Communion Partners Show Some Backbone

Maybe I began ignoring The Episcopal Church and the ACI crowd too soon.

As my readers know, Communion Partner bishops supported by the Anglican Communion Institute signed a Statement on the Polity of the Episcopal Church that basically says, in a scholarly way, of course, “Hey Schori, who made you Presiding Empress?” It asserts quite convincingly that dioceses and their bishops, not the General Convention and its Presiding Heretic, are the chief authorities in the Episcopal Church, not the other way around. In case people miss that, Section III is titled “Dioceses Are Not Subordinate to a
Metropolitan or Central Hierarchy.”

Baby Blue has a good summary of the brouhaha surrounding this statement. It’s quite the soap opera complete with the Episcopal Left screaming and making asses of themselves. (That’s redundant, but anyway . . . ) As Christopher Johnson observes, this statement has struck a nerve.

I am pleasantly surprised by the statement myself. Heck, I’m shocked by it and by who signed it, including Bishop Wimberly of all people. I practically fainted when I saw his name. I guess he wants to make a statement on the way out. (He’s retiring.) Good for him. I did not think he and a number of the other bishops had it in them. I am glad to say I was wrong.

And, yes, I have to tip my hat to the Anglican Communion Institute as well. I was fed up with them long ago for reasons I won’t rehash here. But they did good with this statement.

As for the Episcoleft, they hate it being pointed out that their empress has no canonical clothes, but what can they do? These bishops are loyal to a fault and have made it very clear they aren’t going anywhere. And they are grounding their stand on the history and polity of the Episcopal Church. There’s really no credible and legitimate weapon with which to attack the Communion Partners.

Of course, that means the Presiding Heretic and her minions could get even more incredible and illegitimate.

This could get interesting.

For a more scholarly take on this, Leander Harding is a good start.

Dean Munday Responds to Ephraim Radner

Ephraim Radner once again is undercutting those orthodox who are seeking to be faithful Anglicans apart from the Episcopal Church by poo-pooing the coming new province.

It’s quite difficult for me to respond graciously to Dr. Radner anymore. I once highly respected the man and his efforts. And I would still do so if he stuck to his knitting, to his “inside” strategy of striving for the faith within the Episcopal Church. I think staying in the Episcopal Church is a mistake, but I honor those orthodox who do so out of conscience, as I have stated before.

But he, along with the ACI, doesn’t stick to that strategy, but for some reason feels he must undercut those orthodox who out of conscience pursue an “outside” strategy of realignment outside the Episcopal Church. I fail to see the point of that persistent undercutting to say the least.

Well, Dean Munday, surely being a more patient, gracious man than I, has posted a response both gracious and cogent to Dr. Radner’s missive. I commend it to you and heartily concur, particularly with the conclusion:

I have not criticized and would not want to see anyone criticize the work the ACI is doing on an "inside strategy" to the same degree that they apparently feel obliged to criticize those who are working on an "outside strategy." I can imagine the frustration that members of the ACI feel with those who are leaving existing Anglican structures while they are trying to save them. But I believe the ACI's efforts would win the support of a greater number of people if they spent more time telling us how they propose to save the ship and less time knocking holes in other people's lifeboats. It remains to be seen whether the ACI's strategy can be successful; and, if not, there may come a day when we are glad the lifeboats are there.

Ephraim Radner Steps Over the Line.

I’ve long respected Dr. Ephraim Radner, though I’ve sometimes found him exasperating.

But today he stepped over the line.

Not that he resigned from the Network. He feels the Network is now going in a direction he can not go, so resigning is a perfectly honorable thing to do.

He stepped over the line in his resignation statement, particularly here:

Bp. Duncan has, in the end, decided to start a new church. He may call it “Anglican” if he wishes, though I do not recognize the name in these kinds of actions that break communion rather than build it up . . .

So if an orthodox Anglican feels that to be faithful to the Anglican tradition, he must leave the Episcopal Church and perhaps the Anglican Communion, he is no longer Anglican? If a new North American province is formed (which I think likely), but ++Rowan doesn’t recognize it (And I don’t think he will.), will that province be “un-Anglican”?

I’ve seen this sort of denigration of the Anglicanism of those not in perfect communion with Canterbury from liberals. I did not expect to see it from Dr. Radner. It is completely uncalled for and below the belt. Further, it does not the Lord's work but the liberals' work of undermining faithful orthodox Anglicans.

I certainly hope he and the ACI refrain from further undercutting those orthodox who feel they must leave TEC. Kicking them on the way out may be a more graphic way of putting it.

Those orthodox who feel they must remain in TEC on principle, such as Dr. Radner, may be mistaken, but they deserve respect for their difficult stand. Likewise, those who feel they must leave TEC deserve more respect than Dr. Radner exhibited today.