UPDATED: ACNA Archbishop Foley Beach Signed the World Relief Immigration Letter

I’ve mentioned the latest open letter from World Relief on immigration politics and ACNA Bishop Stewart Ruch’s signing of it with “Anglican Church in North America” attached to his signature.

I have just now discovered that among those who have added their signatures is apparently Archbishop Foley Beach.  If the signature is genuine, he signed as “Archbishop Foley Beach” with “Anglican Church in North America” attached.  It is now on page 17 of the additional signatures, although that will change as people continue to sign.

His Canon “The Venerable Canon Dr. Jack Lumanog” has also signed, also with “Anglican Church in North America” attached.

As for me, I stand by my previous commentary.

---

UPDATE: I have received confirmation that Archbishop Beach did indeed sign.

UPDATE 2: George Conger has dug a bit more into this matter and received a statement from the Archbishop’s office:

In a statement given to Anglican Ink, the Most Rev. Foley Beach said he had signed the letter in “his capacity as the Archbishop.”

Asked by AI by what authority he could sign the statement as primate of the ACNA, when the ACNA’s college of bishops or councils had not taken a stance on the issue, his spokesman responded:

“At his discretion, the Archbishop may choose to speak into issues facing the culture.”

The note went on to say:

“Statements from the Archbishop may have persuasive authority, but in these instances they do not commit the Church as a whole to a particular position.  The Church's definitive stance on issues facing the culture is found in the Constitution and Canons as passed by the Provincial Council and Provincial Assembly.  To date, the full weight of the Anglican Church in North America's authority has only been articulated on two controversial moral issues facing our nations: the sanctity of marriage and the sanctity of life.  On other controversial issues facing our nations it is recognized that faithful Christians may arrive at differing conclusions, and we urge our members to search the scriptures, follow their conscience, and pray for wisdom for our elected leaders.”

ACNA Must Get Out of Immigration Politics

Once again ACNA Bishop Stewart Ruch has signed a World Relief statement on the politics of immigration.  Once again “Anglican Church in North America” is under his signature.  I’ll be charitable and say the statement leans towards amnesty instead of enforcement.  Trust me, I could say worse.  “In the literal and grammatical sense,” it is not terribly objectionable (although yes, I do object).

But look at the fight it has provoked on ACNA’s Facebook page.

This illustrates that bishops and other clergy must show great restraint in commenting on political issues, especially when they drag the name of their church into it.  And that goes double for controversial issues such as immigration.

It goes double again for the Anglican Church in North America.  Many/most of us fled denominations in which the laity were abused by church authorities presuming to take Leftist political stands in the name of the church.  Many continue to flee such denominations and look for new church homes.  It harms the mission, unity, and growth of the Anglican Church in North America if such people look at us and say, “That sort of Lib/Left political pontification again?  No thanks.  Been there.  Done that.”

ACNA leaders have rightly placed a great emphasis on unity and on church growth.  If they do not put a stop to clergy presuming to use ACNA to push controversial political (usually left-of-center) agendas, they will undermine that good emphasis.

---

NOTE: This does not apply to abortion or to marriage, issues on which there is a right consensus among catholic Christians.  There is no such consensus on immigration policy.

Pray for the Anglican Church in North America

I invite readers to join me in prayer and fasting (as feasible) for the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) through next week as the College of Bishops meets Monday and then the Provincial Assembly through Friday.

Readers know that I have concerns about the direction of ACNA or at least parts of it.  But I every bit as much want ACNA to succeed in faithfulness as I did when I joyfully attended the Inaugural Provincial Assembly.  So I am praying and encourage you to do likewise.

And may God guide and bless those of you who will be at the Assembly and protect you in your travels as well.

ACNA Holy Orders Task Force Report Released

The Holy Orders Task Force has released their report.  ACNA Archbishop Foley Beach has sent out a letter along with it with the following admonition:

Please note the following:

• The Task Force was not commissioned to resolve the issue, but was asked to develop resources to help the bishops in future conversation on this topic.

• Therefore the report does not answer the questions of what the College is to do, but it is a study presented to the College to help the College in our discussions.

• The report does not change our current practice regarding women’s orders as stated in our Constitution. Our current practice allows each diocese to determine whether it will ordain women as deacons or priests.

• The report will now be sent to the GAFCON Primates for their input and guidance for our discussions.

• The College of Bishops will now be studying the whole report, and we will meet in special session later in the year to discuss how we move forward together.

As your Archbishop, I ask the following from you:

1) Don’t comment on the report until you have read it all.

2) Don’t comment on the report until you can fairly articulate the opposite point of view.

3) Remember that no decisions have been made at this time to pursue changing our Constitution.

4) Remember that we are all followers of Jesus Christ on mission together, holding those with the opposite point of view in Christian love and charity.

5) Lastly, sincerely pray for your bishops as we seek to serve Jesus Christ in this matter.

That first request is a big ask.  The report is 318 pages.  But I intend to abide by my Archbishop’s request.  For all of ACNA so to do will take a miracle.

Both the report and the Archbishop’s letter may be found here.

Foley Beach On Leaving The Episcopal Church in 2004

It took a while, but the ACNA College of Bishops conclave selected a new Archbishop yesterday, Foley Beach.

I cannot claim to be familiar with him, but everything I’ve read about him encourages me about his selection.  I particularly like his statement ten years ago upon departing The Episcopal Church.  This comes from A Living Text, where there are other notable past statements from Archbishop Beach.

I am forty-five years old and for thirty-four of those years I have been an active participant in the Episcopal Church. I was baptized, confirmed, married, ordained a deacon, and ordained a priest in the Episcopal Church. It has served to shape and form me spiritually and it has taught me tremendous aspects about worshiping Almighty God.

The Church has been a place of stability and refuge, although it has always been in need of reform. But recent actions of the Episcopal Church have taken spiritual depravity to new depth for the modern era.

The Church which taught me the Gospel has now adopted a new Gospel which reduces Jesus to nothing more than one option among many. The Church which introduced me to the Word of God has now rewritten the Word of God to placate cultural and political pressures put upon it by intellectual extremists.

The Church which taught me to confess and repent of my sins has now embraced and endorsed certain sins which have become culturally accepted. The actions of the 2003 General Convention in approving the consecration of a non-celibate homosexual person to be a bishop in the Church, and its approval of a method by which liturgies may be used for same-sex unions in the Church is the presenting issue of a much deeper theological and moral problem within the Church.

While these decisions are clearly in contradiction to the teaching of the Bible, the lessons of Church History and Tradition, and the mind of the world-wide Anglican Communion, they demonstrate a clear obsession with reinterpreting the Scriptures and an amazing disregard to the consequences of their actions on other Christians throughout the world whether Anglican or not.

A revisionist philosophy has overtaken the ethos of the Church which interprets the Scriptures, Church History and Tradition not according to what they actually say, but according to how one is made to feel and in order to be pastorally sensitive. I cannot be apart of such forsaking of Christian teaching and morality.

To remain in the Episcopal Church is on some level affirming the direction the church has taken whether I agree or not. To remain in the Episcopal Church is to pretend that I am not a participant in this abomination before the Lord.

To remain in the Episcopal Church would be to knowingly violate my conscience, and that I cannot do and keep my soul intact. To remain in the Episcopal Church and take communion with those who teach and practice this false teaching would be a clear violation of the Scriptures (For example, 1 Cor.5). Some say that I must stay and fight for reform and change the direction of the Church. This has been my battle cry for the past 24 years.

I have come to the conclusion that the best way to reform it is to leave it and allow the devastation of embracing sin to run its course. I must be about preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord and teaching the principles of the Word of God. My calling from God is not to lead or participate in an ecclesiastical fight which will evolve to litigation in the secular courts over sacred idols and mammon.

While that may be the call from the Lord for others, my calling is to help people discover the most wonderful gift in the world — a living, dynamic, personal, and saving relationship with Jesus. I cannot do this and be a part of an organizational structure which now at its core denies the very things which I hold dear. The Apostle James wrote that to know the right thing to do and not do it, is sin (James 4:17). For me this is the right thing to do and not to do it would be sin before God.

10th Anniversary: Finer Moments – A Resolution and a Plea

2007 was a trying year for North American Anglicans.  The Anglican Church in North America was two years away from commencing.  With one exception, dioceses had not yet left The Episcopal Church.  Orthodox American Anglicans were wrestling with what to do and where to go in light of the apostasy of The Episcopal Church.

And some of that wrestling was with each other to the point that Communion Conservatives (committed to remaining in TEC) and Federal Conservatives (of a mind to at least prepare to leave TEC) were exchanging sharp words and were *Anglican understatement alert* displeased with each other.

This was not heading in a good direction for orthodox Anglican unity.  And I was concerned that the two sides might not be able to work well  together in the future.  And so on January 2^nd, 2008, I posted “A Resolution and a Plea”.  I won’t repost the whole thing, but, after expressing my concerns and confessing my awkwardness in raising the subject, I wrote:

For the sake of current and future unity and witness, both sides should step back and engage in self-criticism instead of undercutting the other side. And, yes, there has been willful undercutting of the efforts of faithful orthodox Anglicans by other committed orthodox Anglicans. That must stop.

Communion Conservatives should focus on what they are going to do in the current situation instead of undercutting what the Federal Conservatives are doing. Likewise, Federal Conservatives should focus on their direction and not ridicule the strategy of Communion Conservatives or say they are in any way unfaithful for staying.

And I include myself in that. I find some Communion Conservatives exasperating at times, and when I get in rant mode, my words can be rather sharp. So if I’ve said anything unhelpful about the Comm-Cons, I apologize. I will exercise the utmost care in what I write about them from henceforth, and I invite my good readers to hold me accountable in that.

Both sides need likewise to step back and repent or at least relent lest we become an ugly spectacle that makes our divisions harsher and more permanent and causes long lasting damage to orthodox Anglican unity and witness.

The post was much read and well received, particularly over at TitusOneNine, where it provoked not a little discussion.

And it is good today to see orthodox Anglicans in and out of The Episcopal Church on better terms today.  I doubt my post played much of a role, but if it had a small part, so much the better.

----

NOTE: Yes, I was “Newbie Anglican” for a time and still post as such in a place or two.  Here is an explanation of that.

Roe v Wade and the Cowardice of the States

Today is the 41^st anniversary of the Roe v Wade decision overturning the abortion statutes of the vast majority of the states (48 if my memory is correct).  Tens of thousands, including several bishops of the Anglican Church in North America, will walk in the snow today in Washington in protest in the 40^th March for Life.

I myself participated in at least two Marches for Life back in the early 80’s.  One of them was in the snow as well.

The damage Roe v Wade inflicted extends far beyond life issues.  It made a mockery of the Constitution, of democracy, and of Constitutional federalism by asserting that the Constitution somehow demanded striking down the abortion statutes of most states and replacing them with a regime of abortion-on-demand virtually all the way to birth.

Roe v Wade was a coup against Constitutional democracy and against the states by men acting as dictators in black robes.  Justice Byron White’s dissent calling it “an exercise of raw judicial power” put it nicely.  He also stated:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment.

That is because there was nothing.

What is saddest of all is that the Supreme Court got away with it.  Yes, there has been strong movement ever since to undo Roe v Wade in various fashions, from Constitutional Amendments to a Human Life Statute to working for good Supreme Court appointments and more.

But what should have happened was defiance.  The Supreme Court may interpret the Constitution.  But it cannot obliterate it then rewrite it in its own image; or at least it should not be able so to do.  This was an absurd and outrageous ruling, really a coup against the Constitution, and should have immediately been given the respect it deserved – none. 

The states, even states moving toward liberalizing abortion laws, should have told the Supreme Court what they could do with its ruling, with its brazen attack on their rights to defend life, and then defied the ruling and carried on with their own laws as best they could.  This awful ruling was an opportunity to rally the people and the states to put the Supreme Court and the Feds in their place and to revive Constitutional governance.  And if the new President, Richard Nixon, had any principles, he should have encouraged and supported such efforts by publicly and clearly refusing to allow the Executive Branch to enforce the ruling.

But did any state so attempt to defend the Constitution and the lives of the unborn?  Any state?

The answer is what I find saddest of all about January 22^nd.

ACNA and the Filioque

There is a stir about ACNA considering reducing the filioque to a footnote.  Among draft liturgies are a Nicene Creed without the filioque.  A footnote adds:

The filioque clause “and the Son” may be added here. It is not included in the text above for ecumenical purposes, in accordance with the 1978 Lambeth Conference, though the ACNA does not disagree with the theology of the filioque.

There is not a little unhappiness about this.  I am not among the unhappy. However, I think keeping the filioque in the Creed but with parentheses around it may be wiser for reasons I will now summarize.

As most readers know, the filioque was not in the original Nicene Creed.  It was added later by Rome without the consent of the Eastern church.  This episode contributed to the later split between Rome and Constantinople.

Putting it in parentheses or even removing it is not a theological statement as ACNA is making clear.  The authority of scripture is not explicitly mentioned in either the Nicene or Apostles’ Creed neither, but no reasonable person would interpret that as a denial or downplaying of the authority of scripture.

It is instead an effort at greater unity, particularly with our Orthodox friends, without sacrificing truth.

But unity is the reason I think putting the filioque in a footnote (instead of in the Creed but with parentheses) may be going too far.  The creedal Western church almost unanimously retains the filioque.  We need to be concerned about unity with them, too.  And judging from the upset about possibly reducing the filioque to a footnote, so doing could result in as much division as unity.

Now I hesitate to insist that the draft liturgy is therefore flat out wrong.  For the leadership of ACNA has excelled at ecumenical efforts.  And I am certainly not privy to all of the said efforts.  So it could be that removing the filioque and putting it in footnote with the option of still using it has already been worked out ecumenically more thoroughly than I know.  But the unhappiness within ACNA is indisputable.

So I am writing from partial ignorance perhaps.  But it does seem to me that retaining the filioque but putting it in parentheses is a better and less divisive way than removing it to a footnote.  The footnote option would surely make some in ACNA reject a new Book of Common Prayer out of hand.

There will no doubt be much discussion of this at the Provincial Council next week.

About Bishop Todd Hunter (and 1 Timothy 5:22)

There has been concern expressed online and elsewhere about the appropriateness of Todd Hunter speaking at the upcoming ACNA Provincial Assembly in the aftermath of AMiA’s fall out with Rwanda. (+Hunter is (or was) an AMiA bishop.)

Well, problem solved.

Bishop Todd Hunter of the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) has been received by the Anglican Church in North America and will serve as an assistant bishop in the office of the primate, the Most Rev. Robert Duncan.

And I agree with Matt Kennedy that it is good to see him, at his initiative, reconciled with Rwanda.

Bishop Hunter also stated that he had asked for and had received forgiveness from the Primate of Rwanda, Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje for “my part in actions, attitudes or communications that were hurtful to him or to my brother bishops in Rwanda.”

So he, Bishop Duncan, and others involved are to be commended for getting this matter resolved and that well before the Provincial Assembly.

However (“Uh, oh,” my readers are saying.), I think we should not let pass without comment a significant reason Todd Hunter got into this mess in the first place.  The following gives a clue about that:

When I walked across the dance floor and was introduced to Anglicanism three years ago I was told repeatedly that we were all working toward one, unified, missional, kingdom-oriented, Spirit-enabled Anglican church in North America. I took that vision into my heart and have pondered it since,” [Bishop Hunter] said.

So he was an Anglican for only three years before being made an Anglican bishop?  Not exactly.  He was made bishop back in 2009.  Look at his own statement back in 2009 between his election and consecration as bishop in the AMiA:

It is big shocker because in the past I would have never thought of myself as an Anglican. While I admired and respected Robert Webber from a distance, I was not one of those people on the Canterbury Trail. I’ve often said over the last six months that this has all come out of the blue for me.

It is not clear exactly what “six months” refers to.  But “three years ago” is 2009. So, by his own admission, he was Anglican for less than a year before being elected an Anglican bishop. (By the way, I remember overhearing talk of this at the Bedford Provincial Assembly.)  That is indeed “out of the blue.”  Read more of his 2009 statement and the comments there to get a flavor of that.

Paul commanded Timothy to “lay hands hastily on no man.” (1Tim. 5:22) It is safe to say that making a new Anglican an Anglican bishop is hasty.

And it put Hunter in a difficult position.  Certainly, to be a bishop of a church and tradition of which one is just getting to know is not an easy position to be in.  That goes double for Anglicanism, in which jurisdictions can be slightly labyrinthine.  This all compounded the difficulty of dealing with the mess when Chuck Murphy went rogue.

Again, +Hunter is to be commended for setting matters aright.  And he may turn out to be an outstanding bishop.  It is clear Archbishop Duncan is among those who have high hopes for him.  God is gracious and often causes undertakings that did not start well to become great blessings and end well.  Even some of the church fathers were made bishops very quickly.  And if anyone is to be criticized, it is those who laid hands on Todd Hunter more than Mr. Hunter himself. 

But Paul did not give the above commandment to Timothy for nothing.  And the awkwardness in which +Hunter found himself in recent months illustrates part of St. Paul’s wisdom.

Archbishop Duncan and ACNA take a stand against Obamacare mandate.

I am very glad to see this statement from Archbishop Duncan:

Archbishop Robert Duncan released the following statement in support of the Catholic Church’s fight to maintain freedom of conscience in the midst of the U.S. federal government issuing a preventive care mandate in violation of its teaching.

“The Anglican Church in North America stands by our Catholic brothers and sisters as followers of Christ in a nation whose Constitution guarantees ‘the free exercise’ of religion. As Christians, our faith and doctrine are at the very heart of our service to others in our community. Therefore, it is extremely troubling to see our government mandate services contrary to Catholic Church teaching. I call on all members of the Anglican Church to stand by our Catholic brothers and sisters, and pray for our elected officials to have the courage to stand up for religious freedom and overturn this mandate,” said Archbishop Duncan.

Courage

The Episcopal Church of the Sudan (ECS) has not only recognized The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) as the legitimate expression of Anglicanism in the United States instead of The Episcopal “Church” (TEC), but has also explicitly dis-invited TEC Presiding “Bishop” Schori from visiting the Sudan church.

Given the financial help The Episcopal Church has given ECS in the past, this is a principled and courageous act. A few commenters at the above link think this will not affect future financial assistance from TEC, but I very much doubt that.

Our prayers and our help for The Episcopal Church of the Sudan are in order, for this matter and for the severe hardships all Christians are suffering in the Sudan and South Sudan.

A Letter from Archbishop Duncan on the AMiA Situation

I am not yet sure exactly what to think of all this – one reason I haven’t posted on the subject. But Archbishop Duncan has issued a plain spoken letter tonight on the current AMiA situation and ACNA’s response:

20th December, A.D. 2011

Eve of St. Thomas the Apostle

TO ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA:


Dearest Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Recent events within the Anglican Mission in the Americas have challenged us all. This letter is a brief report to you all about those events and about our efforts to find a path forward. The present reality is brokenness. The vision, however, that governs our fledgling Province remains unchanged: a Biblical, missionary and united Anglicanism in North America.

The resignation of nine Anglican Mission bishops, including the Bishop Chairman, from the House of Bishops of Rwanda, changed relationships with Rwanda, with fellow bishops and with the Anglican Church in North America. The resigned bishops lost their status in our College of Bishops as a result of their resignation from Rwanda. The Anglican Mission also lost its status as a Ministry Partner, since that status had been predicated on AMiA’s relationship with Rwanda. In addition, confusion and hurt has been created in Rwanda and in North America, and there is much serious work ahead of us.

Representatives of the Anglican Church in North America and of the Pawleys Island leadership met today in Pittsburgh. For the Anglican Church in North America the starting point was the importance of our Provincial relationship with the Province of Rwanda (a sister GAFCON Province) and with His Grace Archbishop Onesphore Rwaje, of our relationship with the North American Bishops Terrell Glenn and Thad Barnum and all the clergy licensed in Rwanda, and of our relationship to those represented by the Pawleys Island group with whom we were meeting. We, as the Anglican Church in North America, have been deeply connected to all three, and we can only move forward when issues and relationships have been adequately addressed and necessary transitions are in progress.

The agreement from today’s meeting in Pittsburgh was that the Anglican Church in North America is prepared to enter into a process by which our relationship with those who will rally to the Pawleys’ vision and leadership (Anglican Mission in the Americas, Inc.) might be restored to a status like the one existing before the Ministry Partner decision of 2010. All those at the meeting today agreed “that there were no subjects that were not on the table.” For the Anglican Church in North America, these subjects must include leadership, relationships, and jurisdictional participation in a way that is fully Anglican.

We made a partial beginning. Bishops Leonard Riches and Charlie Masters agreed to lead the negotiations from the Anglican Church in North America. Bishops Doc Loomis and TJ Johnston will lead from the AMiA side. There is much about what has happened that will have to be faced. The other part of this beginning will be to come alongside P.E.A.R. and their designated bishops (Barnum and Glenn), clergy, people and parishes in North America as they discern their next steps. The good news is that we know a God who has called us and who is able. [I Thess. 5:24] We are sure that He wants all the pieces back together in an ever-more dynamic, ever-more-submitted, ever-more transformed and transforming North American Church. [John 17]

Keep praying. With God nothing shall be impossible. [Luke 1:37] And besides that, He works all things together for good for those who love Him, who are called according to His purpose. [Rom. 8:28] Blessed Christmas!

Faithfully in Christ,


+Robert Pittsburgh
Archbishop and Primate 
Anglican Church in North America

REC Membership in ACNA Ratified

I think it worthy of note that the General Council of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC) now meeting in Dallas has unanimously ratified its membership in The Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

The triannual meeting of the REC did so through approving without opposition a new Article XIII of the Constitution of the REC, which article spells out our membership in ACNA.

If one wishes to nitpick, technically the article does not become a part of our Constitution until a “second reading” (second approval) at the next General Council in three years. But for all practical purposes, our membership in ACNA is ratified, and that overwhelmingly. Thanks be to God!

Archbishop Duncan Presides at GSE4 Holy Communion

I don’t want to read too much into this. But I think it worthy of note that ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan has presided at Holy Communion at the Global South-to-South Encounter meeting in Singapore.

CofE Synod Wimps Out on ACNA is Very Anglican.

As you perhaps can tell from the headline, I do not share ACNA leadership’s cheery assessment of what transpired at Synod. I do understand their desire to be positive. It would not be very polite to say, “Thanks for nothing, pommy church!” And the Synod could have in turn told ACNA to go away. They did not.

But let us follow Matt+ Kennedy’s admonition to engage in exegesis, not isogesis and look at what actually passed.

The original motion by Lorna Ashworth was modest:

“That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America.”

As she noted during debate, all that motion would have done was express a desire for communion. It would have had little if any binding result (except REALLY tick off --Schori and company, of course).

But that was *ahem* too bold for the Synod. So they gutted the resolution with an amendment. Therefore the final resolution that passed was the following:

“That this Synod, aware of the distress caused by recent divisions within the Anglican churches of the United States of America and Canada,

"(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;
(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and
(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011."

The passed resolution does not even deign to express a desire for communion. It only affirms ACNA’s desire – whatever that means, says this is oh-so complicated, and kicks the issue to 2011.

Thus Synod punted on even expressing a desire for communion with ACNA.

I can think of several adjectives to describe that. “Anglican” seems appropriate at the moment.

Granted, I am a bit grumpier than some (but not Christopher Johnson). Other views may be found here.

Schori Does ACNA a Favor?

There are reports that TEC Presiding Heretic Katharine Schori is in England to try to influence the Church of England Synod against recognizing the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

If so, I say . . . thanks!

I really have difficulty seeing her lobbying being well received. The Episcopal Church already has a reputation both for not giving a damn about the Anglican Communion and for pushing its weight around within it beyond its declining numbers. And much of the current divisions within the Church of England itself are fomented by Episcopalians who have moved to England and taken influential positions, particularly in the universities. I suspect at least some in Synod are quietly fed up with that. I am sure few in Synod see themselves in need of more guidance from the Episcopal Church.

So I think Schori’s presence in England will actually help ACNA, reminding many in Synod of the need for ACNA and giving opportunity politely to tell her to buzz off by voting to recognize ACNA. (And that even if she throws Episcopalian $$$ around.)

But that is only my take. If anyone has further insight into this situation and how it is being received, feel free to comment or contact. I am watching Synod with great interest.

First ACNA Provincial Council

The first ACNA Provincial Council has met and issued a communiqué.

Some are focusing on the goal of one thousand new congregations in five years. But, realistic or not, that goal is old news from the Provincial Assembly in Bedford.

What I find more notable is the wholehearted endorsement of the Manhattan Declaration and the firm nudge given to the Anglican Church of Uganda concerning the bill there on homosexual conduct.

The Uganda bill is madness. My understanding is that it contains the death penalty for homosexual conduct and harsh fines against those who don’t report it. The church should speak out and pray against this bill.

++Duncan to Anglican Communion: “There is a choice to be made.”

Yesterday, the Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, Robert Duncan, issued an open letter to the Anglican Communion.

There is one courageous aspect of the letter that I think is getting overlooked. ++Duncan is not presenting the current situation as an opportunity for the Anglican Communion to recognize ACNA in addition to The Episcopal Church. Instead, he seems to discourage that route and in clear language exhorts the Communion to make a choice:

The North American poet, Robert Frost, once wrote: “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I took the road less traveled by. That has made all the difference.” For Anglican Christians, for the Instruments of Unity (Communion), for interdependent Provinces, for ordinary believers, there is a choice to be made. The choice is between two religions, two roads, two cities, two sets of conflicting values and behaviors. In Deuteronomy, chapter 30, Moses sets the choice as between blessing and curse, life and death. For contemporary Anglicanism the present choice is this stark.

He is not saying, “Can I join the club, too? Please? Can I?” He certainly seems to saying the choice for the Anglican Communion is TEC or ACNA, not both.

Of course, as only Bishop Duncan can, he lays out the choice gently and humbly. Nevertheless, he does so clearly and courageously.

Perhaps I’m reading too much into this letter. His intent may be simply to urge the Communion to stick with orthodox catholic Christianity and to reject the apostasies of the Episcopal Church. But I think ++Duncan is not nearly as interested in joining an Anglican Communion with The Episcopal Church as people think.

If so, I concur. There is something very wrong with a communion that would not discipline the likes of The Episcopal Church.

ACNA Assembly, First Session UPDATED

Bishop Duncan began the session with prayer at 2:45 then read the very appropriate Gospel from yesterday, Mark 4:35-41.

+Duncan made a number of introductions including ++Rowan’s Pastoral Visitor, the Rt. Rev'd Santosh Marray, retired bishop of the Seychelles (2005-2008).

+Duncan, who is the chair, is proceeding rather slowly. I hope that doesn’t result in problems later. The Assembly does have a Constitution to debate and decide on, after all.

Now, there is a “mission minute.” I question how appropriate that is at this moment. If saying that makes me sound hard-hearted, then so be it. There is rather important business at hand. Again, I hope my concerns prove unfounded.

Almost as soon as I posted my concern, +Duncan turned to the subject of the Constitution. I’m glad to see that. He is now urging the delegates to avoid “the patterns of Egypt” after leaving Egypt, e. g. not do things as the Episcopal Church does. He wants most of the work done beforehand by smaller groups, then ratified or rejected by the Assembly. He said waiting another year is fine, but that trying to perfect the Constitution in assembly ala TEC General Convention is not the way to go.

The Preamble is now under consideration. Christopher Cantrell urges striking the “grieved” clause. A delegate, I think from Pittsburgh, agrees, says we should look to the future. A delegate from the American Anglican Council urges the clause stays in.

It appears there may be some “perfecting” whether +Duncan wants it or not. And now a delegate urges we go back to adopting, section by section (i.e. not clause by clause). Things getting more complicated already.

+Duncan notes no one has objected to “In the Name of God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit“ evoking great mirth.

Preamble, apart from disputed paragraphs, just approved without objection. (Duncan suggested doing that first.) Now those paragraphs are under discussion. But +Duncan asks for a preliminary show of hands, and clearly most approve keeping the paragraphs. And those are passed overwhelmingly by voice vote.

+Duncan did a good job of moving that along, while being fair to delegates.

On to Article I . . .

And Article I is adopted with little discussion. Article II adopted faster than I can type. +Duncan is not rushing. There is just very little, if any opposition. Encouraging so far.

Article III adopted with a quick and friendly amendment.

Article IV adopted with no opposition. Yes, this speed is surprising me. I thought that if even the Preamble evokes some discussion, then the Articles certainly would. We’ll see what happens with the rest of the articles.

Article V adopted with no opposition. +Duncan remarks, “I’m not used to this!”

Article VI ditto.

Article VII, with a friendly simplification from committee, adopted without opposition.

Article VIII, adopted with no opposition.

Article IX, with a friendly amendment from committee, adopted with no opposition.

Now, remarks from visitors. +Frank Lyons of Bolivia first, then +Calvancante of Reclife (a hero of mine).

Article X: There’s a friendly amendment. Then +Harvey of Canada asks some clarification on who determines an active bishop. +Duncan answers to his satisfaction. X approved with no opposition.

Article XI adopted with no opposition

Article XII. When +Duncan mentions it’s on “ownership of property”, there is chuckling. It is adopted with a loud and rousing voice vote and with no opposition, to much applause.

Article XIII and XIV adopted with no opposition. Seriously, these are getting passed faster than I can type. There is far, far less opposition than I expected. (And, yes, my earlier concerns are looking sillier by the minute. Mea culpa!)

Article XV now adopted with little opposition after a discussion about a possible inconsistency.

+Duncan: “We have done the work, brothers and sisters. We have constituted the Anglican Church in North America.” There is a long standing ovation of joy and the doxology. Thanks be to God!

Now recessed.