Thinking Anglicans

CANA and Common Cause

The NACDAP/Anglican Communion Network has been very active in promoting an alliance with other North American groups, which has been named Common Cause. See the original June 2004 announcement. The partners so far have been eight in number and are listed here.

And now, CANA is to become number 9 in this list. This is noted in the latest report on Roundtable Drafts Articles for a Common Cause Federation:

The Common Cause Roundtable which represents nine orthodox Anglican jurisdictions and organizations in North America met in Pittsburgh August 16–18, 2006 to continue its unifying work. The Common Cause Roundtable Partners accomplished three major tasks:

  • affirmed their Covenant Declaration;
  • amended and approved the Theological Statement of the Common Cause Partnership; and,
  • recommended the formation of the Common Cause Federation (CCF).

…One of the actions of the Common Cause Partners’ meeting was to include the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) as the ninth roundtable partner.

The partners also affirmed this COVENANT DECLARATION OF THE COMMON CAUSE PARTNERS:

We intend by God’s grace:

  • to partner together in a renewed missionary effort in North America and beyond, driven by our passion for Jesus and His Gospel.
  • to ensure an orthodox Anglican Province in North America that remains connected to a faithful global Communion.
  • to create a unity in the essentials of our Anglican faith that respects our varied styles and expressions.
  • to build trusting relationships marked by effective coordination, collaboration, and communication.

Mark Harris discusses all of this here. He notes that:

The careful reader will note the singular “an orthodox Anglican Province” and “a faithful global Communion.”

The ends are clear – one province (not by the way The Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada) for all of North America, and related to an unspecified “global Comunion” (not by the way necessarily connected to communion with the see of Canterbury.)

Somewhat curiously for Americans, given ECUSA’s history on these points, the Theological Statement now contains:

6. We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.

7. We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.

Mark Harris explains how these wordings differ from the earlier draft.

11
Leave a Reply

avatar
3000
11 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
Peter PearsonmwcobMarshall ScottdrdanfeeMartin Reynolds Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
J. C. Fisher
Guest
J. C. Fisher

As long as this group doesn’t try to 1) steal TEC (or AngChCanada) property or 2) maintain ties w/ Canterbury (as Anglicans), then I say live and let live . . . but any ordained women involved, are kidding themselves if they think that there will *any more* women clergy ordained by this bunch!

drdanfee
Guest
drdanfee

There are many witting/unwitting frames at work here. Each one bears intentional investigation. One core idea seems obvious. We are called to preserve and transmit the Great Treasure of the Kingdom. No matter what part of our legacy is at hand, the point surely is to go back in time, reclaiming something pristine, apostolic, untainted. It is even more curious then, when an iteration of this Great Preservational Frame serves to cut off the best practices investigations that otherwise we would need to travel back inside a variety of modern intellectual vehicles of good inquiry. Though we are still fallible,… Read more »

Patrick Rothwell
Guest
Patrick Rothwell

“7. We receive the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion of 1562, taken in their literal and grammatical sense, as expressing the Anglican response to certain doctrinal issues controverted at that time, and as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.” Well that throws many (most?) Anglo-Catholics under a bus, since they by and large do not accept the 39 Articles “as expressing the fundamental principles of authentic Anglican belief.” At most, as I understand it from my Anglican days, the classical High Churchmen and ACs tended to subscribe to the 39 Articles as articles of peace rather than a foundational… Read more »

New Here
Guest
New Here

>>>Can Bishops Iker and Ackerman (among others) really sign that in good conscience?

I don’t know about Ackerman, but Iker, for all his talk of being an Anglo-Catholic, strikes me more as an Anglo-Baptist. He probably won’t have any trouble at all signing onto even an uberprotestant statement of belief, particularly if it will keep the women and homos away. And if it will allow him to become one of the top prelates in a newfangled Akinolan Communion, then so much the better.

John Henry
Guest
John Henry

Too bad the ‘reasserter’ bishops have not recently read E.J. Bicknell’s The Thirty-Nine Articles (3rd edition revised by +Harry Carpenter, C.S. Lewis’s bishop-friend), or they have overlooked essential points made by the recognized experts on the Articles. To quote: “But all doctrinal statements must partake of the nature of metaphor. They are true as far as they go, but they cannot represent the whole truth” (p.5). “The Church can never cease to reflect on her doctrines. Standing on the foundation of the Scriptures and guided by her own theological tradition, the Church will in every age discover the necessity for… Read more »

Göran Koch-Swahne
Guest

Calvinism in drag.

Martin Reynolds
Guest

I feel somewhat taken aback by the news that CANA has so quickly been accepted as the ninth jurisdiction in this group. Perhaps I am missing something here, but I felt that Bishop Minns and his organisation had not gained the support from others on the list and was likely to be left aside – albeit temporarily. The inclusion of CANA is a surprise in that it endorses Bishop Minns’ role in America and seems to contradict the views of those from the Common Cause constituency who have contributed on related items here on this blog. I can only think… Read more »

drdanfee
Guest
drdanfee

The speed with which CANA has started to morph before our very eyes, from a alleged cultural campus ministry to isolated Nigerian believers, into a whole new cluster of networked cell growth that wishes to supplant TEC, suggests that this has probably been one of the possible game plans since at least the externally funded Akinola barbecues. ABN Akinola might want to stop talking up his famous analogy with the runaway cell growth of cancer tissues – his CANA is fitting the bill more closely than TEC ever could. I hope everybody will feel utterly free to worship with Minns,… Read more »

Marshall Scott
Guest

I am not surprised at the connection of CANA with the other “orthodox” sects. There has been for some time a certain sense of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” However, the history of this sort of connection within “Anglican” groups has been poor. I remember well the “ACNAE” churches of a generation ago (the Anglican Church of North America, the Diocese of Christ the King, etc, who separated over the ordination of women and changes in the Prayer Book), and have noted over the years that their shared antipathy to decisions of the Episcopal Church have not… Read more »

mwcob
Guest
mwcob

For those who find themselves caught in the middle of this, I read so many of the snide and hurtful comments above, and wonder how Jesus really would have responded.

Peter Pearson
Guest
Peter Pearson

This recent and almost constant reference to “Orthodox” Anglicanism really confuses me. I made a decision to join the Episcopal/Anglican Church a few years back precisely because it was roomy enough for a variety of opinions and expressions. I am also confused by folks who claim to hold to scripture while ignoring the parts THEY don’t care for. Still, they use other parts as weapons against those who disagree with them. What is that about? To be honest, I wonder what all of this is REALLY about.