Anglican Conservatives - Different Strategies or Different Goals?

The terms "inside and outside strategies" have been bantered about the blogosphere and the print media with a bit of abandon. Such a nomenclature assumes that those forming a new province in North America and those remaining in TEC are working toward the same goal in two different manners. As with all assumptions, no clear understanding can be realized without clarity of what exactly it is that is being assumed. In short, the question we must honestly answer is whether we do indeed have the same goal in mind. I would submit that the answer is, "No." From my early experience with the AAC, and later the Network, the goal was clearly nothing short of reforming TEC. That is a noble goal and, when recognized as one's vocation, should be pursued without reservation. Such a goal also demands periodic progress checks and adjustment of strategies in order to keep the goal viable in the face of changing circumstances. Ultimately, when the institution proves to be incapable of reformation, the only choice is to separate and attempt to influence the situation by parallel development. What I mean by parallel development is that an alternative institutional model is developed which will succeed where the former model fails, and thereby, ultimately replace it. Hence, the formation of a new province in North American Anglicanism is a natural result of the attempt to reform TEC. Such a strategy is incoherent for those who have as their vocation the call to remain in TEC. It is not that the members of this group are against the formation of a new province, or doubt the sincerity of those forming it, but rather it is not a logical alternative for those who have a call to stay. Perhaps the difference lies in the goal to which they are called. Some conservative voices do not see as their vocation the reformation of TEC. Rather, the call is recognized as to stand as a witness to the truth in the midst of the theological chaos. They are called simply to be the Church and provide an alternative model of doing church within TEC. In this way these parishes can provide a witness to what the Church is meant to be so that TEC might have the opportunity to see what it has become. The brewing conflict between Common Cause Partners and Communion Partner Bishops and Rectors is the result of a lack of communication between the two groups. The former group has not heard the Communion Partners' articulation of their call, which is to remain in TEC as a witness. The assumption has been that they have the mutual goal of reforming the church. Because of this assumption, it has been widely stated that the Communion Partners Plan is a "non-starter," or that the Communion Partners will have "no alternative" but to join the new province once it is formed. When one substitutes the goal of being a witness for that of reforming the church, it becomes obvious that joining a new province is not an alternative at all. In fact, joining a new province would be an act of disobedience for those who are called by God to remain as a witness. What is needed above all else is the spirit of charity. Those who are called to remain in TEC need to acknowledge and honor the call of those who are called to leave and form a new entity. Likewise, the reformers need to refrain from making assumptions about those who are called to be a witness and respect their chosen path of obedience. Although our ecclesiological goals may be different, our ultimate goal is the same; to proclaim the Gospel in whatever circumstance we find ourselves. May we be united in our mutual ministry and supportive of one another as we manifest our obedience along the distinct paths to which we are called. The Rev. Charles D. Alley, Ph.D. Advisory Board Communion Partner Rectors