A New Adventure For Anglicanism In North America
June 24, 2009 by iMonk
In reflecting on all that has transpired since leaving the Episcopal Church the Rev. David Miller, rector of the parish, wrote the following:“This press release finds the St. John’s church family preparing to enter a whole new stage of our life together. We stand ready to leave the familiar and historic surroundings of the building at 5th and C, a building that has been the church home to my family since our arrival in Petaluma in 1998; and a building that has been home to many of our members for much, much longer. Many memories and emotions arise as we say goodbye.”
Fr. Miller continues, “However, as difficult as leaving is, two summary statements stand out as defining of the spirit in which we move to our new quarters. First is the recognition that this is not about the property but about the Gospel and the Word of God that we have been charged to uphold and defend. We did not leave the Episcopal Church to keep the property; we left to keep the Faith.
Second is the affirmation that the church is not the building; the church is the people. We are blessed to have a spirit of unity as we move forward.” St. John’s Anglican takes the occasion of this press release to say a heart felt thank you to the many people of Petaluma who have prayed for and encouraged us in so many amazing ways throughout this process.
St. John’s Anglican Church is pleased to announce that beginning Sunday, July 5, 2009, we will be holding Sunday services at 8:30am and 10:30am at the Petaluma Community Center at Lucchesi Park. We welcome any from the community who do not now have a church home or would like to support us on this occasion, to come and worship with us.
New worship location: St. John’s Anglican Church. Meeting at: Petaluma Community Center (Lucchesi Park)
320 N. McDowell Blvd.
Petaluma, CA 94954
(707) 283-1111Service times: 8:30 a.m. (traditional) and 10:30 a.m. (contemporary)
Administrative office and mailing address: 55 Maria Dr., Ste. 837, Petaluma, CA 94954
Another story in the hundreds of stories that are happening in the wreckage of the ECUSA’s decision to ordain a gay bishop and the defense of that decision among some to the point of forcing men like J.I. Packer out of the church for conscience sake.
I said J.I. Packer. Chew on that.
So here is one more formerly ECUSA church, walking away from the property controlled by the denomination, walking into some community center, and starting over with what amounts to a reconstituted, re-invented church.
It’s happening all over the United States and Canada. Bishops Jefferts Schori and Robinson have accomplished one thing with their insistence that God was responsible for Gene Robinson’s ordination as bishop: hundreds of congregations that were safely going through the motions in their beautiful facilities are now out, loose, blown by the Spirit into a new adventures they would have never experienced otherwise.
A new Anglican denomination has appeared this week: The Anglican Church of North America. It’s fledgling membership is drawn from churches and bishops who have, literally, been on the run for a safe place to be a Biblically serious Anglican since the Robinson ordination and the resulting pushback from conservative Anglicans around the world, especially in Africa.
The Anglican Church in North America unites some 100,000 Anglicans in 700 parishes into a single church. Jurisdictions which have joined together to form the 28 dioceses and dioceses-in-formation of the Anglican Church in North America are: the dioceses of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, Quincy and San Joaquin; the Anglican Mission in the Americas; the Convocation of Anglicans in North America; the Anglican Network in Canada; the Anglican Coalition in Canada; the Reformed Episcopal Church; and the missionary initiatives of Kenya, Uganda, and South America’s Southern Cone. Additionally, the American Anglican Council and Forward in Faith North America are founding organizations.
With the birth of the ACNA, a safe haven with a missionary, evangelistic, orthodox heart has finally appeared for thousands of Anglicans who have been homeless in their own version of the evangelical wasteland.
Most of us can’t imagine what it would be like to convince a large portion of a congregation, especially older members, to walk away from the building. But is there anything more potentially Jesus-shaping for American Christians than exactly that?
I’m excited for these “new” Anglicans. I pray and hope that they experience a surprising, mighty move of the Holy Spirit. There are millions of evangelicals who would be far better off in a healthy Anglican church than in the evangelical wilderness they are slogging through right now. With their future before them, and now finally able to be guided by the Bible without a battle over the clearest of God’s many clear commands- sexual purity and marital fidelity- these churches should grow, plant more churches, renew Protestantism and have an influence many of us thought was long over for Anglicans in North America. Post-evangelicals such as myself are full of hope for our brothers and sisters. What a great week!
God bless all the new Anglicans, and especially Bishop Duncan and the new ACNA. And especially today, St. John’s Anglican in Petaluma, Ca.
______________
NOTE to regular IM readers. If you are an IM regular who wants to support this site now and into the future, consider doing so with the PayPal button on the sidebar.
Yes–that was kind of the point.
adhunt:
‘I would also point to the many liberal diocese’ who rejected to episcopal nomination of Kevin Thew Forrester, a “buddhist/christian.”’
Fr. Forrester describes himself as a Christian who practices Zen meditation–not as a “Buddhist / Christian.” Rightly or wrongly, a number of people practice Zen meditation without thereby considering themselves to be Buddhist. (I am aware of a roshi who is also a Catholic religious, who pursues his Zen practice under orders.) The situation with yoga is perhaps similar. Whatever one makes of Fr. Forrester, these nuances strike me as important, since his nomination is at risk of getting caught up in a liberal / conservative battle that has nothing to do with him.
‘I have deep sympathies for ACNA, as I do for Nicene-affirming homosexuals.’
I was unaware that the Nicene Creed addressed homosexuality.
We in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are careening toward the same cliff, including in our own congregation. Big difference is that there already exists a conservative alternative (Missouri Synod), so the split will be asymmetric, with only a small group bolting. Ironically, ELCA jumped on board this Titanic several years ago with a concordat that essentially made our clergy subservient to those in TEC. ICEBERG!
Werther,
For convenience sake I was speaking “evangelical’ese”
It was Kevin Forrester’s modifying of the Creed that caused the most problems. I am aware of this.
And by saying “nicene-affirming homosexuals” I was trying to point out exactly what you seem to be saying. That is, practicing homosexuals need not be “liberals” and are just as Christian as the lot of us.
But by all means, jump to conclusions.
adhunt:
Completely serious question:
Do you believe that J.I. Packer did the wrong thing?
ms
adhunt:
(a) What modification to the creed did Forrester make?
(b) My mistake. Sorry.
Michael,
It would be a terrifying thing for me to pass judgement on the honorable Dr. Packer. I think that for most of his life, despite some very strong conservative streaks with which I disagree (and most of his Reformed doctrines), he consistently reminded non-Anglican evangelicals of the need for moderate’ness and a deeper appreciation for Tradition that goes back past 500 years. At only 26 I could not find it in me to say such a thing as “he was wrong.”
What I can say is this. Now that he has left, is he now exempt from seeking Christian reconciliation with those from whom he is now estranged? And if he is not, then what has been gained by his actions? The search for a perfect and pure church is practically idolotry, and if he forgot his Reformed understanding of how much sin penetrates us, then how can TEC and the Canadian church be expected to remain exempt from sin?
Hooker’s catholic ecclesiology is after all tolerant because of his Reformed understanding of sin.
adhunt:
I mention Dr. Packer simply to say this: We may have a hundred sincere people posting how conservatives should stick with the ECUSA/ACC, but Dr. Packer HAS stuck with them. He HAS stayed and stayed and stayed. No one can imagine a person more willing to be tolerant. And unless you are going to enlighten me with something I’ve missed in his many interviews on this, all his patience gained nothing.
I think that when a man of Dr. Packer’s stature says “No more,” the case for serious error is pretty much made. I’ll take Packer over any number of defenders of the Presiding Bishop or Gene Robinson.
peace
ms
Werther,
This is the first news source that popped up, it had been a while since I read the actual text and I couldn’t find it again.
http://tinyurl.com/d2oaxs
Most commenters are missing the point entirely. How many churches are the ECUSA planting? When was the last time there was palpable energy in the ECUSA about evangelism and the Great Commission? How many ECUSA pews are empty every Sunday? I’m sure there are some anecdotal answers to these rhetoricals, but the fact is that the ECUSA has been and is on the verge of death. God is moving, and I think will continue to move through, the AMIA (and others in the ACNA now) because those churches have captured the imagination of young people, and have relit fire in many clergy.
Ryan, it is entirely possible for a church to grow, and be wrong. Or shrink, and be right. Quantity is not quality.
Werther:
Your observation being basically the assertion that you can’t draw any conclusions from observable evidence, then can we say anything about a church?
I’m a bit puzzled as to what this means other than Ryan’s assertion might not be absolutely true. For example, African Anglicanism could be sick, while the Church of England be vibrant and missional. Yes?
:-/
ms
iMonk,
For one who loves Anglicanism (so you say), it is resolutely frustrating to read you paint with such broad strokes.
There are Anglican churches in Africa that are “liberal” and in point of fact the Church of England has launched a missional and evangelistic campaign that has drastically enlivened the Church. Take a good look at “Fresh Expressions of Church” sometime.
If America, or Africa for that matter, were as secular as England and other parts of Europe you can be sure the stats would be similar. As a matter of fact isn’t it you who always point out that the SBC is shrinking greatly?
Didn’t you just do posts on a major study that showed that the Mainline is not losing nearly as many as you thought? So it’s not just ‘gay bishops’ that make Churches shrink.
And in 100 years, when the revival in Africa has passed (as all revivals do) then are we going to scold them too?
That is not even to mention that The Church of England is one of the most lively and influential theological churches in the world right now.
Williams, Wright, Thiselton, Milbank, Ward, Pickstock
and McGrath are but a few names.
adhunt:
You must be talking to someone else. I haven’t said anything about the size of anyone’s church.
If you are convinced that the TEC and the CE are doing great, the ACNA is schismatic and violating true Anglican unity, and African Anglicanism is a passing fad to soon be corrected by the lively theologians of the CE, I certainly have nothing to contribute to your view of the church.
ms
IMonk,
Do you forsee (total conjecture on your part I know) a great movement of Christians to a revived conservative Anglicanism?
A “great movement?” No.
Growth? Yes.
New congregations? Yes.
A missional approach to Anglicanism? Yes
A revived clergy that would make J.C. Ryle proud? Yes.
Imonk,and others who might know,
I have limited time, if I wanted to read one person right now who is representative of this new Anglicanism who should it be?
Of course quality is not quantity, but when we kid ourselves that quantity is not a factor in the movement Jesus started then we are deluding ourselves. John Wesley (speaking of Anglicans) would dismiss ministers who had stagnant numbers. Why? Because God does not intend to have a church that sits still. There always has been, and will be, a part of the church that is alive and awake to what the Holy Spirit is doing. And, I apologize for being frank, but TEC shows me little to convince me that it is awake to the work of the Holy Spirit.
Really aren’t many “new Anglicans” writing. They are just real Anglicans, not liberal Anglicans. They are reading what a lot of reformed, evangelicals read.
But I’d look at Kallini, the Archbishop of Rwanda
The Jenson brothers in Australia or anything from Matthias Media. I’m really blank.
imonk,
What’s wonderful is how you read things into what I’m saying thereby deflecting what I am actually getting at.
- As if it needs saying. For the most part, the power and energy in the Anglican world is in the Global South. This includes great portions of Africa. These church’s put the Gospel at the forefront of their mission and message and I am in total agreement with this. Of course there is still sin and error even in Africa. But lets not talk about this, it upsets your worldview.
- I think that TEC has failed to put the Gospel at the heart of its proclamation and at least a part of its decline is because of this. We need to have the life, death and Resurrection of Jesus at the core of our life as we revive evangelism, especially amongst immigrants and youth.
- Inasmuch as the ACNA is only a couple days old, it is impossible to see how this all “will end.” I never fuss too much when the Gospel is preached and as long as they do that I am with them wholeheartedly.
- Yes, I do think their “leaving” shows a failure to take the Gospel seriously. The ACNA, if it sticks around, will one day be in need of reformation, and it can happen by division or persistent protest.
- Keep in mind that thought Packer left, Wright stayed. Two powerful Evangelicals. Who’s right and who’s wrong? Perhaps you can enlighten me as it seems you understand the issue intimately
adhunt: This is going downhill because there is no purpose to this conversation. You want to make sure I’m outed as ignorant on the blog (not a hard job) and I can’t stop responding to you, which is completely pointless of me.
-Thanks for not talking about Anglicanism in Africa. Since I frequently say denominations are perfect, I don’t want to be disappointed. Close call. And thanks for not upsetting my worldview. I’m quite fragile.
-Is there a reason you have “will end” in quotes? If you are referring to Austin’s question to me, I confess I have no idea what’s going to happen. They may ordain another Gene Robinson tomorrow.
-If you believe the ACNA needed to stay, and I think they are blessed to go, why are we talking about this. Make your point to the reader, because the ACNA wasn’t my idea. I’m applauding them. And news flash- I’m not the first one to say the TEC gave little reason for thousands of them to stay. Why do you care what I think? Is some diocese waiting to hear from me before bolting?
-Wright didn’t leave? What? Did someone serve Wright papers telling him he deserted his ministry? How did I miss that? What does Wright have to do with this? What does anyone who stays have to do with this? Do you think I’m telling all Anglicans to leave? I’m not. Let me quote a comment at the top of this thread: “Lots of respect to those of you who have good reasons to stay…”
-We have a lot in common. You corrected me on a factual matter- I presume- and I apologized. That’s enough. This comment thread has not been improved by this discussion. You’ve done a good job lobbying for the current TEC/EC. Good for you. Now we’re done.
ms
Sorry, one final thing.
“Wright stayed”
Wright was a bishop in ECUSA? Fascinating.
This is a very sad time. The Windsor Report, the efforts of the CE to hold the whole thing together for the sake of gospel, the CE’s palpable frustration with the TEC, all of it is on record. But there are forces that can easily overmaster an Archbishop who, unlike the Pope, has no teeth. You can plead all you want, but if the TEC is committed to celebrating the practice of homosexuality, what are those who are faithful to scripture supposed to do? Devout, missional Christians in the CE are in mourning I’m sure for yet another painful splintering of Christ’s body.
Ironically, I would answer Austin by saying read NT Wright. I think he represents the very best in Anglicanism.
I was going to say that, but wanted something more specific to what he said, but NTW is the most influential voice.
I think this has been one of those grand miscommunications that happen on the internet. In no small part due to me.
I like and admire you, I like the Anglican Communion, including TEC, and I like that ACNA preaches the Gospel, and I like Jesus.
I bow out
By the way here is a TEC site dedicated to planting churches
http://plantingcentral.typepad.com/bench/
“I have limited time, if I wanted to read one person right now who is representative of this new Anglicanism who should it be?”
I’ve been told that is a decent source of news. With a slant. And I’ve been told that he’s considered a bit full of himself at times.
I simply meant that whether one communion or the other is growing or shrinking, has no logical connection with whether (for example) homosexuality is right or wrong. It is entirely conceivable that a thriving new denomination (or even a new religion) could be founded on a mistake, or a lie. Conversely (Wesley’s policy notwithstanding), a small or shrinking confession need not be dismissed as unworthy. The Quakers were never very numerous, and no group did more to end slavery.
Personally, I wish both Episcopal factions well, and hope that everyone can find the kind of church they want. As I said, I support the split–as much for the sake of those who stay as those who go. I see no special charism to be gained from having them all under the same hierarchy, though the Archbishop of Canterbury no doubt feels differently.
I was hearing rumors about the ANCA forming and was wondering how long it would be before Imonk brought it up. I am really curious why the Arch Bishop of Canterbury has not officially recognized them yet, or if he even plans to, but I certainly hope he does. While I am certainly against division in the church, I believe that personal divisions are the kind that are hurtful and wrong, and organizational divisions may actually just be helpful. When it comes to doctrine, why can’t we just agree to disagree? Two incompatible doctrines should naturally result most peaceably in two separate organizational groups. No need for bloodshed. Reformation should come peacefully.
I was shocked when I heard Driscoll announce that they had fired Packer (isn’t that like the SBC firing Rick Warren?), but the ANCA does seem to be a hopeful sign for mainline Christianity. I wish them the best, and who knows, may find myself among them someday.
adhunt: My fault as well. I respect you, and I didn’t mean to imply you were the great apologist for all things wrong.The ECUSAs treatment of faithful older folks frustrates me. My fault for being too emo about this.
This post gives me cause for concern given that there are similar threads of thought running through the Anglican Church of Australia (ACoA). And I am one person wrestling with moving out of my current church congregation (and thus denomination, Chinese Methodist Church in Australia). And being received into ACoA with a view towards going through formation for ordination (instead of contemplating ordination in my current Methodist denomination).
One of the current pastors at my church (a former ACoA priest) cannot understand why I would go there given his view of how many “unbiblical” principles there are in it. It causes me great grief to see this happening over in the States with TEC and ACNA and I hope and pray like heck that ACoA never ends up in the same state as TEC is in currently. Notwithstanding that I wish there was something like ACNA here in Australia (I’m pretty sure that I could find my spiritual home as an Evangelical Anglo-Catholic in an ACNA parish were I in the US).
I’m wishing both TEC and ACNA well, but I sure as heck wish that the current TEC leadership would really examine what their actions have gotten themselves into. Both internally (amongst TEC itself) and externally (with the broader Anglican Communion). Needless to say that I am glad that I’m not in the Abp. of Canterbury’s shoes atm…
Pax
And when I’m talking about “similar threads of thought”, I’m talking about such divergent views about issues like homosexuality and what others would consider “orthodoxy” in Biblical exegesis and preaching.
“I have limited time, if I wanted to read one person right now who is representative of this new Anglicanism who should it be?”
http://www.virtueonline.org
I’ve been told that is a decent source of news. With a slant. And I’ve been told that he’s considered a bit full of himself at times.
(Please delete the prevoius post with the missing link.)
iMonk,
I just got a chance to get back and read more comments since yesterday. Please accept my apology for any heightened rhetoric and I am appreciative of the things you have to say on this issue, they do prompt me to see my own blindspots.
peace.
Ironically, many of the groups that now comprise the ACNA had previously found creative ways to both stay true to their beliefs and to remain in the Anglican communion. Now, they’ve essentially separated themselves from the Anglican communion with, I suppose, dreams of later acceptance at the next Lambeth Conference in 9 years? or 19 years? Can one still be called Anglican if they’re not in the Anglican Communion? Hmmm…. I wonder whether ACNA really thought this through.
Ross,
Thanks for the link. Very good info, interestingly enough it seems that the Calvinism/Arminiasm/Pelagism debate vis a vis Evangelical Reformed verses Anglo-Catholic exist in Anglicanism too.
Geez:)
Honestly, I don’t know that the ACNA’s main concern is whether or not Canterbury accepts them. They would like that and will certainly work to make it happen if at all possible. But when it comes down to brass tacks, it’s nonessential.
Catholic is not the opposite of protestant, it is the opposite of sectarian.
http://theophiliacs.com/2009/06/26/an-apology-and-clarification/
A couple of comments. The ACNA has not separated itself from the Anglican Communion given the number of primates present at their initial meeting, primates who approved and promised to support. What they will not get is an invitation to the Lambeth meetings. And, perhaps, there may either be two communions or the Archbishop of Canterbury will be forced to accept dual provinces in the USA. No one knows for sure.
David Virtue is a nice guy. But, uhm, he sometimes mixes his conservative theology with his conservative politics. And, he tends to use language that sometimes sounds almost like the National Enquirer.
Re: I’m wondering if, in general, Anglicans think of themselves as Protestants. Anyone? (Cindy)
As an ordained pastor in the Church of England, I think most English Anglicans do not use the term “Protestant” of themselves and it never appears in our foundational Book of Common Prayer. The ethos of the C of E is a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism, between Rome and Geneva. This is the classic position of Anglicanism and it is essentially reformed rather than protestant. I think, referring to iMonk, that Henry VIII would agree but I would not want to take him as our best role model.
Their old name in the USA used to be the “Protestant Episcopal Church.”
Just for the record, as someone with direct experience in the matter, J.I. Packer and ACNA are indeed schismatics. Packer made no efforts to stay in the Anglican Church over the past few years. He met in secret with schismatics from the U.S. and Canada, and he advised them how they might rationalize their sin of schism. He endorsed the schism and did nothing to encourage reconciliation. He was the spiritual godfather to the schism in BC and Washington state. We are all sinners in this affair, but Packer’s sins are greater than most.
>…Packer made no efforts to stay in the Anglican Church over the past few years.
I want to be sure everyone gets to see this sentence. It’s one of a kind.
Hmm, Scott, then the Primates of the Southern Cone, Nigeria, Singapore, Rwanda, Kenya, etc., etc. are schismatics? Remember they are consecrating bishops, receiving congregations, and, now, recognizing a new province.
And, does that make Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America a sinner because he has withdrawn recognition of The Episcopal Church and labeled it as a heretical body and transferred it to the new province?
Both ECUSA and many of the progressives have indeed made the argument that any separation is equivalent to the sin of schism. But, if you look at both Scripture and Church history, separation is not always schism. It depends on the circumstances.
Adhunt wrote (25 Jun 2009 at 10:18 pm):
Keep in mind that thought Packer left, Wright stayed. Two powerful Evangelicals. Who’s right and who’s wrong? Perhaps you can enlighten me as it seems you understand the issue intimately
****
Well, whatever you think about the rights and wrongs of JI Packer’s decision (and I’m
not going to comment on that here), I would humbly suggest that you are wrong to draw a comparison here between Wright in the Church of England and Packer and in the Anglican Church of Canada for the simple reason that the C of E is not the ACC (or indeed that the Diocese of New Westminster is not the rest of the ACC). In other words, Packer in Canada and Wright in England are responding to two very different local contexts and you can only judge a decision to “stay” or “leave” in relation to the provincial church (or diocese thereof). “The Anglican Communion” doesn’t exist in a vacuum but necessarily exists in relation to its local parts. Packer’s decision to “leave” and Wright’s decision “to stay” are not just decisions to “leave” or “stay” in “the Anglican Communion” but rather are decisions to “leave” or “stay” in their respective local Anglican churches (the ACC and the C of E). They are two fundamentally different decisions. As a communicant member of the Church of England I can tell you that the thought of leaving the C of E has never crossed my mind for the simple reason that the C of E has not (yet?) done anything that would make me question whether I should stay or leave; but the hypothetical situation of what would I do if I were in TEC or ACC certainly has for the simple reason that TEC and ACC *have* done things which would make me ask these questions.
Fr. Ernesto:
“…then the Primates of the Southern Cone, Nigeria, Singapore, Rwanda, Kenya, etc., etc. are schismatics?”
No, but they are arguably acting outside of their geographic competencies. The Orthodox have a similar issue in the USA, where the principle of one bishop for a given area has long been honored in the breach.
Or we might compare the situation to the Church of Macedonia, which the Church of Bulgaria says ought to be part of itself. These two entities are out of communion with one another, yet are both Orthodox.
“And, does that make Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America a sinner because he has withdrawn recognition of The Episcopal Church and labeled it as a heretical body and transferred it to the new province?”
Whether he is a sinner or not I cannot say, but I would be very surprised to find any Orthodox hierarch acknowledging some church outside of Orthodoxy as forming part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In Orthodox eyes, all others are heterodox. If his relations are cozier with one Episcopal faction than another, this should be understood as a kind of interfaith diplomacy, not as intercommunion. His Grace is probably aware that a number of conservative Episcopalians would consider joining Orthodoxy.
…Packer made no efforts to stay in the Anglican Church over the past few years.
I want to be sure everyone gets to see this sentence. It’s one of a kind.
Yeah, that’s pretty rich. Packer just sat on his hands the last 10 years or so and made “no efforts” to work within the existing structure. *rolls eyes*
On the “not a Protestant” thing: there are certainly other groups that many would call “Protestant” (i.e. non-Roman, non-Orthodox Christians) that resist that label. Quakers are the ones who come immediately to my mind. The claim in that case is that they were not founded to “protest” anything, but as a fresh movement of the Spirit. It’s a bit unusual to see a larger, more mainstream church react that way, though.
Of course there are also denominations (in the common parlance) who resist being called “denominations”.
These aren’t completely trivial points, of course, because they do say something about the group’s concept of the Church. But they certainly can seem so, and IMHO people do sometimes get too wrought up about them.