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.

Signals of a major shift in the Anglican world

Recently, words were written, and spoken, that demonstrate that the fabric of communion is indeed torn through.  This is not to say it could not be mended, but certainly, at the present time, there are in effect, 2 Communions, and may soon be 3.

In a letter from the Global South steering committee to the Bishop and Diocese of South Carolina, the Primates of the GS make clear that they recognize only one diocesan bishop of South Carolina, +Mark Lawrence, do not recognize the legitimacy of the "renunciation" of his orders proclaimed unconstitutionally by the Presiding Bishop of TEC, and recognize the Diocese of South Carolina as the one and only Anglican Diocese of South Carolina. 

In a few weeks time, the Presiding Bishop will convene an unconstitutional convention in South Carolina to select a bishop for a replacement diocese that will be recognized by less than 1/2 of Anglican provinces and Primates, and less than 1/3 of Anglicans worldwide.  There will be, in effect, 3 Anglican Communions- those, in concert with the Global South, which will recognize +Mark Lawrence as the Bishop of South Carolina, those that recognize the TEC designated bishop, and those who try to maintain the "ecclesiastical fiction" that they can recognize both.

That ecclesiastical fiction has been maintained for the last several years in hopes that the Communion could somehow be patched together after the schism perpetrated by the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

The ecclesiastical reality became more evident a few days after the letter was sent, during the installation of the new Primate of the Church of Uganda, Archbishop Stanley Ntagali.  While the words themselves are well worth a read, what may be most noteworthy is who it is who spoke the words in the sermon delivered during the installation of the new Archbishop.  This event was attended by Anglican bishops and archbishops from around the world (including the Abp. of York, John Sentamu, representing the ABoC and CoE). 

A few conclusions we can draw:

1. TEC discipline is no longer recognized as legitimate in the majority of the Anglican world, and TEC orders are considered on a case by case basis.

2. The majority of Anglicans and Anglican provinces don't see membership in the ACC as the determining factor in Communion relationships.

3. (most important of all) The Global South is now acting on its own authority.  The letter in support of South Carolina is not a petition to Canterbury, or a request to the ACO to put this on the agenda of the next Primates or ACC meeting.  This statement is authoritative and crystal clear- +Mark Lawrence is THE bishop of South Carolina- not one word of Anglican fudge.

4. The orders and jurisdiction of ACNA are recognized by the majority of the Anglican world.

An opinion, reading between the lines:

I do find it interesting that the GS letter does not mention ACNA.  But if I were an adviser to the HoB of ACNA, I would recommend that they consider also the implication that +Mark Lawrence is THE Anglican bishop of South Carolina.  The GS Primates nowhere say anything about sharing that jurisdiction with 4 or 5 overlapping ACNA jurisdictions (the REC jurisdiction, the new ACNA diocese, the misc PEAR/AMiA churches, and the non-geographic ACNA dioceses), not to mention whatever Continuum or other Anglican entities might exist there.  Perhaps there is a subtle hint in the message for all of us who view ourselves as "conservative" or "traditional" Anglicans to put our house in order, at least in terms of straightening out our ecclesiatical spaghetti of jurisdictions.  Would it not be appropriate for an FiF church in S Carolina to petition +Lawrence for (and for him to grant) oversight from the FiF non-geographic diocese?  Or for ++Duncan to work out an arrangement so that ACNA church plants aren't cutting into S Carolina congregations?

Communion crisis?

In Western Anglicanism, we seem to be at a particularly critical time in the life of the church.  Three events, which at first glance seem unrelated, but which share a commonality, have brought us to a point where the future of the church really does hang in the balance in England and the US.

1) The new Archbishop of Canterbury.  From a personal point of view, can't say he would have been my choice, since he seems dead set on the elimination of Anglo Catholicism by enforcing women bishops without any provision for 1/3 of the laity of the CoE who disagree (and maybe more, given that the trend for political correctness with CoE has of late been so strong, and traditionalists tend to respect the bishop commands, even one of the multitude of revisionist affirming catholic and "evangelical" bishops appointed in the last 10 years, whether they agree or not).  He has been, at least, something of a friend to the GS, and has stood, presumably, against gay marriage, and has been seen as in the conservative camp among "open evangelicals."  But his first statements upon election appear to be attempts to outdo his predecessor in obfuscation.  While the Global South, and even several Gafcon provinces, initially welcomed his elevation, it remains to be seen if he heeds the warnings evident in several of those welcomes, and indeed demonstrates a willingness to move to a governance model for the Communion that respects the theology of the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide, or continues in the current model, in which a small group of western revisionists control all the leadership positions and all the money and all the communications apparatus.

2) The vote on women bishops in the CoE.  To everyone's shock, while 90% of the bishops and 75% of the clergy are willing to break promises made to traditionalists and drive every Anglo Catholic out of the CoE, a few valiant laity were willing to stand up to them and vote down a measure they found unacceptable.  Now the bishops are labeling their own parishioners pariahs.  There will now be another vote in a few months, since the leadership has decided that women bishops must be fast tracked, rather than follow procedure.  Huge pressure will be brought upon the laity to change their votes, no matter how bad the new proposal is.  The coming few months will determine whether the leadership falls back on the proposals of the Rochester report, which, had it been acceptable to the revisionists, would have allowed for women bishops years ago, and a continuation of provision for traditionalists along the lines of that provided, and promised in perpetuity, in the PEV scheme (for Americans, in British English, the word "scheme" means "plan", not "nefarious plot" as it means in US English).  However, since the revisionist majorities have voted this down, even in terribly watered down form, it seems unlikely to garner support now.  More support appears to fall to the "no provision at all, they can leave if they want to, we will keep all the property" TEC type approach.  We will see what happens.  My guess is that in the end, the Archbishops will approach 6 or 8 lay members seen as "wobbly" in the 34% that voted "no," and will find out the absolute minimum they will accept in order to change their vote, then check with the most ardent "all or nothing" revisionists to make sure that is acceptable, and keep up this back and forth until next summer, and the measure will pass by a slim margin in the Synod laity.  Anglo Catholics and the "Reform" Evangelicals will then drift out of the Church over the next ten years, as their priests and bishops are replaced by women.  And we will probably see a few parishes leave enmasse, either for Rome or whatever new ACNA-like Anglican entity arises in England as a result.

3) The debacle in South Carolina.  Face it, at the top in TEC, there is no law, no justice, no Truth and no light anymore.  Canon law is merely a persecution mechanism.  Property is the theology, the ecclesiology, the scripture, tradition and reason of the current era House of Bishops.  I cannot detail this nearly so well as ACI has, so for more detail, read the Open Letter to the HoB, posted at anglicancommunioninstitute.com .

The commonality in these three events is that politics has become so entrenched in the church.  Very few (although thankfully there are a few) involved in the decisions that brought about these events were asking "what is Christ asking of me" or "what is best for the church" or "what will ensure the highest degree of communion possible within the church today, and with the church through the ages." Political expediency and calculation rule the day.

But in all of this, please keep in mind that while we see these as major crises, the REAL major crises are in Africa and Asia, where Christians are being persecuted not by lawyers and revisionist bishops seeking to deprive them of corporate property and using their diocesan name and seal, but by armed thugs looking to murder them, and burn their homes and churches to the ground.  So, let us be sure, that while +Mark Lawrence, +Justin Welby and the traditionalists of CoE all need our prayers, so too do the millions of unknown, unnamed fellow Christians in villages in Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Iran, and a hundred other places around the world.  Some shed their blood, almost every day, in the name of Christ.  All He has asked of us in the West, is to remain faithful to him, and do our best to stem the tide of revisionism in our churches.

TJ

ACI's latest

It has been a very long while since I posted anything here.  It is late, and I won't say much for the moment, hopefully will expand on this over the next few days, as time and inspiration warrant.  But, briefly....

If you have not already read it, I highly recommend the Anglican Communion Instititute "Open Letter."

http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/

And for all those unfamiliar with the history of the "current unpleasantness" contrived by the PB of TEC against the Diocese of South Carolina, be sure to read the appendix included with the letter. 

The importance of this letter seems lost on some conservative Christians.  There seems a tendency among those who see TEC as too far gone to write off the effort made by the ACI as pointless.  I do find a certain irony in the idea that those who follow Anglican blogs would find such work worthless, or dismiss it because TEC bishops are unlikely to act on it. 

1) The three priests of ACI have extensively documented the non canonical (and potentially illegal) activities of the PB.  The ACI writers have (by risking deposition themselves, no doubt) taken on the task of laying out the numerous canon violations engaged in by the PB in what has become a persecution of the Diocese of South Carolina, and its bishop, +Mark Lawrence.

2) The letter presents the case directly to the House of Bishops of TEC- there is no longer "plausible deniability" that would allow them to say they were "unaware" of the facts or that there "were no grounds" for complaint. 

3) The letter effectively counters the misinformation campaign being carried out by TEC's official news outlets, and spokespersons.  The letter is being read widely abroad, and has been quoted on blogs worldwide.  Much of what is in it is common information to those of us who have closely followed Anglican affairs in the US, but comes as a shock to many in Europe, Asia and Africa, who cannot imagine church affairs being conducted in such manner.

So, for what little it may be worth from an old Anglo Catholic who has been out of TEC for several years now, the good fathers of ACI (the Rev's Turner, Seitz and Radner), and their colleague Mr. McCall, will have my prayers in the coming days, and my thanks. 

Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it
with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt,
purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is
amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in
want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake
of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. Amen. (BCP 1979)

Sermons on Newman

Thanks to (oddly enough) the rather Evangelical blog Fulcrum for pointing to these sermons on John Henry Newman by the Reverend Dr Nicholas Sagovsky. As he is an Anglican theologian, no doubt my more Catholic minded friends will find some bones to pick here, as I may myself as I read and digest these sermons. However, I think it is significant that the Evangelical Anglicans of England (and dare I say some are "Open Evangelicals"- a sort of more "Protestant" parallel of "Affirming Catholics") are of a sudden discovering what they are losing with Anglo Catholics being forced out of western Anglican Churches. Take a look-

Link to Fulcrum page

"Newman was fascinated by how we become sure about anything. Above all, he believed we can be sure about the truth of the Christian faith. He did not think we can be convinced of Christian truth by clever arguments, by piling up more and more evidence, by trying to increase the probability that it is true to the point where we become certain. He believed – and I am sure he was right in this – that truth dawns upon us."

Where do we go from here?

As is obvious, my intentions to "keep up" the blog expressed in my Advent posting were not fulfilled. I am about to "violate" another of my own self imposed rules, and comment on the current state of the Anglican Communion. I have been inspired to do so by a variety of recent events, and by some postings that have been put up elsewhere on the net, and to some degree by comments those posts have drawn in various quarters. I am currently away from home, and I don't have access to my library, or the archives on my computer, so much of what I write below is somewhat dependent on a questionable memory.

I commend to you the recent posts put up by ACI ( www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com ), especially the piece by Dr. Philip Turner, that lay out the current state of affairs in the Communion. For the record, I have no connection with ACI, and nothing I say after this point should necessarily be taken as their opinion. I have taken an active part in the discussion of the Primates Meeting and its aftermath on various threads at StandFirm and T19, where I suppose one can see my thinking as it evolved. I would also recommend that everyone view the lecture by, and interview of, Archbishop Mouneer Anis at the Mere Anglicanism conference, and the post-Primates Meeting interview with Bishop Venables, all of which are available from Anglican TV, and also linked on any number of blogs and websites.

From those various sources, one can get a pretty good idea of where the Anglican Communion is right now. The Archbishop of Canterbury has come in for a lot of criticism, seemingly from all sides, and given that I have leveled no small amount of negative commentary myself, I will say that I think much of the blame for our current circumstances rests on his doorstep. But everyone knew he was a liberal when he took office, on that score, his actions have been consistent and predictable. What was not so apparent, and what has damaged the Communion more deeply is that his actions are remarkably inconsistent with his words, and that he seems incapable of keeping up with the pace of events. Which is to say, the Anglican Communion's time frame is much shorter than the Archbishop's, and he can't keep up. His call to everyone, politely, to slow down (ie- moratoria), was ignored first by TEC, and then the GS responded. He ends up asking bishops to consider not doing something that they have already done. And the archbishop seems also to be completely incapable of dealing with an ultimatum in a constructive way. When the ABoC encounters an ultimatum, and he will ignore it completely, whether it is the TEC ultimatums (we will perform this gay marriage on such and such a day, and consecrate this gay bishop on such and such a day) or GS ultimatum (if the PB of TEC is invited, we will not attend). He just ignores the ultimatum, and goes on as though nothing had changed once the ultimatum has been carried out. So he ends up making statements that are almost ludicrous in the circumstances, about the close cooperation in mission of churches that have entirely different doctrines, and which are diametrically opposed on interpretation of the Gospel.
The Anglican Communion is, as a result of that diametric opposition, currently misnamed. It would be more accurate to identify the "Anglican Communion" as the 60 million of the Global South and scattered throughout the rest of the world, who share a common Gospel and indeed have a high degree of communion, both spiritually and sacramentally. In addition, there are 20 million who view "autonomy" (some might say "hegemony") as the determining principle of Anglicanism. The irony of the calls for "autonomy within the Anglican Communion" is that "autonomy" and "communion" are antonyms. You can have only one or the other, you cannot have both.
However, it is the 20 million in favor of autonomy over communion who have all the money, all the media access, and control all the levers of power within the organization. Look at the current makeup of the ARCIC delegation. It is headed up by the Primate of a church (New Zealand) where you can substitute a home grown statement of faith for the Nicene Creed. It includes a TEC resident priest (ie- canonically resident in diocese of Chicago), who would otherwise be excluded under the Archbishop's Pentacost letter, but is currently teaching in a UK college- although he is an open opponent of Lambeth 1.10. (parenthetically, one warns the orthodox within the CoE that this has been a long term strategy of pushing the revisionist agenda in their church- the importation of wildly revisionist US professors into their seminaries). And a Canadian bishop from Toronto, which has openly defied the Windsor moratoria and the Windsor Continuation Group recommendations. How have any of these people been appointed to an ecumenical group rather than mainstream Anglican theologians? Well, because their churches wield power, while the majority of the Communion does not. And because the "powers that be" want to push the Catholic Church as far as possible in the ecumenical dialogue- including all the revisionist nonsense these people will spout in the meetings in the press releases- so that they can make the most outlandish revisionism appear "mainline" by making it appear that the Catholic Church is in dialog with them. If you wanted to represent the actual center of the Anglican theological spectrum, more sensible appointments might have been ++John Chew, Stephen Noll+ (an ex-pat American, if you must have one) and the bishop of Gibraltar. Such a group would have provided more diversity theologically and economically, and have better represented those who value Anglican formularies and commonly accepted doctrinal standards.

Another rather interesting very recent development that I am pondering is the recent editorial faux pas from the Church News of Ireland which has put up a current article on the resolution passed at last year's CoE Synod, proposing that the Synod at some later date take up the question of full communion between the ACNA and Church of England. The CNI article seems to have "borrowed" the headline from one of the more "optimistic" bloggers on the event last year, claiming recognition by the CoE for ACNA. All that resolution (after amendment) actually said was that the archbishops (Canterbury and York) were "invited" to study the matter and report back to Synod this year (which anyone who has followed the ABoC probably knew meant "at the later session of Synod, 2011- since Synod usually meets twice). This, of course, has raised all sorts of hackles among the TEC hierarchy.
In the course of discussion over at Stand Firm, commenter "Pageantmaster" (who appears to be a member of the CoE, and often has astute comments on the state of affairs in the CoE) let us know that Ms. Lorna Ashworth did indeed rise during the recent (ie- Feb. 2011) session of Synod to ask about the status of the Archbishops' study and whether they would be reporting back:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/27227/#455577
Those of us in ACNA in the US owe thanks to Lorna Ashworth, as the person who was bold enough to offer a resolution declaring communion with us (which was subsequently amended by the CoE bishops into the current resolution). This was quite a bold move for a lay woman from Chichester, and she is deserving of our thanks and our prayers. And it is good to know she is a member of the current Synod.

So, what do we do next? Whither the Anglican Communion?

Much of the criticism that has been leveled at ACI and even the Global South Primates is along the lines of "ok, you have pointed out the problem, now what is the solution?" and "so, that's great, but what have you done for me lately" and "when are you going to show us the way forward" and "when will orthodox bishops hold a conference?" Not that my opinion really amounts to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but here would be my recommendations for the orthodox Anglicans in the North America, Australia, New Zealand, the British Isles and Europe.

1) Pray daily for all that stand with us as Christians throughout the world. Thank those working to defend and expand the Church.

Recognize that people around the world have offered us enormous support over these last several years, acknowledge that, and thank them for it. Because the fellows at ACI are gifted theologians and analysts does not necessarily make them prophets, and they may not wish to take on that role. But be thankful for all the work they do. Likewise, the GS Primates are doing a lot, all the time, to further the work of Christ and His Church. And often, like now, they have things that are critically important that will take their attention away from the goings on in Communion politics. At this moment, Archbishop Mouneer in Egypt and Archbishop Daniel in the Sudan face simply enormous challenges going forward due to the political changes in their nations, not to mention the physical dangers faced by them as individuals and by their people. Christians are targets of hatred and terror in their countries, and many other nations of the Global South.

2) Study what has actually happened.

All too often, writers, bloggers and commenters seem ignorant of what has already happened, as though there were no action being taken to deal with the dissolution of the Communion due to actions of western churches.

Question: When will the GS hold a meeting of orthodox bishops and leaders from around the world? (asked by any number of commenters win the last few days in response to the primates meeting)
Answer: 2010 in Singapore. The Singapore "Global South Encounter" included bishops ranging from Nigeria and Rwanda to Communion Partner bishops from TEC. No one, other than Rowan Williams, received an invitation unless their church (or they personally) subscribed to Lambeth 1.10. As it turned out, ++Rowan was unable to attend due to his flight being canceled when a volcanic eruption grounded all the planes at Heathrow. "An act of God," one might say.

8 Primates signed statements that they would not attend the recent Primates meeting, and in 2 other cases, statements had been signed by their predecessors (S. Cone and Rwanda), due to attendance by TEC. The statement from the ACO office , if read carefully, says that 7 specifically wrote to Canon Kearon stating this, and is often misquoted to say that only 7 Primates did not attend due to the presence of the PB. However, Primates of 7 Provinces (the "Gafcon Primates"- not including +Duncan) signed the Oxford statement, which made this clear. In addition, ++Mouneer Anis, ++Ian Earnest, and ++John Chew were among the 7 who responded directly to Canon Kearon. So, while "only" 7 may have written to Canon Kearon, a total of 10 were on record, in writing, that they would not attend. Of the other 5 Primates who did not attend, we must accept the reasons stated by their various offices, at least until such time as the Primates themselves make some clarification of the reasons issued for their absence.

3) Determine who the orthodox bishops of the Communion are, and follow their lead.

Both Archbishop Mouneer and Bishop Greg Venables have stated that another pan-Anglican meeting is in the planning stage. We must pay attention to what they have to say to us, and stop telling them what they should or should not do. Full stop. Offer to them your skills and analysis, but be prepared to follow the lead of the orthodox bishops even if they are not saying what you want them to say. The Gafcon bishops and the "moderate" bishops of Africa and the Global South have been reaching out to one another in an effort to restore unity in the Communion (read the statements from the Singapore meeting and the CAPA meeting in Entebbe). Let us be part of that unity, and not become a divisive element for the Global South.

4) Reach out for communion.

For those of us in ACNA, let us stop demanding that "Church A should recognize communion with us." Might one rather suggest that the proper attitude here is not one expressed by "all orthodox Anglican Churches should declare full communion with ACNA." But rather, it is perhaps more appropriate for us in the west to approach these churches, where the modern martyrs are to be found, and where one might argue, our Lord is more "remembered", in a way more in keeping with the Prayer of Humble Access. After the mess we have made of the Lord's Church in North America, communion is something we are not worthy of. We should approach the table of Egypt, or Sudan, or Nigeria, or East Asia, with humility, and recognize the sacrifice and witness of these valiant Christians.

I really don't see the Church of England or Church of Ireland as representative of orthodoxy, but I do think they are still worthy of our respect- their churches are on a slippery slope, but they have not allowed them to descend to the levels of the churches in North America. So in these cases also, we must approach the question of communion between churches with humility rather than hubris. In many comments I read, I detect an attitude that "unless you declare communion with us, you are not orthodox Christians." My prayer would be that whether they decide to enter into a communion relationship with us or not, that they will say, "ACNA was not arrogant in our discussions."

5) Money.

I know it seems crass. But let's be real. Many churches in the Global South have sacrificed a great deal by refusing the monetary support of TEC, knowing that it comes with strings attached. While we in ACNA cannot approach the monetary resources of TEC, we must do what we can, as dioceses, parishes and individuals to support the Christians in faraway places who suffer violence, disease and famine, and we must support their ministries by assisting with such things as building churches, and sponsoring ordinands. And at home, by providing such support as we are able to those seminaries that maintain an orthodox Christian program of study.

So, there are my 5 recommendations for the future of Anglicanism. No, there is nothing there about re-establishment of Instruments, or calling for resignations, or breaking communion with this or that church. I would recommend that the GS implement the various disciplinary measures already agreed in Communion councils, but I think they are already doing that. Beyond that I will await the councils of the Global South and other orthodox bishops to make recommendations, and then follow their lead. The bishops of the GS have a much better perspective on how to advance the Lord's work in their provinces than I do, and a better perspective on what the Communion needs. My hope is that they find me, the little congregation I am a part of, and the fledgling ACNA worth of communion with their Churches.