Thanks for posting the NYTimes article. It is devastating in what it reveals about ++Akinola in his own words, including his estimate about how humble he is. One wonders if some who voted to leave and join CANA would have done so as readily if they could have read this. +Minns is clearly allying himself and his followers with someone who supports legislation that the State Department has declared inhumane,who is so homophobic as to leap away from the handshake of a gay man, who characterizes gay people, by implication, as animals, who has violated diocesan boundaries, and who could beat Uriah Heep in an 'umbleness contest.

Just whose invitation to Tanzania should be in doubt?

Regarding the historical statuses of Truro Church and The Falls Church, I say: Petty, Petty, Petty.

For all the talk of "broadness" there is a serious investment in stupidity going on here.

I say this as a Catholic. With so much at stake for the future of your Church why would you waste your time and attention on this crud?

That is a most interesting article about the historical antecedents of Turo and Falls churches. The claims of a colonial existence are not just to attract tourist trade, but are part of their legal strategy to invalidate the property claims of TEC. I suspect that much of their efforts to create a rupture in the AC comes from a hope of convincing a secular court that TEC has acted in such a way as to default on its responsibility to maintain the bonds that bound parishes in obedience to the cannons.

Just today was reading His Excellency, a 2003 biography of Geo. Washington. Second chapter says he was Vestryman at the Truro Church in the 1760's. I don't think there's much doubt that the parishes are colonial.

Thank you for posting the history lesson and Joan for writing it. I would like toknow about the more recent history of these congregations and the others who have left with them. To what extent were they involved in the Charismatic Movement? Do any of them have women priests? Did they in the past?
Columba Gilliss

Regarding the history, I'm not sure how important is a claim to history: many want to find claims in antiquity for legitimacy and authority.

As an aside, you know there is a much better claim to episcopal antiquity:

http://www.kings-chapel.org/history.html

Including:

>There was no minister until James Freeman, born in Charlestown and a Harvard graduate, was hired as lay reader in 1782 and became minister in 1783. He introduced Unitarian ideas in his preaching and revised the Anglican Book of Common Prayer along Unitarian principles. The changes in the liturgy were accepted by the congregation in June, 1785. Although Freeman still considered the church to be Episcopalian, Bishop Seabury in Connecticut, who represented the Anglican church, refused to ordain him. On November 18, 1787, Freeman was ordained by the Senior Warden of King's Chapel, in the name of the congregation, in words still used in ordinations at King's Chapel today: "to be the Rector, Minister, Priest, Pastor, Public Teacher and Teaching Elder."

King's Chapel continues to follow a form of the Anglican liturgy, using the 9th edition of the Book of Common Prayer According to the Use in King's Chapel, published in 1986. This Book of Common Prayer is descended from an Anglican Book of Common Prayer edited by James Freeman for use at King's Chapel. Our current edition continues to espouse Unitarian theology and supports non-creedal Christian worship.

King's Chapel is an independent congregation affiliated with the Unitarian Universalist Association...<

Its clear enough that he has Communion leadership ambition. No way do these views have majority support in the CofE

Unfortunately +Akinola has a "staying in the room" problem as well as a recoiling from a queer handshake phobia...he' seems to have the "heebeegeebees" and cross wiring/tic puritanical problema/sickness real bad.

It didn't come from the olden days/daze in Africa when homosexuality was considered less threatening to the health:

(scroll down to)

Homosexuality in Prehistoric Africa

http://www.bidstrup.com/phobiahistory.htm

+Akinola apparently is no Mothera Theresa and although I'm certain he would be welcome to receive Communion at any rail in our GLOBAL CENTER of the Anglican Communion he may rush from the Eucharist if any REAL words/petitions of LGBT TRUTH are mentioned during the Prayers of the People, the General Confession or the Homily!

On another front:

What if we invite the LGBT Alliance of Washington D.C. and surrounding Virigina areas/states affiliates of LGBT people to start attending Truro and Falls Church for a year? They can attend in "teams" of a couple of hundred "queers" for each service.

That will keep +Akinola from "poaching" and "preaching" without the authorization from Bishop Lee in our Episcopal Church buildings.

All sorts of ways to "chop down" the non-existant and false rumor of a new "cherry tree" growing in Virginia.

The lede in the NYT article is quite devastating to ++ Akinola's image in the USA and the story of CANA is increasingly being linked to the most strident form of homophobia. Whether it is an accurate portrait of his attitude or not (and I pray that it isn't) he still must face up to the political reality that his support for the legislation in Nigeria makes his US supporters look like the allies in the worst kind of bigotry. The fact that the church is in VA doesn't help.
It isn't too late for him to gracefully get out of the corner he has painted himself into....but despite the protestations of humility I think past experience tells us that ++ Abuja isnot likely to admit he is wrong, even if only in the tactical sense.

To Doug Taylor-Weis: If you will look at my article you will find out that Truro Parish and Truro Church are two separate things. If in 1765 there was a newspaper called the Truro Times that served Fairfax County, which in 1800 turned into a local printing house known as Pohick Printing, but no longer published a newspaper weekly. Then in 1836 another newspaper editor came along and set up a new newspaper called Zion Press, that served PART of the area covered by the old Truro Times, that would hardly be the old Truro Times, would it? Then suppose Zion Press changed its name in 1935 to Truro Press, that still would not make it the same thing as the Truro Times. The modern descendant of Truro Parish is Pohick Church in Lorton.

"Archbishop Gomez said he understood Archbishop Akinola’s actions because the American conservatives felt an urgent need to leave the Episcopal Church and were unwilling to wait for a new covenant being written for the Anglican Communion. The new covenant is a lengthy and uncertain process led by Archbishop Gomez that some conservatives hope will eventually end the impasse over homosexuality…"

I don't think that TEC's "liberal" Bishops and hierachy have any intention of waiting for a possible covenant, or for decisions from the Windsor Panel either (remember that? - seems to have taken a long vacation again!). They are already acting against dissenting dioceses, parishes and priests. TEC Bishops seem to be threatening conservative parishes and clergy all over the place and ++Schori has threatened +Schofield via the offices of TEC's Chancellor...

It's hardly surprising that dioceses and parishes are declaring some degree of autonomy, or leaving TEC altogether! Or that several Primates who have the balls are getting involved. (Neither is it surprising that they are suffering ad-hominem attacks by liberals!)

What I am worried about is that the liberal establishment think that they can continue to string out, divert and highjack the Covenant and the Windsor Panel. They might calculate that most conservatives will eventually be persuaded to realise that continued resistance is not worth the effort. Unfortunately for them, conservatives have also got organized at every level now - we are not content just running missions and churches to generate numbers and money for a liberal heirarchy (some of whom contradict or dispise our beliefs and morality!).

I think it won't be long before the "nice liberals" realise that they are going to have to come to an new accommodation with the rest of us - and let conservatives be respected and proportionately represented at all levels. But they may not have the wisdom or humility to recognise that the inevitable is coming before power is wrested from their clutch!

Columba - Truro has been involved in the charismatic movement for the past 30 years. I am not aware that either it or Falls Church has or has had any women priests. C.B.

Since Peter Akinola extols the virtue of a "plain reading" of Scripture:

The Gospel according to Peter Akinola:

“This man came up to me after a service, in New York I think, and said, ‘Oh, good to see you bishop, this is my partner of many years,’ ” he recalled. “I said, ‘Oh!’ I jumped back”

The Gospel according to Jesus Christ:

"Now there was a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for twelve years. . . She had heard about Jesus, and came up behind him in the crowd and touched his cloak, for she said, ‘If I but touch his clothes, I will be made well.’ Immediately her haemorrhage stopped; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her disease. . .the woman, knowing what had happened to her, came in fear and trembling, fell down before him, and told him the whole truth. He said to her, ‘Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your disease.’" Mark 5:25-34

(Seems Jesus has other notions about touching the "untouchable.")

The Gospel According to Peter Akinola:

Asked whether his installing a bishop in the United States violated the church’s longstanding rules, he responded heatedly that he was simply doing what Western churches had done for centuries, sending a bishop to serve Anglicans where there is no church to provide one.

The Gospel According to Jesus Christ:

"‘In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.'" Matthew 7:12

Says Martyn Minns:

“He doesn’t want to be the man; he just no longer wants to be the boy. . .He wants to be treated as an equal leader, with equal respect.”

The Gospel According to Jesus Christ:

Jesus sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, ‘Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.’ Then he took a little child and put it among them; and taking it in his arms, he said to them, ‘Whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes not me but the one who sent me.’ Mark 9:35-37

I am not sure I understand the argument being made about Truro & co and George Washington.

My copy of "The writings of George Washington; being his correspondence, addresses, messages, and other papers, official and private, selected and published from the original manuscripts; with a life of the author, notes and illustrations. By Jared Sparks" dated 1855 and published by Little, Brown and Co of Boston makes several references to Washington and Truro parish... to be precise it makes 7 references.

On page 400, for example, there is printed a results of the vestry balloting for Truro parish from July 22, 1765 showing George Washington polled third and was elected to the vestry, while on March 28, 1765 he polled fifth in the election at Fairfax parish and was a member of that vestry.

Mount Vernon was located in what was then the parochial boundaries of Truro parish.

Now the buildings have been rebuilt a number of times since the parishes were chartered ... and that may be the gist of the argument ... that Washington didn't sleep in a particular pew ... but to suggest he wasn't a member is either silly or shoddy work --- or perhaps is another example of the nefarious activities of the IRD, or perhaps Freemasons, the illuminati --- maybe Skull and Bones.

Many thanks to Dr. Gundersen for reporting a synopsis of important historical facts.

It seems that these orthodox believer claims of utter and complete historic continuity - whether at the local parish, or at the Anglican Communion, or even at the much-touted apostolic and biblical levels - are generally quite similar. The several redactions approach confortable and uncomfortable facts in hugely similar ways.

Each person will draw his or her own lessons from this small example. I think it is typical conservative propaganda spin: Do not skew the facts to fit your frames, as a sort of archetypally godly Anglican habit. (But then, isn't that just what the negative views are doing, towards all the favorite target groups that are do thoroughly dissed?)

Alas. Spinning the facts only results in a misguided effect that dumbs down everything for everybody, whether you think God will recognize them or not in the Last Day.

Do pray and read and make up your own mind.

I am sitting back to realize that Jesus may have sheep who are not of my own favorite folds. The Bible tells me so.

If I have to choose between the Anglican extremes of Akinola and VGR, which I do not necessarily agree that I must, I would end up picking VGR for any number of progressive believer reasons. One of the things I do like about VGR is his ability to admit that he has made mistakes in life and learned from them. Akinola, by contrast, is so entirely humble that he apparently hasn't made any mistakes, especially when it comes to people like VGR.

Any ninny would then realize that others feel that way about Akinola, and so the difference is that I do not require them to be disinvited from Lambeth, only that their disarmament be verified by a neutral party prior to their attending all future Anglican meetings.

I am not afraid of their thinking or their talk. Why should I fear? I survived growing up in the USA Bible Belt. Literally and figuratively, against all odds, and contrary to all gospel predictions from the most conformed Bible Belt believers. If that sort of trial by childhood and adolescent and young adult fire doesn't get a progressive citizen killed or depressed to the point of suicide, Akinola has little to say or think that could dissuade a progressive person from following Jesus, in spite of his know-it-all gospelling.

The Akinolan glee for putting people in prison for thought crimes, well, that is horribly different sort of fish, Wanda. And not really very Anglican, really not.

I'm so glad ++Nigeria has nothing else to worry about but how North American Anglicans have sex:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/26/AR2006122600176_pf.html

LAGOS, Nigeria, Dec. 26 -- A gasoline pipeline ruptured by thieves exploded into an inferno Tuesday as scavengers collected the fuel in a poor neighborhood, killing at least 260 people in the latest oil industry disaster to strike Africa's biggest petroleum producer.
....
Such tapping is common in this nation of 130 million people, many of whom live in woeful poverty amid widespread graft that makes a handful wealthy. A pilfered can of gasoline sold on the black market can bring in the equivalent of two weeks of wages for a poor Nigerian.

But tapping also brings frequent accidents. Earlier this year, 150 people died in a similar explosion near Lagos, and a 1998 pipeline fire killed 1,500 in southern Nigeria.

"Regarding the history, I'm not sure how important is a claim to history: many want to find claims in antiquity for legitimacy and authority."

It's as someone else posted - it is important in the dispostion of property - and between Truro and The Falls Church, the two properties are likely worth about $25 million. So this is not about nostalgia or museum piece structures. It is about valuable real estate that belongs to TEC.

"Just today was reading His Excellency, a 2003 biography of Geo. Washington. Second chapter says he was Vestryman at the Truro Church in the 1760's. I don't think there's much doubt that the parishes are colonial."

And the historical article says as much. To wit that the Colony of Virginia legally established parish boundaries. The article goes on further to state that there were not legal entities in continuous operation that entire time and that the current organizations have only been in continuous operation since the 1830s.

"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility."

Groucho Marx, minus the moustache.

With all that is at stake here, I'm not at all certain why we are talking about this. The expenditure of time and attention given to whether these parishes originated in the 18th or 19th centuries strikes me a petty at best.

In the case of Truro at least, the claims of Washington's membership on the vestry are at least decades old so I don't think they are some kind of Machiavellian attempt to preempt the Diocese's claims. The claims may be slightly fanciful, but they are hardly important in the grand scheme of things.

Dear Dave,

"(Neither is it surprising that they are suffering ad-hominem attacks by liberals!)"

Ad hominem: attacking an opponent's motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.

If you're referring to attacks in the posted articles, I would argue that Akinola's character, as demonstrated by avoiding Louie Crew and then practically bragging about it to the reporter, is so deeply flawed that it deserves to be confronted.

"TEC Bishops seem to be threatening conservative parishes and clergy all over the place and ++Schori has threatened +Schofield via the offices of TEC's Chancellor..."

This is a church with episcopal polity, and if one breaks the rules, this is what happens.

Thank you, Joan Gundersen for that insightful article.

I wonder why these fundagelical parishes want to claim George Washington as a member? After all, like most Low Church Virginians of his day, old George was a Deist.

Gillian, here's what our new pope, Peter Akinola, has to say about issues like the one you raise:

"I didn’t create poverty. This church didn’t create poverty. Poverty is not an issue, human suffering is not an issue at all, they were there before the creation of mankind."

Besides, why concern oneself with matters so close to home when one can fret over how people on the other side of the world have sex?

Weiwen Ng wrote: "This is a church with episcopal polity, and if one breaks the rules, this is what happens."

Dear Weiwen, so is the Anglican Communion... and so is Christianity!!! So why are TEC's liberals so upset that they are being asked to repent or leave, and why are they so surprised that many Christians will not accept their discarding of traditional christian morality ?

If they were half-way realistic and humble they would have recognised that what they wanted to do was extremely unlikely to be acceptable, and would have accepted the consequences generously - not try to pretend that it was everyone else who is wrong, by smothering internal dissent and rebuffing external discipline.

ps Re Ad-hominem ... yes the sinful character of the opponent may be important, but it should not be confused with the issue being debated [...unless you are loosing the arguement :-) ]

Simon Sarmiento or Simon Kershaw:

As many people have said, this whole “Gay” fiasco is really about the interpretation of scripture. I often wonder if the positions taken by those on various sides of the issue has more to do with what they don’t know and understand that with what they do. For example, Bishop Katharine comes at it from a scientific as well as theological perspective. Bishop Tom Wright of Durham, on the other hand, brilliant though he may be, I rather suspect has a limited grounding in science. I say this because, under the English educational system of his time, he would have been required to give up the sciences at the age of 15 to concentrate on the Classics. I don’t know about Bishop Akinola’s education but it would be interesting to know how much science informs his positions.

It would be interesting to gather and compare data on the educational backgrounds of those on either side of the Liberal/Conservative (Evangelical) divide within the Anglican Communion. Do you know if such information is available?

'Hatreds never cease by hatreds
in this world.
By love alone do they cease.
This is an ancient law.'

(Dhammapada)

"...but to suggest he wasn't a member is either silly or shoddy work..."

George, as Dr. Gundersen explained in her paper, and in a comment above, Truro Parish and Truro Church are two completely different entities.

A colonial "parish" was a geographical division, much like a "diocese." To be elected to the "vestry" was much like serving on the diocesan standing committee.

Each colonial parish had within it a number of congregations. There are no records of Washington having ever worshipped with the congregations we now know as The Falls Church and Truro Church. That is not surprising, since neither existed at that time.

George Conger wrote: "Now the buildings have been rebuilt a number of times since the parishes were chartered ... and that may be the gist of the argument ... that Washington didn't sleep in a particular pew ... but to suggest he wasn't a member is either silly or shoddy work... "

I understood the actual "pew he slept in" to be located in an entirely different parish, having at least s o m e sort of continuity with "charters" of a colonial past (whatever good that would do to anybody), whereas these True RO and False church people have no such continuity whatsoever although claiming it for no good, and so on...

What's in a lie?

Well, being historically minded and having grown up in a Calvinist environment, I do confess to being rather touchy when it comes to lies and intentional misrepresentations.

I’m confused about the confusion.

The Falls Church building was constructed in 1769 in what was then Fairfax Parish. From 1784 to 1836, the building was effectively abandoned for public worship, and area Episcopalians worshiped at Christ Church in nearby Alexandria. In 1836 a new group of Episcopalians petitioned the Diocese of Virginia to admit them as a new congregation. This group started fund raising to fix up the derelict Falls Church building, which had been unoccupied for more than half a century. Given the fact that George Washington died on December 14, 1799, he could not possibly have been a member of this new Falls Church congregation, could he? What’s so “confusing” about this?

Andrew

I don't think knowing peoples' educational backgrounds will help. God has contempt for scholars and scribes when they fail to mete out true justice and prophesy lies in God's name. Plus we are also dealing with group think and barricades.

Joan. Thank you for that research and your excellent rebuttal in this thread.

Over the Christmas break I was discussing the Virginia break with a friend, who commented that Washington DC is in that diocese. Their insight is that employees and service providers to the regime who sponsored the Iraq war based on deceit, and diverting the economy onto a war footing at the expense of its own and the international communities are not willingly going to admit that they have made some of the worst decisions to date in the US's short history.

Joan, discovering the hyperboles about George Washington's affiliation pleased me. It supports the theory that there is self-idolatry going on with dynasty building to stabilise their idolatrous paradigms.

This article was posted overnight http://www.torah.org/learning/pirkei-avos/chapter6-34-36b.html While some people might cringe at the Jewishness of the content, the reality is that these values and cautions are those that Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the God of the Torah would like all Gods' children to heed.

Virginia still has geographical parishes. The church we now attend, Emmanuel in Woodstock, is in Beckford Parish. St. Andrew's in Mt. Jackson is also in Beckford Parish. Also, my former church in Woodbridge was in Dettingen Parish, along with Trinity in Manassas. Actually, I always kind of wondered what that meant, and Joan Gunderson has explained it well.

Diane - Similarly, the whole of the State of Lousiana is divided into official parishes (instead of counties). A hold over from the days when the Roman Catholic Church held most of the property in the state.

Those two parishes ceased to be Anglican in worship and doctrine many years ago. Unfortunately for them, the property is not so easily turned away from its place in the Episcopal Church and remains held in trust for the national church.

It is, in a sense, as if it belonged to every Episcopalian in this church. We should make a point to say that they cannot take this property from the Episcopalians in America like you and me. By letting them argue that they are trying to protect their claims against a mean national church they win too many points in the public press. The real story that should be told is how every piece of property under the Episcopal Church is held for all of us, communally. As an Episcopalian, though I have never set foot in those parishes, I have a voice and a stake and I don't want that given away to schismatics or taken from out of the hands of the young children who are being raised as Episcopalians in America today.

No one has the right to take this property from this next generation of young Episcopalians and give it to these breakaway groups. It doesn't matter that these kids don't worship there - by taking this property from the Episcopal Church they are snatching this valuable and historic property from them and from their future needs in the church. The very abilty of the next generation of young Episcopalians to enjoy and benefit from their rights and growth in this church depends on not being aliented from property and holdings of the entire church without the proper process of the church being followed.

We need to say very clearly over and over that there are many more generations of Episcopalians to come, for whom the church holds this property, and these people can leave but they cannot take this property from this next generation of young Episcopalians.

And another point I haven't heard much mention of is that of the whole crowd of parishes who voted to "leave" a couple of weeks ago (imagining that they could quit as a parish instead of as individuals) many of these were actually satellite parishes of Truro and Falls Church and were simply following the direction of their mother ship (uhm, sorry, I mean parish). This really and truly was just all about some members of just these two parishes.

Cheryl:

I agree that it wouldn't do much for the debate, intellectual humility being in short supply. To bystanders like myself, however, it could provide a partial explanation for how we have arrived at this impasse.

At the risk of stating the obvious: the division of the land into parishes is of course also true to this day in the Church of England, and is where the Virginians got the idea.

I would like to point out that The Falls Church Virginia has indeed had a female ordained priest - I was on staff there until recently and am still NSM Associate Priest.

Dave,

'so is the Anglican Communion... and so is Christianity!!! So why are TEC's liberals so upset that they are being asked to repent or leave, and why are they so surprised that many Christians will not accept their discarding of traditional christian morality ?'

re the Anglican Communion. someone more versed in Anglican polity can explain it better, but the sense I get is that the Communion is a loose confederation of churches. the individual churches have episcopal polity. the Communion as an entity does not (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

that said, there are instruments of unity in the Communion. there are consequences for doing something that offends other churches, as the Episcopal Church has indeed done. I would argue (as has Rev Scott Benhase in an article that is posted in The Witness' online archives) that if the rest of the Communion wants us to leave, we should do so. we have considered our actions, and determined that we cannot do otherwise. we are prepared, I believe, to explain ourselves to our sister provinces.

that having been said, there is no binding authority in the Communion. the 4 instruments of unity are the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth, the ACC, and the Primates' Meeting. all 4 would have to break communion or whatever you call it with TEC, and that doesn't seem likely.

therefore, if you are implying that TEC should be forced out of the Communion, my understanding is that right now this would be at best very difficult. if someone wanted to do so, they would have to make significant changes to the structure of the Communion. and mark my words, there would be opposition.

Washington, DC is NOT within the geographic boundaries of the Diocese of Virginia. The Diocese of Washington covers the District and some parts of Maryland. Virginia has 3 Episcopal dioceses: Virginia, which is roughly bounded by the James River to the south and the Potomac to the north; Southern Virginia, which roughly covers the area south of the James River and the Williamsburg/Hampton Roads area; and Southwest Virginia, which roughly covers the area near Blacksburg and Roanoke, and the Tennessee border.

One must wonder at all these 'historic' Anglicans and Episcopalians - whether in the U.S., U.K. or Canada - champing at the bit under the tedious authority of liberal or broad church bishops. How long have many of these folks been Anglicans? How traditional are they? I've had occasion to browse a number of the comments on some of the TradAng ClassicAng ContinuingAng websites and I am constantly coming across individuals who have recently joined a particularly evangelical Anglican congregation and are now lecturing the rest of us about how far we have departed from our Anglican roots. This came up in Canada a number of years when I was reading a particular document that was part of the discussions concerning Anglican Essentials. The author - a hectoring sort of person - was a classmate of mine in seminary. She used to come to class in her Salvation Army uniform. At some point she left the Sally Ann and joined a particularly tendentious Anglican congregation in a posh neighbourhood in Montreal. I guess she was confirmed at some point - I assume so. Does that make her our spokesman? Some of the congregations who are part of the Scottish Anglican Network have a tenor and style of service with only fleeting similarities to anything in the Anglican tradition. Wouldn't a proper Anglican Schism require proper Anglicans to fall out?

Some 25 years ago a neighboring parish, Trinity, Bridgewater (Massachusetts) attempted to leave the Episcopal Church and take their property with them, this time because of women's ordination and the then-new Prayer Book. Like the two Virginia parishes, Trinity was colonial (founded in the 1740's) but fell on hard times after the Revolution. They lost their lawsuit. Trinity, Bridgewater is still an Episcopal parish.

There are also remnants of geographical parish boundaries in South Carolina left over from colonial times.

Cheryl writes:

Over the Christmas break I was discussing the Virginia break with a friend, who commented that Washington DC is in that diocese.

Er, no. The Diocese of Washington DC is its own entity although once upon a time it was part of the Diocese of Maryland. The Potomac River is quite wide hereabouts and traveling into Virginia is like entering a foreign country (for some).

"Over the Christmas break I was discussing the Virginia break with a friend, who commented that Washington DC is in that diocese."

Actually, no it is not. The Diocese of Washington includes DC and some territory in Maryland. The state of Virginia is divided among three dioceses: the Diocese of Virginia includes the Virginia suburbs of Washington, runs south to the JaMes River in Richmond, west to Harrisonburg, including all of the Shenandoah Valley. It also includes territory called the Northen Neck [see a map!]. The Diocese of Southern Virginia is south of the James, includes Williamsburg, runs west to about the middle of the state, where begins the Diocese of Southwest Virginia. There is a handy map on the website of TEC.

The population of Northern Virginia is decidedly more liberal, in most places, than the part of the state where I live [Shenandoah Valley]. For example, in the recent election, Northern Virginia voted heavily against the nasty anti-gay provisions for the constitution. Alas, the rest voted for.

Finally, do not confuse members of a given administration with federal civil servants. The former come and go [or stay and lobby] by elections. The latter stay and work and serve. Mostly they all live in the suburbs of DC - in Md or Va.

Of course, the folks leaving TEC for CANA (i.e., Nigeria) are the "victims" of an ungodly bishop of Virginia whose sole intent is to punish them for their scriptural and anti-gay orthodoxy. Since they are godly people, God has given them the property of TECH the way Yahweh gave Israel dominion over the land of the Canaanites. We hear the same arguments by commentators on T1:9 in conjunction with the dispute between the clergy, wardens and vestry of Christ Church, Savannah, GA, and the Bishop of Georgia. According to the Chapman script, bishops and diocesan chancellors of TECH are the "evil" ones, victimizing good Christian people. One commentator even suggested bringing charges in a court of law against the Chancellor of Georgia for engaging in extortion and "mob action". The dishonorable lack of personal integrity on the part of the disaffected, self-styled orthodox never ceases to amaze me. If they were honorable people, who hate TEC for whatever the denomination has stood for these past 40+ years, they wouldn't covet TECH's assets. Covetness, too, is one of the great sins. Why have that on their conscience?

Cheryl, please let your friend know that Washington, D. C. is actually in the Diocese of Washington.

Tony Clavier has an interesting response to this, see

http://wvparson.blogspot.com/2006/12/of-parishes-churches-and-congregations_27.html

I am so glad that I posted that I was basing my comments on on friend's suggestion. I blush and apologise. Not the first (nor the last) time I've made a mistake. I'll let my friend know too so they don't embarrass themselves on a broader scale - you don't know who they are and I will tell them before they shoot off too quickly elsewhere. So in that sense, we both thank you.

Andrew, I don't know that knowing souls' academic training will help. If they have a robust legal/philosophical/scientific training; then it will be argued that they are not well grounded in theology. If they have a solid theological grounding but are selective in who they read and quote, then it will be argued that they are skewed in their studies.

We've had some rather unpleasant discussions about solo scripture and what is or is not legitimate interpretations.

The ones I am finding fascinating are those who deny others' rights to interpret or use certain passages but then omit to look for consistency in their own application. My simple rule of thumb is if one acts as though one has "divine" interpretive authority, then one must be "divinely" perfect in all application and interpretation.

One advantage of choosing humility, mercy and compassion, is one doesn't have to be perfect in all areas lest one be proven wrong in all areas. Show me the soul who has never made a mistake, and I will show you a liar.

Andrew Innes,
I've had the feeling for quite some time that when it comes to theological training and the ability and desire to argue theologically, conservative "third world" bishops have it hands down over "Westerners". I think the majority of Western clergy are decidedly uncomfortable with things like the supernatural, mysticism, and spirituality. They don't mind The Gathering of the Community, but would rather not think too deeply about what it is the community gathers to do.

And, Raspberry Rabbit, "only fleeting similarities to anything in the Anglican tradition." Pretty much sums things up. I was shocked, and I mean that sincerely, to find that there were such things as Anglican Evangelicals. Just last year I had a conversation with a woman, an Anglican, and she was using all the mindless buzz phrases I associate with Fundamentalists. Her concepts of sacrament, public worship, and ecclesiology were anything but Anglican.

Kurt: Evidently relying on Joan Gundersen's article, you say, "From 1784 to 1836, the building [of the Falls Church] was effectively abandoned for public worship."

But it isn't so. Because (as Gundersen notes), the DIOCESE had "faded away" during this period, it is difficult to prove Episcopal activity during this period. But we do know that in 1823 a lay delegate from The Falls Church named John Moore applied for certification at the Fairfax Diocesan Convention in Leesburg. (He was rejected on grounds that the Parish of Fairfax was already represented by members of Christ Church, Alexandria (which was then in the District of Columbia), and only one church per parish would be represented.)

That weasel word ("effectively") in the phrase "effectively abandoned"--I wonder how much additional contradiction lurks there.

The actual facts underlying Ms. Gundersen's article are that activity at the Falls Church did dwindle, and that after the Diocese of Virginia revived, the Falls Church reestablished its connection to it.

Ms. Gundersen's method of denying that today's Falls Church has continuity with the colonial Falls Church would prove far too much: It would undermine the claim of today's Diocese of Virginia that it has continuity with the colonial-era diocese--an awkward thing just as the Diocese prepares to celebrate next year 400 years of Anglicanism in Virginia.

No one should mistake Ms. Gundersen for a disinterested historian in this connection. She is an activist and a partisan. See, e.g.,

http://www.progressiveepiscopalians.org/html/2006-07-02divisive.htm

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

"I would like to point out that The Falls Church Virginia has indeed had a female ordained priest - I was on staff there until recently and am still NSM Associate Priest."

And when your church becomes part of CANA and thus part of Nigeria, what will happen to your orders?

The church in Nigeria does not ordain women, and the last time the subject came up, I think I am remembering correctly, it decided not to discuss the possibiility.

Unlike Martyn Minns, if you are judged to have abandoned your orders in TEC, I doubt you will be offered orders in CANA.

Many of the posts on the history of Truro and the Falls Church miss the point. Spokesmen for and individual members of both of the break-away parishes have claimed that since their parishes predate the creation of the Diocese of Virginia, the Diocese has no claim on their property. Those statements imply that the diocese would have a legitimate claim over parishes established later.
Dr. Gunderson’s essay shows that there is no institutional link between the present churches and their colonial namesakes.
The colonial churches died out following the disestablishment of the Church of Virginia. The congregations ceased to assemble regularly for worship, elect vestries, or call rectors. Their buildings and lands were abandoned. Then, sometime after 1829 (when the Virginia Theological Seminary moved to Alexandria), two new congregations were established as part of Bishop Meade’s efforts to recover abandoned and alienated church lands and to plant new churches on them. Both churches again experienced lapses in their institutional continuity during the War Between the States.
The parishes’ own websites admit as much: “The first Episcopal church in Fairfax City was formed in 1843 . . . as a mission of the Falls Church . . . In 1845, the church was consecrated as the Zion Church, Truro Parish. . . . After the war, the Zion Church was rebuilt on the site of the original church and was consecrated in 1878.” (Truro), and “An active congregation has worshipped here continuously since about 1873” (The Falls Church).
Zion Church was later renamed “Truro Church.” But that didn’t make it the same church as the old one, any more than the name "Bonhomme Richard" makes the amphibious assault ship commissioned in 1998 the same ship that John Paul Jones commanded in 1779.
All this would be harmless trivia were it not for the fact that the colonial identity of the two congregations seems to be the cornerstone of their case to retain the property. That suggests either (1) the people misheard or misinterpreted the information presented to them during the “Forty Days of Discernment,” (2) the leadership deliberately presented as conclusive a case they knew to be seriously flawed, or (3) the leadership and their lawyers failed to do their homework.

Dear Cynthia: CANA has addressed the subject of your doubt as follows:

"CANA will welcome applications from congregations and female clergy on the same basis as other applications with the expectation that women clergy will be licensed to continue their ministry."

http://www.canaconvocation.org/about/faq.php#Q13

I want to refer back to Dave's comments posted on 27th.

I wondered which 'nice' liberal establishment which thinks it can continue to string out, divert and highjack the Covenant and the Windsor Panel Dave is referring to. Would this be the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Anglican Communion office, or the CofE or the Episcopal Church establishment?

I am on the liberal/radical end of the spectrum. I am a committed, faithful Anglican Christian. I am not working for a split in the church. I will work to build relationships across the diverse spectrum of our church, in my Province and across the Communion.

I note what is happening to the conservatives in our church who are organising for a split - those conservatives Dave says are organised at every level now.

In the UK, a group of individuals get an appointment with ++Rowan and present a Covenant which is anything but a covenant.
It is then revealed that they didn't have the full approval of the organisations they claim to represent.
The bishop of Durham, notionally one of their number, publishes a devastating analysis of the 'covenant'.

The events surrounding the covenant reveal what I suspect is an inevitable consequence of people acting dishonestly, failing to consult their own networks, acting as if they know best. What is happening between conservative evangelicals is the result of what those same people are trying to manufacture in the Communion. If you act arrogantly treat LGBT people as inferior under God, attack the order of the Communion, and deny the integrity of others, the result will be unholy.

I don't despise or contradict the beliefs or morality of people like Dave. I just honourably choose to be different.

I am praying for the secessionists to come to their senses and stay with us. What surprised me about Dave's post was the threat in his last sentence - that the inevitable is coming and power is going to be wrested from 'our' clutches. It isn't about power or who is in control, it's about God, love, truth, justice, salvation, the Gospel, Jesus Christ, isn‘t it?

It's hard to engage in the threads on Thinking Anglicans or in the debate within the church without being drawn into power games and colluding in the barriers being draw between 'us' and 'them'. There is no 'us' and 'them' for we are all one in Christ.

Steve,
A greater problem is that they consider the church buildings to be "their" property. The buildings were actually given to God long ago. Now if they want to argue about who gets to do the maintenance on God's property, that's entirely another matter, but to claim that they own the buildings because 200+ years ago some American rebels :-) worshipped there or paid moeny for their construction is no argument at all. I give you something, and you allow someone to look after it for you. I don't then have the right to take it back because I don't like the trustee you have appointed.

D. Gus, you raise an interesting point. I was under the impression that the church building was not used by a congregation for more than 50 years; you say that is not the case and you cite a “lay delegate” from 1823 to prove it. Perhaps Dr. Gundersen will address this point.

In any event, the real 400th anniversary of Anglicanism/Episcopalianism in Virginia has already happened. It took place in 1987, marking the baptisms of the first native-born American Anglicans in 1587 at Roanoke Colony in what was then Virginia. (Since 1663 Roanoke Island has been part of North Carolina). This current anniversary marks 400 years since the founding of Jamestown, which is still, without question, in Virginia!

For a detailed history of ++Akinola and CANA go to fatherjones.com or anglicancentrist.blogspot.com

"CANA will welcome applications from congregations and female clergy on the same basis as other applications with the expectation that women clergy will be licensed to continue their ministry."

Ah. Thus creating a part of the Nigerian church which does recognize women in orders, while Nigerian women who might be called to holy orders may not think of answering such a call. I will leave it to others to find a label for such a state of affairs.

And this too, when, perhaps, ++Akinola will 'not recognize' our ++Katharine as a Primate at Tanzania. One hopes he will not leap backwards should he by chance touch her.

This article was posted on Algemeiner overnight

http://www.algemeiner.com/generic.asp?ID=2710

It talks of how God engineered Joseph being sent into slavery which becomes a major milestone in terms of God helping reconcile humanity through the ripples in history that include Mt Sinai, the Torah, David (and I would add Jesus).

It reminds us not to judge a soul only on appearances or pure conduct. It refers to the OJ dilemma.

The thing that I find most pertinent is that we now have a "pure" stream of Anglican faith that is starting to openly say that God is not concerned about justice in this world. Or that justice does not involve mercy or compassion. (How do they reconcile this with Zechariah 7:9?)

I love Revelation 3:7-13.

I was contemplating the pillars that form a church and thus create the culture within the church, its families, and broader societies. The eight traits that I would love to see affirmed are respect, love, faith, truth, justice, compassion, sustainability & diversity.

The people who oppose me seem to choose the pillars of accusation, deception, hypocrisy, arrogance, hate, repression, vengeance, complacency.

If you had to choose between those two sets of pillars, which pillars would bring the greatest respect and honour to God?

If I'm not mistaken the idea of geographic parish divisions goes back to Charlemagne or some Carolingian functionary of his time, as part of a general plan at organizing society. The laws governing these limits (for instance, people were to take their grain to the parish mill, go to the parish church, etc.) were called _les banalites_ -- related to our words "banns" and "banal."

Seems appropriate somehow.

Happy new year.

Dave: "Dear Weiwen, so is the Anglican Communion... and so is Christianity!!! So why are TEC's liberals so upset that they are being asked to repent or leave, and why are they so surprised that many Christians will not accept their discarding of traditional christian morality ?"

Repent to whom? Who is it that you want "TEC liberals" to repent to? And what decision do you want to come of it? Is it Christ our Savior? Do you think that those of us reading this blog would believe you if you said it was?

And who is doing the "leaving"? And who has the audacity to ask anybody to leave?

I was taught that repentance and salvation was a highly personal matter between myself and my Creator. Not ++Akinola's, nor ++Jefferts-Schori's, and certainly not yours.

Tony Clavier has further comment (see above for his initial comment) at
http://wvparson.blogspot.com/2006/12/of-parishes-churches-and-congregations_28.html

Dear choirboyfromhell,

"Repent to whom? Who is it that you want "TEC liberals" to repent to? And what decision do you want to come of it? Is it Christ our Savior? Do you think that those of us reading this blog would believe you if you said it was?"

in the midst of savagely castigating people like Akinola for their willful violations of human rights, let's remember to be humble. TEC is part of a larger Communion of churches. now, none of these churches have very much institutional power over the other. but when relations get strained, there are consequences.

although I am affiliated with the Episcopal Church, I was actually born in Singapore. I suppose this makes me a Global South Episcopalian. from where I stand, I see the aftereffects of previous Western colonialism in the Asian and African churches. Global South Anglicans accuse the West of forcing acceptance of (gasp!!) homosexuality on them. they forget that the West has forced Christianity upon them. in fact, Western missionaries forced a certain form of Christianity upon them. and the aftereffects of oppression have caused Christians in the Global South to hew more strictly to what they were taught.

on one hand, we liberal Anglicans should stand firm. on the other hand, we should remain humble, and acknowledge the position of our brothers and sisters in the Global South. we should engage with them where possible - and indeed, there are many GS Anglicans willing to engage with us, like the Bishop of Central Tanzania, against the wishes (I think) of his archbishop.

I admit, though, it's a sticky situation.

“’CANA will welcome applications from congregations and female clergy on the same basis as other applications with the expectation that women clergy will be licensed to continue their ministry.’"

“Ah. Thus creating a part of the Nigerian church which does recognize women in orders, while Nigerian women who might be called to holy orders may not think of answering such a call. I will leave it to others to find a label for such a state of affairs.” –Cynthia Gilliatt

Right on, Cynthia! There is indeed a label, it’s called PRIVILEGE for Western, (predominately white) women and SECOND CLASS STATUS for Nigerian third world women. Or, in other words, rich Westerners get special treatment.

My sense is that TEC is holding to a strong sense of what I would call the "incarnational" model by which the church is the church-in-its-place. We are defending the notion of the "national" church as essential to our polity, with parishes (and congregations therein) being related to the province via the diocese. Therefore, when we have either parishes (or congregations) asserting independence from their diocese, or dioceses asserting independence from the province, we have a breakdown of the hierarchical principle as Anglicans have understood it since the adoption of the Articles that rejected papal authority (or that of any other "foreign bishop") within the "realm."

I take the territorial idea somewhat seriously, but also with the realization that one priest has a bit on his hands to serve all the residents of my rather large "parish" -- and a bit of good humor. When Avery Dulles was created Cardinal some years back, I was on the point of sending him a note saying how nice it was that one of my parishioners had been so honored -- since Fordham University is in my parish! And when FU awarded Desmond Tutu an honorary degree, I attended as Vicar, and reminded the President of the University that whatever anyone else might say, +Desmond is still one of "mine"!

A general debate elswhere relates to some of these threads here, so I'll add it. My point is that changes are going to be significant should the processes happen. TEC liberals and others are not going to repent to anyone else.

http://www.faithspace.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=7914&st=0&gopid=130493&

For the records, and to correct Cynthia;

The Church of Nigeria had wide ranging consultations on the issue of women ordination. Questionnaires were sent out and every diocese was required to involve clergy and laity, male and female, young and old before coming to the March 2005 Standing Committee held in Kaduna with a feedback.

The combined returns showed that over 80% of members would be uncomfortable with female priests prompting the statement contained in the pastoral letter ;
( http://www.anglican-nig.org/Kadunastandcmmtt_pastoralleter.htm )

" The Standing Committee for now has resolved that the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) shall not commence the ordination of women. However, the issue may be re-visited in the future. "

Women are however not barred from being ordained as deacons under the permanent deaconate scheme which does not allow for inter-diocese transfers and I know at least two of such female deacons.

The issue is therefore not closed and CANA as a mission is of course allowed to address it as DGus pointed out above.

Cynthia

Tunde's model sounds similar to what they are doing in Sydney, you might find looking up their diocese will give you a feel for the model and how well it sits with you.

I know that in Australia, many women have chosen to move to other dioceses because they have found it did not enable them to fully explore their talents. And some men have moved because they were also finding their talents not being fully developed.

But that is an inevitable cost, consistent with Sydney's leadership team's mission to develop a proper evangelical Anglicanism. One is not corrupted by allowing people to break out of their barn stalls or offering succour to the unrepentant.

Weiven, I empathise, but the extremes are not recognising that we are replaying a millenium old tension of God "raising people up" on one hand whilst "catching them if they fall" on the other hand.

The reality is that neither end is the complete answer. Unregulated, the purity end leads to legalism, accusation, institutionalised rituals and requirements, xenophobia, sexism, slavery and caste systems. Unregulated, the compassion end leads to hedonism, narcissm, nihilism, despair, prostitution, pimping.

The winner when either extreme is unregulated are lovers of violence, greed, power, anti-social disorders; plus our streets become unsafe for the innocent; and our courts hem in the righteous and enable the wicked to operate with impunity.

True healing will not come from one side winning over the other. True healing will come when there is a recognition that they are on ends of a continuum and that neither extreme is healthy.

Then it becomes possible is to acknowledge what is reverential; take responsibility for manifesting that in ourselves as individuals, families, communities and societies; pragmatically work to heal what we can whilst mitigating the risks of not being able to solve every problem overnight.

It took 40 years for Moses to lead the first batch of exiles back to the Holy Land. It would be utopian to claim it will take less than that to lead this batch back. What we can do is accept that we are on the journey and start fixing things as and where we can.

We can not "cure" homosexuality, but what we can do is accept that these are our sons and daughters, and create mechanisms for them to live responsible lives. The Roman Catholic church has the right to call on celibacy for those who choose to be part of their communion, as they call on celibacy for all their priests and nuns. No church that allows sexual activity for their priestly castes has the right to deny sexual activity to others. They can only demand the minimum standard from them that they would demand from themselves. So if life-long monogamous marriage is the aspired standard (with compassion for divorce), then that is the standard for these ones as well.

To do otherwise is to place these ones as stragglers to be picked off by the Amalek. That is not acceptable, we are responsible for all God's flocks, not just the desired fluffy males.

So, Trude, Nigeria considers the ordination of women a cultural, rather than a theological, issue. Otherwise, the issue would be closed forever. This raises so many questions: Isn't this the same slipperly slope that has led ECUSA to apostacy? Does the Archbishop agree with his standing committee? And if so, how would the Archbishop respond to Peter's question in Acts 11:17 ("So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us . . . " NIV) and Jesus' question in John 18:34 ("Is that your own idea, or . . . ")? (Surely a man whose "assertions carry a note of finality not unlike Pilate's" can answer that one!) And how will this play in Dallas and San Joaquin?

re Tunde's message :

And I bet all the 80% signed up to this.

How I look forward to a wide ranging consultation with lgbt people.

I was shocked, and I mean that sincerely, to find that there were such things as Anglican Evangelicals.

I believe that this is a testimony to the isolation of certainly the US church but perhaps other parts too of the AC.

In fact the dominant spirituality of the AC is Anglican Evangelical. I remember talking with a priest in Louisiana back in the 80's who fancied himself as a theologian and he had never heard of Anglican Evangelicalism. He was shocked to discover how the rest of the AC was in fact dominantly Evangelical in spirituality. This has become even more so during the last 20+ years when the western churches have been rapidly declining and the developing world has significantly grown. It is clearly at a point of significant imbalance hence the realization for many on the "left" that they are significantly a minority in the AC.

I was taught long ago that we should examine that which threatens us. I wish there were more of such an examination and eventual respect for what is the dominant Anglican spirituality. If there had been more respect than perhaps a way forward could have been found. As it is now, the polarization is probably too great. An example in this thread is the questioning of the intellect of such at N.T. Wright due to his not having been sufficiently grounded scientifically. There are in fact few in the academy so well grounded intellectually and academically as NTW, who has ministered in Montreal, Oxford, Cambridge and London. If one has never participated in the discussions amongst the dons then perhaps I can excuse such ignorance. These discussions range over the whole field and display amazing understanding and comprehension of all the disciplines.

Extreme also is the vilification of the Golbal South leadership. Having worked with Anglican leadership in East Africa I am in awe of these men and women. How I wish that those in the US might have such a combination of spiritual vitality and intellectual achievement.

Having worked as an Anglican Evangelical for over 30 years in the midst of the Catholic and often broad heritage of the US church I find it tragic that there is both shocking ignorance and culpable disdain for our full Anglican heritage and spirituality. Oh where are Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley and Andrewes when we need them in our generation?

Respect has to be a two-way process, Ian.

There is precisely no indication of any respect at all for the position of TEC, nor of gay people and their relationships.

Its best that there should be a split.

Steve Lusk,

Dallas ordains women priests. Fort Worth and San Joaquin do not.

"We can not "cure" homosexuality, but what we can do is accept that these are our sons and daughters, and create mechanisms for them to live responsible lives." Cheryl C.

Bingo!

That's the one plus "example" is always good too...maybe the heterosexual divorce rates will go down to help show LGBT Christians how to "be" truly moral and steadfast in committed relationships.

" 'I was shocked, and I mean that sincerely, to find that there were such things as Anglican Evangelicals.'

I believe that this is a testimony to the isolation of certainly the US church but perhaps other parts too of the AC."

Well, having taken good courses in church history I certainly know about the evangelical aspect of the C of E. It was that part of the church that has the honor of having worked vigorously against the slave trade. In that, there is a fine tradition.

Anyone who has read "Tess of the Durbervilles" will know of the other side of Anglican evangelicalism in the persons of Angel Clare's narrow-minded parents and Mercy Chaunt, the women his father wishes him to marry. They are an unattractive lot, lacking charity. As a friend of my mother once remarked of a different set of religious zealots, "They are so narrow-minded they can peek through a keyhole with both eyes open."

Dear Weiwen-

Of course you are right, we should all prayerfully work at being humble. Being attacked or perceiving being attacked leads to what the present situation in TEC.

I have no doubt that this present disagreement could be closely alligned to the spreading of Christianity in in the Isalmic world, such as your home (which I remember fondly a little under a year ago, when the ship I was working docked at Keppel, and I had brief leave to visit St. Andrew's Cathedral).

I just can't let some of those who evangelize for Christ dominate and assume that their faith is the only way possible for salvation. That in itself is arrogant and controlling. And I hope that you agree that there is a little too much of that going on in the secular world, especially what is coming from my country (USA) towards the rest of the world.

Amazing, gives new light to the old saying of "what goes around comes around".

Ian

Highlighting extremist theology is legitimate. If parties then choose to support legislation, cultural dynamics and organisational structures consistent with extremism; then it is legitimate to point out what their theology has condoned.

It is then up to parties to decide if that is where they want their theology to take themselves (actively or by default).

If a lemming is running towards the cliff, do you give warning, or stand back and keep your mouth shut lest you offend them with advice that they are about to jump off a cliff?

I am sure they will say the same thing back the other way to the other extreme.

That is why there needs to be a third way that acknowledges the cliff edges on both sides and encourages people to walk on the middle moderate ground. That must be underpinned by theological robustness or group think scribes will continue to ignore what is beyond their blinkered field of vision.

I have been VERY encouraged to find a number of websites and blogs by young evangelicals, who have no time for Reform or 'Maintsream' and say so, unequivocally !

I do hope their not wasting their time being ordained in the CofE (they seem to be ordinands at evangelical colleges) -- but hey, I can't talk !

They give me great hope for both the Church and for Evangelicalsim as a force for good. They are very unstuffy, on the ball and on the side of life. I found one on Fulcrum (itself a source of some encouragement) and that one led on to others. They do not seem cowed by authority and happy to speak out against the recent (non) covenant.
Perhaps they will be able to engage with the world beyond the institutional churches...

"I believe that this is a testimony to the isolation of certainly the US church but perhaps other parts too of the AC."

Well, I'm not an American. I was raised in a rural place where the prevailing style of Anglicanism is low, Broad Church, just another kind of Protestant. The "Evangelicals" were Pentecostals, and to an extent Salvation Army. There was a very distinct separation between denominations, though not necessarily exclusive, except when it came to the Pentecostals, for whom the rest of us weren't Christians at all. My experiences created in me prejudices I fight against daily. When you say Evangelicalism is the prevailing form of Anglican spirituality, those prejudices get switched on. If this is so, it causes me to question my membership in the Anglican Church. I take some comfort from the fact that 100 years ago the prevailing spirituality was Anglo-Catholic, so perhaps these things come and go. If the Evos stayed when the ACs were in the ascendant, surely I can stay now that the reverse is the case.

Thanks for this Ford Elms. Very helpful.

What Ian Montgomery writes is truly troubling. For most American Episcopalians, “evangelicalism,” is at best a suspect category. Some may say that this is due to our “isolation.” But, as a lifelong Episcopalian, I would say that it is due to the plethora of small-minded, Calvinist-oriented evangelical sects which have, historically, always surrounded us. Unfortunately, the Wesleyan-oriented evangelicals early on split off from the Episcopal Church, for the most part. But there is still much more sympathy for them in the American Church than for any kind of Calvinism.

In fact, whether High Church Catholic, like Bishop Samuel Seabury, or Low Church Latitudinarian, like Bishop William White, we American Anglicans have always defined ourselves against the Calvinism of the American Puritans. Even in colonial times, the further North one traveled toward New England Puritanism, the more numerous the High Church Anglican parishes became, as Episcopalians challenged the Calvinists on their home turf. And in the South, Low Churchmen/women were likely to be Deists. Calvinist evangelicals have never been popular with us, as they have been, for example, in Sydney. But then, we don't have a tradition of "flogging parsons" either.

Seeing how this pans out in TEC may well be instructive for the rest of us (England, Scotland, Canada, etc). The fear has always been, of course, that there are individuals and bodies quite committed to schism. Even in the CofE, the sort of practical 'businesslike' language of the Covenant wherein the general issues of truth and belief give way to a series of functional demands ('best practice' - 'mission shaped initiatives') having to do with recruitment of ministers and planting of churches is, frankly, chilling.

America has its own past wherein the struggle between parties or across the Mason Dixon Line and the control of financial resources to be applied to particular aims forms something of a 'glorious history'. Add to this the number of people involved in these unhappy congregations who have come to us from outwith the Anglican tradition and who are not schooled in the same sort of ecclesiology - schism is no longer the 's' word.

Ford Elms writes: -
"When you say Evangelicalism is the prevailing form of Anglican spirituality, those prejudices get switched on. If this is so, it causes me to question my membership in the Anglican Church."

Kurt then follows with this: -
"What Ian Montgomery writes is truly troubling. For most American Episcopalians, “evangelicalism,” is at best a suspect category. Some may say that this is due to our “isolation."

The tragedy here for me is not simply isolation but also a lack of historical understanding. The Evangelical wing of Anglicanism takes its roots from our original heroes, Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer. The three great Ws - Wilberforce, Wesley and Whitfield are leading lights of about 200 years ago.. In the 19th century we have the greats +Ryle and +Moule and Charles Simeon of Cambridge amongst many others. The great missionary movement and the formation of the great Anglican Evangelical mission societies such as CMS. In this recent century we have such significant theologians and leaders such as Dr. John Stott and J.I.Packer. The roots of Anglicanism are of a reformation, Reformed Church. That Anglicanism came to embrace a catholic expression and spirituality is a joy and enlarges who we are. That ECUSA can only see itself in catholic terms is a tragic when the whole breadth of its heritage is originally reformed. It makes the departures of the 1870s all the more significant as a loss in perspective.

Isolation and lack of history should not make us despise the evangelicalism of our roots but rather cause us to embrace the rest of the Communion as having much to teach us.

I fear it is too late to learn now.

Kurt wrote:

Even in colonial times, the further North one traveled toward New England Puritanism, the more numerous the High Church Anglican parishes became, as Episcopalians challenged the Calvinists on their home turf.

Ummm - not in Massachusetts, which has always been low church. Our first real growth came from disaffected Congregationalists fleeing the Unitarian split in the 1820's, and we've been Congregationalist ever since :-). To this day there are only a handful of Anglo-Catholic parishes in the Dio. of Massachusetts, out of nearly 200.

Ian, I'll acknowledge your points about Latimer and Ridley, and much of Cranmer's work. On the other hand, Cranmer also took a great deal from the Lutherans as well. The tradition also reflects Hooker and Jewell, both of whom sought to distinguish an Anglicanism that was not capital-R Reformed, just as it was not capital-R Roman. They found their sources in Scripture, certainly, but also in the fathers of the ancient Church, some of whose teachings Geneva discarded (especially on sacraments and on interpretation of Scripture). And if the Caroline Divines were not like contemporary high church folk, neither were they really like contemporary evangelical folk. There are those parts of our tradition, from the very beginning, that were Lutheran, or were the best of medieval Catholicism, or were distinctive to English authors (epecially the understanding of authority and ecclesiology).

I agree that there is an evangelical tradition within Anglicanism, and that it has some of its roots in the Reformed tradition of Calvin and Knox. I think it is exaggeration to suggest that our roots are solely of a "Reformed Church," or that "the whole breadth of its heritage is originally reformed."

As with many issues, when it comes to "Evangelical" it depends what you mean. Clearly the spiritual world of Cranmer was very different from that of many present-day Evangelicals. There is in more recent days a good deal of spillover and influence in Evangelical circles from the Pentacostalist and Charismatic movements, which had only a bare existence in the days of Cranmer in some of the more extreme Continental, and later English, sects. It also appears to be true that "broad" and "high" Anglicanism (both in England and in the US) tends to "bleed out" the more extreme or demonstrative Evangelicals, or the Evangelical side (when it reaches a sufficient mass) tries to purge out the others -- which is, I think, a loss to all. It appears we are in the midst of a similar process at present. I see two "Anglicanisms" ahead (at least!), probably worshipping the same God under separate roofs. We never seem to learn.

"Isolation and lack of history should not make us despise the evangelicalism of our roots but rather cause us to embrace the rest of the Communion as having much to teach us. I fear it is too late to learn now.”— Ian Montgomery

“Isolation and lack of history,” Ian? Truly, you know NOTHING about the American Church after 30 years. Quite an accomplishment.

The REALITY is that outside of the Churches of the British Isles, ONLY the American Church has such a long history of living Anglicanism. The origins of American Episcopalianism goes back almost to the very beginnings of the English Reformation.

The first celebration of the Holy Eucharist in continental North America by an Anglican priest took place in 1579 at San Francisco Bay, the same year that the great Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker, received Holy Orders. The first native-born American Anglicans were baptized in Virginia in 1587, the year that Mary, Queen of Scotts, lost her head for plotting to take the life of her royal cousin. St. John’s Church Hampton, Virginia was founded in 1610, and thus predates the first printing of the King James Bible. Hungars Parish Church in Bridgetown was founded in 1623, when the beloved Lancelot Andrewes—the greatest preacher of the Elizabethan Age—was serving as Bishop of Winchester. America’s oldest Episcopal Church building, St. Luke’s Church Smithfield, VA was built in 1632, the same year that Christopher Wren, the future architect of St. Paul’s Cathedral, was born. St. George’s Church Valley Lee, Maryland was established in 1638, the year Scottish Calvinists defied Archbishop William Laud and signed the National Covenant, by which they pledged themselves to uphold the Puritan position by force and violence.

Indeed, if you knew your American history, Ian, you would know that British Anglicans were not the only Churchmen and Churchwomen to suffer under Cromwell’s Calvinist dictatorship; Americans suffered as well. During the English Civil War, Puritan New England favored the Roundheads, while the Episcopalians of Virginia and Maryland remained loyal to the Church and the Crown. Cromwell’s Protectorate contested for control over the southern colonies at the Battle of the Severn (1655), which was fought near Annapolis, Maryland. This final battle of the English Civil War was won by the Puritans. They then controlled all of the American colonies, and suppressed the Episcopalians, until the Restoration of the 1660s.

Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer? How about Laud and the other Caroline High Churchmen? The American Church is probably more a product of the latter than any half-baked Prods. (Pun intended)

"probably worshipping the same God under separate roofs"

Perhaps. Or perhaps not. Do puritans worship the same god as non-puritans (use of lower case there intentional)?

Setting aside the probability that there's only One Being available as the ultimate recipient of worship, are the manifestations of that being worshipped in puritan and non-puritan environments the same? Or are they so radically different as to be incompatible?

laurence-Both Reformed and Conservative, of which the former is actually an older congregation (not sure if that's the appropriate term or not). Jews in this part of the world either worked at assimilation or kept their strict traditions as Orthodox, the third denomination of such. Conservative congregations grew out of the Reformed movement to embrace their Judisim in an increasingly tolerant society here in the northern US after WW2.

There is much that could be learned by the "fundagelicals" and TEC from this I suspect.

”…Massachusetts, which has always been low church. Our first real growth came from disaffected Congregationalists fleeing the Unitarian split in the 1820's, and we've been Congregationalist ever since :-). To this day there are only a handful of Anglo-Catholic parishes in the Dio. of Massachusetts, out of nearly 200.”— Chad Wohlers

That may be true today, Chad, but I think that if you dig deeply, you’ll discover that before it became Unitarian, King’s Chapel was certainly more High Church compared to many Southern parishes. Just take a look at its deep chancel and altarpiece. Or take a look at Christ (“Old North”) Church: Its simplified Wren-like design that brings together a complex of graceful particulars and which centers attention on the altar, not the preacher’s pulpit, as the focal point of worship. The last time I was there more than 10 years ago, the altar was draped with a full-Laudian altar carpet of red damask with two candlesticks and tapers placed thereon. It stands in a proper chancel, constructed in the form of an apse, and is separated from the nave by a communion rail with embroidered kneeling hassocks. Behind the altar is a charmingly painted altarpiece of Christ at the Last Supper, flanked by a reredos of four panels inscribed in gold of the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments and the Apostles' Creed. Above the altarpiece is the Great East Window, which was, if I remember right, also curtained in red velvet.Old North has liturgical statuary, most unusual for any New England Church of the period. There are four horn-blowing Baroque cherubs, standing on pedestals, flanking the organ at the west end of the church. Below the organ loft, in north end of the nave, is a four foot tall statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary, appareled for a sea voyage, and holding the Book of the Gospels. The statue, perched on a window sill, was removed from the prow of a captured Portuguese vessel during one of the many 18th century conflicts. None of this stuff was “Low Church” in the 18th century.

Kurt writes:
Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer? How about Laud and the other Caroline High Churchmen? The American Church is probably more a product of the latter than any half-baked Prods. (Pun intended)

I was seeking to bring into the discussion the Evangelical heritage of the Anglican Church.

Despite Kurt's ad hominem - I do not in any way discount the influence of Laud et al. I joyfully serve in an Anglo Catholic diocese. This however does not permit the historical sidelining (in the USA) of the Protestant and evangelical history or their characterisation as "half baked." Tragically this language/attitude in fact creates further division and isolation in that the non recognition of the validity or even existence of Evangelical Anglicans is a part of the division. And yes I admit vice versa lest anyone wants to build upon that!

Since O. Cromwell married into my family I am used to being in that particular hotseat. Many of us still honor the Puritan divines as well as the Lutherans, Calvinists and Zwinglians. We give honor to the Lauds and the Oxford Movement. That is the type of breadth that I still yearn for, not an either/or.

Oh well - time to bow out of this thread as it is getting too personal.

That's interesting cbfh, the Conservative shuls developing out of the Reform movemnet. Not what one might have expected ! Then again--why ever not. I guess one could just add (and add ) on to Reform and end up Orthordox or Conservative --eventually ! It's just the overse of dropping more and more beliefs and practices (esp. practices) and ending up Reform. The Liberal movemnet here(UK) have recently brought out a Marraie service to 'go with' UK Civil Partnerships; and the TSGB is also pretty kool . Though funnily enough the most recent liturgical reform in the Liberal shuls, is decidely more tradtional than its predecessors ! But they arent becoming theologically conservative, just want liturgy that's more Jewish, mor of the tradition and more satisfying spiritually. - More landmarks I guess. Imagine Shabbos worship without L'echa dodi or the Yigdal ! ....

Thanks Kurt for the American Church history . It is interesting and good to know of. I had known that the American Church recieved its Orders via (And literally courtesy of ) Scotland.

A lot is said about the size and power of Evangleicals in Uk., but it remians a fact, that most parishes in Britain, are simply NOT in that tradition.

Some of these comments have wandered rather far off topic. Please stick to the original subject.

Ian ; the problem appears to be that you cannot accept that liberalism is also part of the Anglican tradition, in that it became part of Anglicanism from the outset of liberal theology.

This goes all the way back to Dave, warning "nice liberals" to "recognise that the inevitable is coming before power is wrested from their clutch!"

Dave is about power and taking the church. I'll work for reconciliation with him, but only up to a point.

Parts of my family went through the takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 80s, which included shunnings, firings, and public humiliations. My gut is that this movement will seek do the same thing.

Elsewhere on this website a poster recommends being the last one at the table, still urging reconciliation after the other side has left it. Well, the breakaway movement is counting on that.

In the SBC, they took the table, then came back and hit folks with it while while they were still praying for reconciliation.

I plan to pursue active dialog with breakaway members ( I have family there, too), but I also plan to take action and encourage others to do so. I think this movement is still quite isolated and may fail due to its own mistakes; but I don't paln to sit back and count on that.

Believe me, Dave is thinking more about ACC football than about George Washington, and his side has come out throwing. Sorry this isn't a more theological analysis; but I really don't think that's the only basis this will be decided on.

What actions do you have in mind, William ? I'd be interested in your ideas -'theological' or not !

BTW
what does 'throwing' mean above ? (I live in UK., and we probably use the word differently or someat ! : - )
cheers
laurence

It appears that at least two-thirds of the worshipers at Falls Church are Methodists, Presbyterians or Baptists, and there is no pressure on them to be confirmed as Episcopalians, according to the Rev. Rick Wright, associate rector. So why are these people voting in parish decisions at all?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010301952.html

Probably because, if ECUSA is like the Anglican Church of Canada, membership of a Vestry only requires you to be baptised (not confirmed), so these Methodists, Presbyterians or Baptists can become members of an Episcopal parish without needing to be confirmed.

Interstingly, this article also mentions that these Born-Again Christians are joining these two Episcopal parishes as they are disatisfied with their "normal" home churches.

Laurence, by action I meant asking for discussion within my congregation outside New York; supporting my minister as she stands up for inclusiveness, and doing the same myself; communicating to my diocese that I want it to support the actions of the Virginia dioceses that are taking a firm legal stance; and communicating directly with members of the breakaway groups where possible that they should not expect too much forebearance. Beyond that, I will have to learn what type of positive action I can take, not having taken part in much networking within the ECUSA despite a long association--let alone within the global communion. This is new to me.

"Come out throwing" is to start the game with a sharp and coordinated attack by passing (throwing the ball forward). US football jargon--sorry about that. I spent New Year's weekend watching and talking football with, among others, some folks from a SW Virginia charismatic congregation who succeeded in taking their church out of the local diocese several years ago under the argument that it was newly built with funds from many of those voting to go out. My impression is that the diocese must have decided to avoid a fight; and their forebearance would have encouraged the current movement's efforts. It is not clear to me (I avoided asking) how these folks relate to the attempt to replace ECUSA within the communion.