December 17, 2007
Four years ago ACI traveled to Orlando to help constitute what became known as the "Network". Martyn Minns, David Anderson, other conservative leaders and clergy, Bp. Robert Duncan and a cadre of bishops from conservative dioceses were there.
Tensions became apparent after 24 hours and the bishops withdrew. The meeting was brought to a close with only a part of the agenda fulfilled. It was apparent that some were not happy with the direction of those who wished to form, as it would transpire, a 'new ecclesiastical jurisdiction.'
That tension never went away. It appears that the daily operating (and funding) of 'Network' was always and chiefly in the hands of those in favour of such a new structure. In turn, they related their movement to AMiA, various continuing churches, and in time to what would become CANA, with themselves becoming bishops in this, now termed, Common Cause movement.
The Dioceses of Albany, South Carolina, Central Florida, Dallas, Rio Grande, Tennessee, and a host of conservative dioceses (North Dakota, West Texas, Western Louisiana, Southwest Florida, Louisiana, Texas) are not directly involved in this movement on the same terms as Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, and Forth Worth. An effort was made, at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury (and others among the Primates), to form a broader conservative alliance and that emerged in the Camp Allen/Windsor Bishops. That alliance is still intact though it has been hampered by trying to work in conjunction with the 'Common Cause' bishops, who always pursued a different vision, and by confusion about support from the wider Communion in the context of a deteriorating TEC. Just what was the 'Network' one could reasonably ask, from outside the immediate context? Was it Common Cause or was it Camp Allen?
We are told that tomorrow a meeting of Common Cause leaders, including a large number of new bishops ordained by non-Americans, will take place to discuss the details related to forming a separate ecclesial jurisdiction. This meeting happens in the context of the Archbishop's Advent Pastoral Letter, issued several days ago. It happens in the context of a terribly tense and indeed tragic set of circumstances in the Diocese of Central Florida. We are told that the Bishop of Central Florida --a proven conservative, host of the original Network meeting four years ago--does not even know where the meeting is being held.
We firmly believe that the Camp Allen Bishops have done all they can both to guard the original vision of the Network and also to work as hard as they can to demonstrate their compliance with Windsor and their willingness to work with the Archbishop of Canterbury. ACI is pleased with the Advent Pastoral and the Communion-strengthening it undertakes.
What we cannot understand is the formation of a separate ecclesiastical structure at this time. It is not clear why this is needed and more especially how its vision of federal relationships apart from Canterbury and the conciliar approval of the Communion's Instruments is consistent with the Windsor compliance sought by Camp Allen Bishops. It also seems to be an initiative which sows discord within conservative dioceses, like Central Florida, where the meeting will be held and where the parishes are facing a protocol should they wish to leave TEC for Common Cause -- an effort graciously undertaken by an obviously weary +John Howe.
ACI earnestly hopes that the 'facilitated discussion' referred to by the Archbishop takes place as soon as possible. Our understanding is that effort has been made to contact the Presiding Bishop on numerous occasions to arrange a meeting, such as is referred to in the Advent Pastoral. In the meantime, we have 3-4 Bishops from the former Network meeting with their new colleagues to form a separate ecclesial jurisdiction within the diocese of another former Network Bishop.
We are encouraged by the vision of the Advent Pastoral and hope that its proposals are followed up with dispatch. We understand that many in Common Cause feel they are under enormous pressure, but it is equally true that much of what they undertake they do with enthusiasm and genuine excitement at the prospect of a Canterbury-free 'anglicanism.' Even if this is not the vision of all the leadership, it is the vision of a good many all the same, and the confusion about this is just one more hindrance to finding a creative resolution to the many problems what now beset us.
We are aware that similar-likely coordinated-efforts are underway to meet separately in the context of Lambeth Conference itself. It remains unclear if the Common Cause movement-even where its vision is coherent and shared-has a theological vision fundamentally at odds with Windsor. Without an obvious alternative for conservatives in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, with clear Communion connection, this Common Cause movement will declare 'victory' by simple virtue of its being the only option for many. The consequences for Communion health and the ability to find a resolution to the present crisis are considerable. Is there any way to send some kind of warning into the Orlando meeting about the consequences of forming a separate ecclesial jurisdiction at this time?
Anglican Communion Institute Fellows
The Rev. Dr. Christopher Seitz
The Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Four years ago ACI traveled to Orlando to help constitute what became known as the "Network". Martyn Minns, David Anderson, other conservative leaders and clergy, Bp. Robert Duncan and a cadre of bishops from conservative dioceses were there.
Tensions became apparent after 24 hours and the bishops withdrew. The meeting was brought to a close with only a part of the agenda fulfilled. It was apparent that some were not happy with the direction of those who wished to form, as it would transpire, a 'new ecclesiastical jurisdiction.'
That tension never went away. It appears that the daily operating (and funding) of 'Network' was always and chiefly in the hands of those in favour of such a new structure. In turn, they related their movement to AMiA, various continuing churches, and in time to what would become CANA, with themselves becoming bishops in this, now termed, Common Cause movement.
The Dioceses of Albany, South Carolina, Central Florida, Dallas, Rio Grande, Tennessee, and a host of conservative dioceses (North Dakota, West Texas, Western Louisiana, Southwest Florida, Louisiana, Texas) are not directly involved in this movement on the same terms as Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, and Forth Worth. An effort was made, at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury (and others among the Primates), to form a broader conservative alliance and that emerged in the Camp Allen/Windsor Bishops. That alliance is still intact though it has been hampered by trying to work in conjunction with the 'Common Cause' bishops, who always pursued a different vision, and by confusion about support from the wider Communion in the context of a deteriorating TEC. Just what was the 'Network' one could reasonably ask, from outside the immediate context? Was it Common Cause or was it Camp Allen?
We are told that tomorrow a meeting of Common Cause leaders, including a large number of new bishops ordained by non-Americans, will take place to discuss the details related to forming a separate ecclesial jurisdiction. This meeting happens in the context of the Archbishop's Advent Pastoral Letter, issued several days ago. It happens in the context of a terribly tense and indeed tragic set of circumstances in the Diocese of Central Florida. We are told that the Bishop of Central Florida --a proven conservative, host of the original Network meeting four years ago--does not even know where the meeting is being held.
We firmly believe that the Camp Allen Bishops have done all they can both to guard the original vision of the Network and also to work as hard as they can to demonstrate their compliance with Windsor and their willingness to work with the Archbishop of Canterbury. ACI is pleased with the Advent Pastoral and the Communion-strengthening it undertakes.
What we cannot understand is the formation of a separate ecclesiastical structure at this time. It is not clear why this is needed and more especially how its vision of federal relationships apart from Canterbury and the conciliar approval of the Communion's Instruments is consistent with the Windsor compliance sought by Camp Allen Bishops. It also seems to be an initiative which sows discord within conservative dioceses, like Central Florida, where the meeting will be held and where the parishes are facing a protocol should they wish to leave TEC for Common Cause -- an effort graciously undertaken by an obviously weary +John Howe.
ACI earnestly hopes that the 'facilitated discussion' referred to by the Archbishop takes place as soon as possible. Our understanding is that effort has been made to contact the Presiding Bishop on numerous occasions to arrange a meeting, such as is referred to in the Advent Pastoral. In the meantime, we have 3-4 Bishops from the former Network meeting with their new colleagues to form a separate ecclesial jurisdiction within the diocese of another former Network Bishop.
We are encouraged by the vision of the Advent Pastoral and hope that its proposals are followed up with dispatch. We understand that many in Common Cause feel they are under enormous pressure, but it is equally true that much of what they undertake they do with enthusiasm and genuine excitement at the prospect of a Canterbury-free 'anglicanism.' Even if this is not the vision of all the leadership, it is the vision of a good many all the same, and the confusion about this is just one more hindrance to finding a creative resolution to the many problems what now beset us.
We are aware that similar-likely coordinated-efforts are underway to meet separately in the context of Lambeth Conference itself. It remains unclear if the Common Cause movement-even where its vision is coherent and shared-has a theological vision fundamentally at odds with Windsor. Without an obvious alternative for conservatives in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada, with clear Communion connection, this Common Cause movement will declare 'victory' by simple virtue of its being the only option for many. The consequences for Communion health and the ability to find a resolution to the present crisis are considerable. Is there any way to send some kind of warning into the Orlando meeting about the consequences of forming a separate ecclesial jurisdiction at this time?
Anglican Communion Institute Fellows
The Rev. Dr. Christopher Seitz
The Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
The Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
