The clergy are off today to Charlotte, NC.
We gathering with other Anglican clergy who reside in the states of North and South Carolina to explore the process of forming a new ACNA diocese of the Carolinas.
I’m looking forward to the day and I’ll give an update of our time together.
In the meantime, your prayers are most appreciated!
Thanks.
UPDATE:
Just home from a very good day in Charlotte with about 18 leaders from congregations in both North and South Carolina – many of us only known to one another by reputation. It was refreshing to meet face to face and to be around leaders committed to biblical truth, the faith once delivered to the saints and passionate about mission. Our conversations centered around our sense of the Lord’s leading in our personal and parish life, our hopes for Anglicanism in North America and prayer as we sought the Lord’s leading for what’s next.
And, what’s next?
There was complete agreement that we should both meet again and expand our next gathering (TBA) to include a wider representation of our parish leadership. Also, it was desirable that we include a representative from the ACNA to begin a process of exploration of the formalities (canons, structures and other things necessary to the development of a common life) related to the formation of a new diocese.
A very good day – and a very good start.
Thanks for your prayers!
Related Articles
9 users responded in this post
I pray that God work the wonders that only He is capable of, that you have safe travels and that the gathering is fruitful!
My prayers to you all for safe travel and a faithful outcome. Having just formed the Anglican Diocese of the South, it seems to be all good. The only drawback so far is due to the odd interelationship with ACNA, CANA, AMiA, etc, it can be confusing who you mean when you say “the bishop.”
Well, I send you best wishes but I’m not optimistic. As far as I’ve seen from the televised ACNA services, it’s firmly rooted in the holy roller tradition and not the Episcopal Church (1928 BCP) that I loved. Bishop Duncan must be a very holy man to have been chosen to lead the organization – sadly he’s certainly not impressive leading a service at all. I’m not trying to be hateful, but ACNA doesn’t look like a viable option for those of us who want “the church of beauty” and the 1928 BCP back.
I’ve often wondered why a “High Church/Evangelical” church wouldn’t work.. Why does it have to be one or the other.. KSH told me once, that’s what he was.. Anglo Catholic is not particularly my cup of tea, but the Liturgy etc most certainly is.. Its a real puzzle, I don’t understand why it has to be either/or,,
Grandmother in SC
Kelso,
Someone once wrote: “It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been divers, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word. Whosoever, through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the Traditions and Ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.
Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish, Ceremonies or Rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.”
It seems to me that the changes that have been undertaken with regard to liturgy and liturgical practices comport with this Article (XXXIV).
Personally, I love – and prefer – the 1552 BCP. No one uses the 1552. I’m sure that within the breadth of the ACNA there will be 1928 BCP parishes, though I doubt it will ever be the norm. I’m sure as well that even were the 1928 BCP (or even the 1552) to be reinstated as the normative expression of Anglicanism it would in no wise halt the decline of the church and would, in fact, empty the pews of many parishes, including mine – not primarily because we disagree with the theology of the 1928 BCP, but because the form is too far removed from the world in which we live.
Steve,
I must be dense. Explain to me how the High Church Anglo-Catholic 1928 BCP, which was compiled when Broad Church liberalism and Anglo-Catholicism were the dominant schools of thought in the purportedly Protestant Episcopal Church, which introduced a number of far-reaching and even radical changes in the American Prayer Book, for example, prayers for the dead, and which is at variance in both doctrine and liturgical usage with the historic Anglican formularies–the 39 Articles of Religion and the 1662 BCP–is “a normative expression of Anglicanism.” Even at the time it was adopted the 1928 BCP was no such thing except perhaps in the Episcopal Church, and even that is debatable.
Hey Robin,
You’re not dense. I did not do an adequate job stating what I meant. I in no way believe – or desire – the ’28 BCp to be (or have been) the “normative expression of Anglicanism.” I agree wholeheartedly with your assement of the ’28 BCP. I was wanting to state that to my eye there are a segment of folks who wish it to be the normative expression, evidenced by Kelso’s original comments. I accept your assertion that it is debatable it ever held a normative position. It was, though, the official BCP of the Episcopal Church and, at least for its era, it was the normative expression of Anglicanism in the USA.
I would desire a robust modern translation of a fully Reformed Anglican liturgy.
Steve,
If you send me an email address to me at the email address I gave when I posted my comment, I will send you my own efforts. I have put together three service books–one a modern English revision of the 1662 that in some forms and services reverts to the 1552-1559-1604, a modern English revision of the 1956 FCE Prayer Book, and an attempt to compile a liturgy that conforms to the ACNA’s nebulous standard. If you are one of those to whom I have already sent this material, I would appreciate your comments and suggestion.
I hope that the new diocese in preparing a constitution and canons sticks with election of the bishop by the diocese itself–either by a dicoesan synod or a diocesan electoral board or college consisting of the diocesan synod and additional electors.
I also hope that goverance of the new diocese is shared by the bishop and a diocesan synod composed of clergy and lay representatives, the latter elected by the individual parishes or churches.
I have studied the ACNA constitution and canons and find them highly problematic. They lack important details, checks and balances, and safeguards. The canons on clergy discipline offer little procedural protection, and give authority in disciplinary matters to the ACNA archbishop and primate that none of the other Anglican provincial constitutions and canons I have reviewed do, and infringe upon the autonomy of the diocese and diocesan bishop.
I strongly recommend term limits for the bishop and restricting candidates for the episcopate to clergy on the staff of a church in the diocese as in the Church of England in South Africa. This is recommended by Reform UK in its proposals for the refrom of the episcopate in the C of E.
A number of the so-called “African” structures in the ACNA constitution and canons actually came from the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law by way of the Anglican Church of Rwanda. Canon Kevin Donlan, a former Roman Catholic priest now with the Anglican Mission, played an instrumental role in the preparation of the Rwandan constitution and canons and incorporated Roman Catholic doctrine as well as language, norms, and principles into the two documents. For example, the Rwandan canons affirm the Tridentian doctrine of transubstantiation. Donlan also played an instrumental role in the preparation of the Anglican Mission canonical charter, which like the Rwandan constitution and canons shows the influence of the Roman Catholic Code of Canon Law. Donlan has a degree in canon law from the university of Cardiff.
A. S. Halley a.ka. Anglican Curmudgeon has been doing an excellent job on his web site in explaining the background to the original Episcopal Church constitution and the ecclesiology behind it. In what may be described as the Bishop William White model, which forms the basis of that constitution, a diocese is a voluntary association of self-governing congregations. Its bishop derives his authority not from a purportedly unbroken succession of bishops going back to the apostles but from the congregations forming the diocese. They derive their authority from Christ. The diocese is sovereign and independent.
The former Protestant Episcopal Church began its life as a voluntary association of such dioceses. However, in the nineteenth century the Tractarian and Anglo-Catholic movements introduced the notion that the authority of the bishop was derived from the apostles and what authority the diocesan standing committee and the diocesan convention exercised were derived from the bishop. The limitations placed upon the diocesan bishop were purely voluntary and he could if he so desired resume full authority over the diocese. This was a complete repudiation of the ecclesiology behind the original Episcopal Church constitution and represented a return to the post-Constantine prelacy. This theology is being used both in TEC and the ACNA to justify the arrogation of authority to the TEC Presiding Bishop and the ACNA Archbishop powers that the respective constitutions of these bodies do not give them. For example, in the case of TEC the new disciplinary canons and in the case of the ACNA Archbishop Duncan’s creation of the office of dean of the province and his appointment of Bishop Harvey to that office. Also, the Provincial Counc’s sanctioning of this appointment
[...] Go on over to Steve’s blog and read the whole thing [...]