses for Anglo Catholics, for Evangelicals that are pro-WO (women’s ordination), those that are anti WO, Reformed pro and antl, those that thought Rwanda was the best partner province and those that thought Nigeria was the best partner province. And often overlapping the same geography. Not to mention a “church planting” diocese that plants its own churches within the boundaries of whichever 3 others claim the space.
So, two, or one, or three (depending on how you are guessing it will work out) CANA dioceses have decided that they would prefer to be have their bishop under the oversight of ++Nicholas Okoh instead of the oversight of ++Foley Beach.
It just strikes me that a Nigerian congregation has as much right to this as an Anglo Catholic parish in Washington state or Michigan or New Jersey has to be in the Diocese of All Saints, or for that matter, Quincy, instead of the local diocese. And as much right as a church plant in Anywhere, USA has to be part of C4SO (Church for the Sake of Others- a diocese of church plants) instead of the local geographic diocese.
I am not saying it is ideal- or desirable- or right- but it is part of the DNA of the ACNA. All the Trinity diocese (and perhaps other CANA dioceses) are doing is to take this a step higher to the provincial level. What I think ++Okoh and ++Beach are doing is to try to make the best of a bad situation. The hope would be that full communion between ACNA and CANA can be maintained, and that as the Churches of the Global South grow closer to one another, such distinctions will disappear over time.
An excellent summary of the confusion we live with as American Anglicans. I have looked at the websites of CANA Dioceses of the East and of the West. Their ordained ministries are consistent with those branches of ACNA which have females priests, so whether they are associated with Nigeria or ACNA proper, they cannot exchange ministries with REC dioceses or other non-WO dioceses. If I attended a service at the local ACNA parish attended by my dear friends here, I’d have to be alert to who was consecrating the Holy Communion. The same would apply if there were a CANA parish here.
The Orthodox in the US have ethnically identified churches with different bishops. And so do even the Roman Catholics! Here in the Raleigh area there is a Byzantine Catholic parish, and not far from me is a newly planted Maronite Catholic parish.
Not precisely comparable, no, of course. With regard to the ACNA and CANA, though, the faith is the same, and in a great many cases so are the liturgies. It is not clear to me whether Nigeria, proper, permits ordaining women, which is part of the CANA ethos.
I do think that your harping on the racial angle doesn’t represent the thinking of the parties involved.
I also lived through the 60s. I prefer not to see “racial” causes for things unless it’s clear the causes are, in fact, racial.
I knew very little about CANA before this controversy erupted here. I had thought it was mostly a Nigerian ministry serving immigrant Nigerians, with generosity to non-Nigerian Americans. It appears, rather, now that I have looked at the CANA East and West websites, that non-ethnically Nigerian congregations predominate in both dioceses. Armstrong’s defense of his diocese (although I have not read all of his posts) appears to emphasize a connection to the Anglican Communion which ACNA lacks, in his estimation. I don’t agree with him there, but I don’t see where you, alphaTomega, get the idea that this controversy is heavily about race. I don’t really see it as about race at all, based on reading these posts. Bishops from both Rwanda and Nigeria offered refuge to American Anglican believers before the ACNA came into being. How, when, and on what basis, American Anglicans of the pro-WO persuasion are to be reunited is the question. Obviously, some do not want to give up the direct connection to overseas bishops who helped them, and some are ready to do so. What does “race” has to do with this?
Foley Beach and Nicholas Okoh are also clergymen. As is Don Armstrong. As are the CANA bishops. So are those among the TEC bishops and priests who told the openly insulting racist “jokes” about “African primates”.
George Conger is an honest man, and I am sure he is giving us an honest appraisal. As a journalist, he may have information at his disposal that the rest of us do not. But he did not reveal it- so it is difficult for the rest of us to form an appraisal, or argue either for or against his position. But until we have interviews from the principals involved- the CANA bishops, the Nigerian and ACNA primates, etc., I doubt we will have much more than speculation.
I mean, if the question is, “why would the Nigerians insist on their own church in the US except for racial reasons?” then we also need to ask the question “do we need 3 ACNA jurisdictions that are broadly Evangelical in South Carolina in addition to the ACNA Diocese of South Carolina?” I could certainly see there being more “theological distinctions” between the Diocese of CANA West and the Diocese of the Rocky Mountains (for instance) than there are between the Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas and the Diocese of South Carolina.
An unimportant aside: St. Timothys (PECUSA) was my parish church back in the day of being a young man before the troubles.
I attended St. Timothy’s in the early 2000s.
Circa 1973 for me. The school seemed to be the primary focus at the time which was fine they let me tag along.
I think that some research would be advised before taking everything said on the blogs (even this one) by commenters (even me) at face value. There have been growing pains within ACNA to be sure. I would support, for instance, the assertion that there are under-trained clergy that are being ordained. However, the training resources are improving daily, and things that were accepted as “emergency measures” in the very early days, in order to get congregations up and running, are being done in much more conventional ways now. And keep in mind that the greater part of ACNA is actually made up of pre-existing jurisdictions. CANA, the former TEC dioceses (Quincy and Fort Worth have some of the strictest guidelines for clergy in Anglican world), and the REC, among others, did not dilute their standards in the least, as far as I know.
While I will take Don Armstrong at his word (he has “paid his dues”) on there being instances of lay celebration of the Eucharist somewhere out west, it is, literally, the first I’ve heard of it- and I keep up, or try to. I am aware of instances where lay eucharistic ministers (these are laity that assist a priest, as a chalice bearer or otherwise in the distribution of communion, granted the title makes it sound like perhaps something else) eucharistic visitors (who may take communion to the sick), or lay readers, have been asked to distribute communion in situations where a priest had to cancel a visit to a congregation. But the bread and wine have been properly consecrated by a priest in another location. This is no doubt irregular, but in the early days of ACNA, there were places where every congregation had 8 priests and other places where every priest had 8 congregations. Such may continue in mission situations today. But I would equate it to the circumstance in which a Protestant chaplain distributes communion wafers consecrated by a Catholic priest to Catholic soldiers during combat.
I can’t speak to the early years of the REC- that was the 1870s, and I am not a church historian.
As to “non-Anglican ordinations”- the various Anglican Churches around the world have different rules for this, but MANY current Anglican clergy were originally ordained in other churches, and then received into Anglican Churches. So, you need to be more specific with who, when, where, from what church, under which bishop. So long as the ordained priest is from a church that has a legitimate claim to apostolic succession, it does not bother me. Now, granted, when TEC, CoE, ACoC, etc made all those full communion agreements with various Lutheran denominations that are clearly NOT in apostolic succession, that did bother me (and a great number of Anglo Catholics in TEC in those days). In fact, it was the number 2 reason I left TEC. The number 1 was the deposition of all the clergy in Quincy, including all the retired guys. Rejection of B001 of 2003 was #3. Oh, wait, I haven’t even mentioned the “elephant in the room.”
As to lay celebration of the Eucharist, be advised that there is an entire Anglican school of thought that thinks it is OK. Not preferred, but OK. I am not a member of that school, but you will find many of them in England and Australia, and some number in North America. I am not aware of any bishop in the Anglican Communion (let’s say, any bishop recognized as Anglican by either Justin Welby or Nicholas Okoh- just to give as broad an interpretation of Anglican Communion as possible) that permits it. One does hear stories of it happening. But I would not be surprised if there is a church with the word Anglican in its name that has such practices.
Given the lax ordination standards of the Anglican Communion (the Canterbury-ACC- officially recognized all go to Lambeth, etc)- I don’t understand lay celebration of the eucharist. In the Diocese of Northern Michigan, they just ordain as many people in a congregation as volunteer after a short home study course (7 out of 35 of the parish I was part of briefly, 4 presbyters and 3 deacons, some of whom were on the vestry- still are- and I am almost positive some of their lay delegates to GC were ordained). All ACNA dioceses have much stricter standards- not necessarily the standard you or I would hold them to, but certainly better than much of global north Anglicanism.
“Why did they not just use the pre-existing REC geographic dioceses, and just leave it at that? Fold in all the CANA, AMiA (and PEARUSA), and various jurisdictions of Uganda, Southern Cone (now province of South America), etc.?” Great idea! I love it. That is what I wish would have happened. As a part of the oldest Anglican jurisdiction in my state, I think it would be terrific if those others would become part of the Diocese of South Carolina.
Good grief! What a shamble! I understand the context of the post from Metropolitan Jonah.
I’m betting Episode 503 will be about altar flowers.
George’s mention of his formal clerical dress at an evangelical meeting reminded me that last week I went to a meeting where two of the three archbishops who addressed us (an Australian and an American) had open-neck shirts while I was sitting there in tie and jacket. I was just about the only man with a tie. I have noticed in Sydney Diocese more keen evangelical ministers wearing clerical collars at times and a greater willingness to wear robes when taking services than was the case about 30 years ago. There has also been a change (to take up Gavin’s point) since the late 60s till 80s when some clergy would not even answer letters from the Archbishop because they didn’t acknowledge his authority. The evangelical view of bishops will always be different from the “high” view but their role as head pastors in a diocese is I think well-accepted today in Sydney.
It’s very interesting.
The Lord used evangelical charismatic Anglicans to bring me to salvation, yet I remain a non Conformist with no definite denominational loyalty.
Yet despite my distaste for formalised worship, robes and deference I recognise the value of the CofE as our national Church and its power for good or ill as regards the faith.
So I recognise that there are many conservative evangelical members of the clergy who felt called into the CofE. I pray that more men and women will be raised up who will stand for the Gospel, encourage discipleship and outreach.
For all its current failings the Anglican Church is most associated with our national life in a way that neither the Methodists or Baptists are. We need a strong healthy and vibrant Church of England, despite all its odd and glorious ‘bumbledom’, to stand up for the Christian faith in the same way that the Catholic Church does.
Despite my non denominational faith my wife and I are involved with various churches working together. Consequently my understanding of Roman Catholicism has grown, we have attended RC services, and got to know and like individual Catholics. The Catholic service is very similar to the Anglican , but whilst enjoying the service and some of the hymns we would never go forward for a blessing; but we care very much for the parish priest and pray for him regularly.
There are aspects of the faith where we Protestants actually agree with Catholics although approaching from a different perspective. There are also aspects where we cannot agree -Mariology, Purgatory, Papal infallibity etc.
So what I admire is that the Roman Catholic Church does stand up for moral values and issues, where the Anglican Church only seems to stand up for the LGBT etc. community.
Yes-s-s,
I was anticipating that alphaT.
But the fact is that both hierarchical Churches have the same problems.
See from my pov, when humans adopt a hierarchy they also adopt elitism, power, corruption and fear.
I don’t see that in the Scriptures. In fact God was reluctant to allow the concept of kingship in Israel, because He knew all that went with it.
What we see in today’s Christian community is that the churches that revere power and rank are most likely to fall into error.
And most likely to want to cover it up because they have most to lose.
Our Lord made it clear that to be greatest is to have a servant’s heart.
Btw I appreciate your responses to my comments, so would you mind telling me your background because you phrase your comments in a style unfamiliar to me.
Now that I have done the very tedious task of listening to the whole pontification and watched the Cheshire Cat well practiced in the mirror facial expressions…I can now give some additional feedback to the now three guys with webcams. CANA is multi racial and very diverse, I can tell you that as an American Caucasian fully involved and well received into the life of CANA. Secondly, chaos in our local ACNA diocese, their lack of properly formed clergy, letting the unordained celebrate communion, replacing infant baptism with baby dedication, the failure to vest for services…all these things put such a barrier up and cause such consternation, that an ecumenical relationship allows for much better gospel advancement than fighting about these things, and certainly that the Bishop allows this makes subjection to him impossible. Truth to tell I agree with George about the evangelicals as he describes and ACNA is chuck full of them, many of their Bishops were never properly formed in Anglicanism. Finally, I also believe Episcopal bishops are fully in apostolic order, even if misguided and asymmetrically related to the Communion by the Communion’s own decision…and that ACNA is a bit delusional about their membership in the Communion, something to which Nigeria and TEC are both firmly connected. All that said I think George, who has nicely protected his TEC pension, lacks the credentials of sacrifice to be admonishing CANA, and from his seat so far from life on the ground simply has more speculation than real facts. After all these posts to think CANA West is staying in ACNA defies logic. To think the Primate of All Nigeria is not going to set to rights the CANA Diocese of the Trinity fails to understand the level of order and discipline upon which he insists. And actually it is not the Nigerians who have racist tendencies, but the CANA East diocese that seems to have racial uneasiness with Nigeria, and has already clearly stated their intension to leave CANA for ACNA.
And that is I want to be clear that our CANA diocese of the west is simply not at all about racism or tribalism, and there is something important to be learned from our situation. We are very nicely integrated in CANA because our Nigerian brothers and sisters simply don’t share in their our self-understanding the American black historical experience, and so our relationships don’t come burdened with all the sensitivities and complications that American black experience involves for whites and blacks. it is also difficult, I think, for people who have not been formed in the global Anglican Communion to have fully grasped in the core of their being and worldview that the Anglican Communion is primarily a Global South church, over 70%…so we are very used to living in and understanding our church to have long been more Nigerian than American. I was confirmed 58 years ago by Bishop Burgess in Massachusetts, one of the first black TEC Bishops. Not that long ago and maybe leaving TEC and its members like George and Kevin a little less integrated in their self-understanding than those of us who have lived more widely into communion life. So these racism claims, at least to a priest serving in an integrated diocese and integrated parish, really are offensive and simply unfounded, probably steming from something within their own context that is askew. Remember liberals always divert by accusing others about that which they are guilty.
So…although I don’t usually much respond to people in a vacuum, not knowing the who, what, and why of who they are, no context by which to frame their words…what I just wrote above was actually the results, the fruits, the reality of our life together in Cana West. That is not defensive, but simply to counter St George of TEC Conger’s attempt to opportunistically sow dissension and spin in the world of ACNA. You yourself need to be not so defended that you can’t even reveal who you are, and come out of the cheap seats of anonymity.
A moderator here, himself, uses an internet handle and understands the use for it. If you choose not to use one, fine… But criticizing someone for using one brings a frown to this moderator’s face.
What also brings a frown to this moderator’s face is when someone impugns someone’s motives or practice rather than focus on the subject matter itself.
Just saying…
I suspect I’m not the only viewer of Anglican Unscripted who, as a former Anglican, is interested to follow developments in Anglicanism, particularly the Church of England. So I generally appreciate the ‘show’, particularly the wider theological/philosophical insights and wisdom of Gavin Ashenden. I also have great respect for his stance against the capitulation of the Church of England to ‘the spirit of the age’. However, the minutiae of what Kevin refers to as ‘Anglican politics’ is of somewhat less interest … and I’m sorry to say that, for me, this episode was too full of this aspect, with too little of Gavin’s broader observations.
I am of a similar disposition but I accept that sometimes folk of a shared background may slip into ‘jargonese’. Not only that but anyway, where is there another platform on which our non conformist views are espoused? Up ’til now I haven’t found any, and I gave up on Premier Radio.
George Conger is outspoken and passionate, Kevin Kallsen is laid back and affable (But Hey! the show wouldn’t be there without his skills).
Gavin is a man of courage, intellectual honesty and diplomacy. As a brother in Christ I respect him immensely.
All three though need help and prayers so that they stay focussed on what the Lord is doing through Anglicans Unscripted, and resist the temptation to become ‘stars or oracles’ in their own right, rather than devoted servants of our God.
Thank you. I am beginning to understand how you phrase things, but more background information would be appreciated.
I’m a grain of sand too, and only have significance because our Creator God says I have.
I have no more significance than any other, so we come from a position of equality.
Gimme some background please!
Fr. Duncan went to Africa as a priest and came back an archbishop in the formation of ACNA. His gambit was to outnumber TEC and displace it in the eyes of Canterbury. Like in chess a gambit is a stirring up of the situation to avoid a stalemate. Winning isn’t guaranteed. Duncan accepted anyone and everyone to be one of the 1000 points of light with the promise of straightening it out later. It’s later and CANA is one issue abet a small one compared to other issues we don’t hear about. I’m not quite enamored with Duncan to the extent that George and Kevin seem. ACNA is sort of orthodox but seems to have lost it’s initial momentum. One local ACNA church I attended for 8 years was snagged by the Christian Episcopal Church and the other one is dominated by a petit tyrant. I drive 70 miles to another ACNA church where I’m more comfortable. George’s idea of congregational Anglicanism looks like the future.
On the question of phyletism….
The facts on the ground are that in any given place, there are multiple Anglican jurisdictions. If you push the point, why are there any “new” ACNA dioceses at all? Why did they not just use the pre-existing REC geographic dioceses, and just leave it at that? Fold in all the CANA, AMiA (and PEARUSA), and various jurisdictions of Uganda, Southern Cone (now province of South America), etc.? Instead, there are ACNA dioceses for Anglo Catholics, for Evangelicals that are pro-WO (women’s ordination), those that are anti WO, Reformed pro and antl, those that thought Rwanda was the best partner province and those that thought Nigeria was the best partner province. And often overlapping the same geography. Not to mention a “church planting” diocese that plants its own churches within the boundaries of whichever 3 others claim the space.
So, two, or one, or three (depending on how you are guessing it will work out) CANA dioceses have decided that they would prefer to be have their bishop under the oversight of ++Nicholas Okoh instead of the oversight of ++Foley Beach.
It just strikes me that a Nigerian congregation has as much right to this as an Anglo Catholic parish in Washington state or Michigan or New Jersey has to be in the Diocese of All Saints, or for that matter, Quincy, instead of the local diocese. And as much right as a church plant in Anywhere, USA has to be part of C4SO (Church for the Sake of Others- a diocese of church plants) instead of the local geographic diocese.
I am not saying it is ideal- or desirable- or right- but it is part of the DNA of the ACNA. All the Trinity diocese (and perhaps other CANA dioceses) are doing is to take this a step higher to the provincial level. What I think ++Okoh and ++Beach are doing is to try to make the best of a bad situation. The hope would be that full communion between ACNA and CANA can be maintained, and that as the Churches of the Global South grow closer to one another, such distinctions will disappear over time.
An excellent summary of the confusion we live with as American Anglicans. I have looked at the websites of CANA Dioceses of the East and of the West. Their ordained ministries are consistent with those branches of ACNA which have females priests, so whether they are associated with Nigeria or ACNA proper, they cannot exchange ministries with REC dioceses or other non-WO dioceses. If I attended a service at the local ACNA parish attended by my dear friends here, I’d have to be alert to who was consecrating the Holy Communion. The same would apply if there were a CANA parish here.
The Orthodox in the US have ethnically identified churches with different bishops. And so do even the Roman Catholics! Here in the Raleigh area there is a Byzantine Catholic parish, and not far from me is a newly planted Maronite Catholic parish.
Not precisely comparable, no, of course. With regard to the ACNA and CANA, though, the faith is the same, and in a great many cases so are the liturgies. It is not clear to me whether Nigeria, proper, permits ordaining women, which is part of the CANA ethos.
I do think that your harping on the racial angle doesn’t represent the thinking of the parties involved.
I also lived through the 60s. I prefer not to see “racial” causes for things unless it’s clear the causes are, in fact, racial.
I knew very little about CANA before this controversy erupted here. I had thought it was mostly a Nigerian ministry serving immigrant Nigerians, with generosity to non-Nigerian Americans. It appears, rather, now that I have looked at the CANA East and West websites, that non-ethnically Nigerian congregations predominate in both dioceses. Armstrong’s defense of his diocese (although I have not read all of his posts) appears to emphasize a connection to the Anglican Communion which ACNA lacks, in his estimation. I don’t agree with him there, but I don’t see where you, alphaTomega, get the idea that this controversy is heavily about race. I don’t really see it as about race at all, based on reading these posts. Bishops from both Rwanda and Nigeria offered refuge to American Anglican believers before the ACNA came into being. How, when, and on what basis, American Anglicans of the pro-WO persuasion are to be reunited is the question. Obviously, some do not want to give up the direct connection to overseas bishops who helped them, and some are ready to do so. What does “race” has to do with this?
Foley Beach and Nicholas Okoh are also clergymen. As is Don Armstrong. As are the CANA bishops. So are those among the TEC bishops and priests who told the openly insulting racist “jokes” about “African primates”.
George Conger is an honest man, and I am sure he is giving us an honest appraisal. As a journalist, he may have information at his disposal that the rest of us do not. But he did not reveal it- so it is difficult for the rest of us to form an appraisal, or argue either for or against his position. But until we have interviews from the principals involved- the CANA bishops, the Nigerian and ACNA primates, etc., I doubt we will have much more than speculation.
I mean, if the question is, “why would the Nigerians insist on their own church in the US except for racial reasons?” then we also need to ask the question “do we need 3 ACNA jurisdictions that are broadly Evangelical in South Carolina in addition to the ACNA Diocese of South Carolina?” I could certainly see there being more “theological distinctions” between the Diocese of CANA West and the Diocese of the Rocky Mountains (for instance) than there are between the Anglican Diocese of the Carolinas and the Diocese of South Carolina.
An unimportant aside: St. Timothys (PECUSA) was my parish church back in the day of being a young man before the troubles.
I attended St. Timothy’s in the early 2000s.
Circa 1973 for me. The school seemed to be the primary focus at the time which was fine they let me tag along.
I think that some research would be advised before taking everything said on the blogs (even this one) by commenters (even me) at face value. There have been growing pains within ACNA to be sure. I would support, for instance, the assertion that there are under-trained clergy that are being ordained. However, the training resources are improving daily, and things that were accepted as “emergency measures” in the very early days, in order to get congregations up and running, are being done in much more conventional ways now. And keep in mind that the greater part of ACNA is actually made up of pre-existing jurisdictions. CANA, the former TEC dioceses (Quincy and Fort Worth have some of the strictest guidelines for clergy in Anglican world), and the REC, among others, did not dilute their standards in the least, as far as I know.
While I will take Don Armstrong at his word (he has “paid his dues”) on there being instances of lay celebration of the Eucharist somewhere out west, it is, literally, the first I’ve heard of it- and I keep up, or try to. I am aware of instances where lay eucharistic ministers (these are laity that assist a priest, as a chalice bearer or otherwise in the distribution of communion, granted the title makes it sound like perhaps something else) eucharistic visitors (who may take communion to the sick), or lay readers, have been asked to distribute communion in situations where a priest had to cancel a visit to a congregation. But the bread and wine have been properly consecrated by a priest in another location. This is no doubt irregular, but in the early days of ACNA, there were places where every congregation had 8 priests and other places where every priest had 8 congregations. Such may continue in mission situations today. But I would equate it to the circumstance in which a Protestant chaplain distributes communion wafers consecrated by a Catholic priest to Catholic soldiers during combat.
I can’t speak to the early years of the REC- that was the 1870s, and I am not a church historian.
As to “non-Anglican ordinations”- the various Anglican Churches around the world have different rules for this, but MANY current Anglican clergy were originally ordained in other churches, and then received into Anglican Churches. So, you need to be more specific with who, when, where, from what church, under which bishop. So long as the ordained priest is from a church that has a legitimate claim to apostolic succession, it does not bother me. Now, granted, when TEC, CoE, ACoC, etc made all those full communion agreements with various Lutheran denominations that are clearly NOT in apostolic succession, that did bother me (and a great number of Anglo Catholics in TEC in those days). In fact, it was the number 2 reason I left TEC. The number 1 was the deposition of all the clergy in Quincy, including all the retired guys. Rejection of B001 of 2003 was #3. Oh, wait, I haven’t even mentioned the “elephant in the room.”
As to lay celebration of the Eucharist, be advised that there is an entire Anglican school of thought that thinks it is OK. Not preferred, but OK. I am not a member of that school, but you will find many of them in England and Australia, and some number in North America. I am not aware of any bishop in the Anglican Communion (let’s say, any bishop recognized as Anglican by either Justin Welby or Nicholas Okoh- just to give as broad an interpretation of Anglican Communion as possible) that permits it. One does hear stories of it happening. But I would not be surprised if there is a church with the word Anglican in its name that has such practices.
Given the lax ordination standards of the Anglican Communion (the Canterbury-ACC- officially recognized all go to Lambeth, etc)- I don’t understand lay celebration of the eucharist. In the Diocese of Northern Michigan, they just ordain as many people in a congregation as volunteer after a short home study course (7 out of 35 of the parish I was part of briefly, 4 presbyters and 3 deacons, some of whom were on the vestry- still are- and I am almost positive some of their lay delegates to GC were ordained). All ACNA dioceses have much stricter standards- not necessarily the standard you or I would hold them to, but certainly better than much of global north Anglicanism.
“Why did they not just use the pre-existing REC geographic dioceses, and just leave it at that? Fold in all the CANA, AMiA (and PEARUSA), and various jurisdictions of Uganda, Southern Cone (now province of South America), etc.?” Great idea! I love it. That is what I wish would have happened. As a part of the oldest Anglican jurisdiction in my state, I think it would be terrific if those others would become part of the Diocese of South Carolina.
Good grief! What a shamble! I understand the context of the post from Metropolitan Jonah.
I’m betting Episode 503 will be about altar flowers.