In an interview with the BBC, Anglican Church of North America Bishop Bob Duncan revealed that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has "encouraged" ACNA to apply for membership in the Anglican Communion as soon as ACNA is "organized", and that +Williams would "support" such a move. Had we not fallen prey to +Williams' obfuscations and stilted use of the English language before, this news might seem "encouraging" to an orthodox, dis-affected former Episcopalian such as myself.
Do "encouraged" and "support" mean the mere filing of the application, which may or may not ever reach any serious vote given the way the Communion, as most often urged by TEO, "listens", "Indabas", and generally stalls making any momentous decisions? Or do they really mean +Williams would support ACNA as a full member Province of the Anglican Communion? Merely typing that last sentence, and the science-fiction feeling having done so gives me, tells me a lot about how I will tend to see this pending more action on the subject.
Having seen +Williams, again and again, fail to support the orthodox in the face of the Windsor Report, the Dromantine communique, and the Dar Es Salaam communique, not to mention the recent debacle of the Anglican Consultative Council-14 meeting, there is little cause to place much hope in his comments to +Duncan. Rather, I suspect +Duncan is reporting accurately what he believes he heard from +Williams, but what +Williams will eventually own up to, particularly once he has his ears burned by the High Priestess, may be markedly different.
It has been suggested by some commenters on this site that perhaps +Williams is, under his befuddled and confused appearance, in reality a brilliant manipulator who has managed to avoid outright schism and keep most of the principal players arguably "at the table." I've given this theory a lot of thought, and I just cannot buy into that. I am more inclined to believe that those who remain "at the table", even those Dioceses who have left TEO for the Southern Cone and then ostensibly on to the ACNA, remain so because of their historic ties to Anglicanism, and reluctance to relinquish the Anglican brand name in their overriding goal to establish an orthodox Anglican presence in North America.
My goal, were I involved in creating ACNA, would be to create an Anglican-style denomination that is spiritually and theologically faithful to the historic Anglican Church dating to the time of Elizabeth I. ACNA should be certain in its faith, in its belief in and reliance upon the scriptures, and in its teachings to the world at large. +Duncan is claiming 100,000 members thus far, and my suspicion is that those numbers will expand considerably once ACNA is organized and functioning as a church, regardless of whether it has the "approval" of the Anglican Communion, or not. I just do not see the imprimatur of Canterbury as being that much of an issue for those who are longing for a "safe haven" orthodox Anglican presence in America.
Ideally, and I am probably really dreaming here, I would love to see ACNA keep its powder dry, and devote its energy to becoming the denomination I described above, and in so doing build its numbers, strength, and presence in the Christian community. A too-early head-to-head confrontation with TEO and its money over membership in the Communion could be wasteful and damaging regardless of the eventual outcome. ACNA can, and perhaps should, build itself to the point where the Anglican Communion feels it necessary to extend an invitation to ACNA, rather than ACNA standing in the cold, hat-in-hand, begging to be let inside.
In my opinion, the shenanigans of the last several years within TEO, CoE, and the Communion as a whole have done grievous damage to the "Anglican" brand name. In many religious circles, on the outside looking in, "Anglican" and most especially "Episcopalian" are no longer respected, but have become the punch line of too many bad jokes. Why does ACNA necessarily want to buy into that mess?
Perhaps the answer to +Williams' "encouragement" should be, "Thanks, Rowan, but no thanks."
Or better, just "Thank you" then put the application papers in the desk drawer and leave them there. What's the rush, anyway? It's not as if there's a closing date for applications. I agree with you, much better to build the organization without distractions from the malignant meddlers of New York and Canterbury. Ten years down the line, make an application and see what happens. A rejection won't have as disrupting an effect on a church that's grown roots as it would on a newly-planted one.
Posted by: Dr. Mabuse | June 25, 2009 at 03:35 AM