On the Truro controversy

Please note that the following constitutes my personal opinion and analysis based on the information available to me at the time of writing (morning of April 26, 2017). I may pose rhetorical questions, but these are intended to illustrate the confusion caused when leaders act in ways contrary to the purposes of the organization (in this case, the Church). Most of what is below is a slightly edited version of a comment I left on Anglican Ink, in response to an article published on that site:

http://anglican.ink/article/bp-guernsey-response-truro-church
one of a series of articles published on the controversy caused by agreements between the ACNA Truro parish and the TEC diocese of Virginia, in direct contradiction of the advice the Truro rector and leadership received from the ACNA diocesan bishop (+John Guernsey) and provincial archbishop (++Foley Beach). Additional articles on that site that bear on this piece:
http://anglican.ink/article/truro-parish-form-school-peace-and-reconciliation
http://anglican.ink/article/statement-truro-archbishop-foley-beach
http://anglican.ink/article/truro-parish-signs-agreement-episcopal-diocese-virginia

And from the TEC perspective:
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/acna-archbishop-on-counterfeit-reconciliation-of-truro-acna-diocese-of-virginia/
http://www.episcopalcafe.com/truro-institute-partnership-of-truro-acna-and-the-episcopal-diocese-of-virginia-announced/

So, now that you have all the background, in my humble opinion...


Bishop Guernsey and Archbishop Beach are following the course set out in Matthew 18:15-18.

15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.

16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Reconstructing events from the various letters, we can surmise that Bishop Guernsey counselled Tory Baucum and the Truro leadership against joint ventures with TEC. When they did not listen, he consulted with ++Foley Beach, who joined him in recommending to Truro that they not go forward. Now that the Truro leadership has decided to openly defy the Godly advice of their diocesan and the archbishop, things have moved to "tell it to the Church," which we see in the letters from +Guernsey and ++Beach. I am not sufficiently conversant in the canons to know what forms of discipline are available to the bishop if the parish leadership maintains its current course, but I assume that a cleric who maintains his residency in the CoE requires a license from the bishop in order to function in the Diocese of the Mid-Atlantic, and if worse comes to worse, such license could be withdrawn. The vestry could be given the choice between submitting to the authority +Guernsey, or, alternately, returning to the authority of the TEC bishop (ie- rejoining TEC). As things are currently, the Truro leadership appear to want to be recognized as ACNA (which keeps their more conservative members happy), but are submitting, substantially, to the TEC bishop. Given that their rent paid to the TEC bishop (15% of which goes directly to 815 under the new TEC "tax canon") may well be greater than their contribution to their own diocese, the financial situation makes their allegiance clear. I am not part of the congregation, so I have no idea of defiance of the bishop's authority is widespread, or is a matter of the old fashioned TEC strategy of loading the vestry of a parish (by the rector or bishop or a faction within the congregation) in order to support a particular outcome. But it is difficult to see how a congregation that voted overwhelmingly to leave TEC is now on this bandwagon where communion of the unbaptised, ordination of people who do not believe in the Resurrection, unitarianism, gay marriage, massive ongoing lawsuits and 700 depositions of clergy are somehow second order issues over which we can have "good disagreement."
Worst case scenario for Tory Baucum? He ends up with a choice between being the "conservative" suffragan bishop of the TEC diocese of Virginia, or "suffragan bishop for good disagreement" under Canterbury. Worst case scenario for the congregation- they go back to TEC at the risk of eternity, but it will save them a pile of money, assuming they get the control of their property back. Worst case scenario for ACNA- they lose part, maybe most of the congregation, and will need to find new worship space for the Anglicans who remain loyal to the Church, rather than the building. Worst case for the TEC bishop- he loses all the rental income, and has to put up with Tory Baucum telling him how to run his diocese until the day one of them retires. Worst case for the ABoC- he keeps going down the road he is on, where NO issue is of the first order and (sarcasm on) he ends his tenure defending the satanic rites practiced by one of his cathedral deans from critics on the basis that the dean's interpretation of verses on Baal represents a valid, but different, interpretation than the majority of the Church (sarcasm off).

I have some commentary on the interference in ACNA (and by proxy, Gafcon) affairs by Canterbury, but this has gotten longish already, so that will be a separate post.

After 4 years....

Four years ago, I was in the midst of a very demanding job, had additional family demands that were taking time, and, frankly, did not have much new to say on the Anglican Communion. I now find myself retired, with rather too much time on my hands, and the Communion is at yet another critical juncture.  Perhaps a better way of putting it is that the then newly announced Archbishop of Canterbury has had four years to run down the road to the can that ++Rowan Williams kicked one more time by retiring.  I am hoping against hope that we have reached the point where something will actually be done- one way or the other.

I have kept active as a commenter, in recent times mostly on Anglican Ink- which is well worth a visit if you haven't been there.  The problem is that I find commenting on articles is responsive - which is to say, rather then presenting the whole of my thinking on a subject, I am focused on the point of view of the article I am commenting on.  So I am feeling inclined to editorialize a bit, and I hope some of what I write here proves of some use, and in the long run, I hope I can wean myself off of the ecclesiastical and doctrinal crises of Anglicanism, and get back to presenting some of the richness of the Anglo Catholic heritage. But at the current moment, I find myself praying that in a year we still have a church to celebrate, and that there are still Anglo Catholic elements within it.

So, for the moment, expect a couple of posts about the current state of Communion affairs.

In the meantime, do say a prayer for +Justin Welby, who finds himself at the center of the sexuality debate in the CoE, has a bishop running around spreading innuendo about what Welby knew or did not know about abuse as a 19 year camp counselor, and has to contend with a PR nightmare caused by the ACO officials issuing patently false press releases about TEC compliance at the last Consultative Council meeting, which may destroy any hope of being able to hold a Primates meeting or Lambeth conference.  I do not agree with ++Welby on how he has approached Communion affairs, but would not wish the current chaos on my worst enemy.