A look at ERD and ARDF

In the alphabet soup of Anglican Land, ERD is Episcopal Relief and Development and ARDF is the Anglican Relief and Development Fund. ARDF has been out there in the blogsphere for the last week or so because it is at the ARDF meeting that Moderator Duncan announced that on December 3rd there will be the beginning of some new improved GAFCON province of North America (thats NIGPNA). GAFCON is of course the Global Anglican Future Conference held last summer which produced the Jerusalem Declaration which is the new proof text of pure and undefiled Anglicanism.

Since the word Anglican is not trademarked and the word Anglicanism is a reference to a rather wide range of theological sentiments that arose from the English experience of Christianity, damn near anybody who wants to can call themselves Anglican or tout the very best sort of Anglicanism. The trademark is getting a bit warn.

Relief and Development work:

Both ERD and ARDF are about doing good things in relief and development work. I want to underline that I believe both are engaged in relief and development work. But there are some differences.

ERD works with churches of the Anglican Communion and ecumenically, appeals to members of the Episcopal Church no matter their particular views on what counts as Anglicanism or Anglican, works in collaboration with Anglican Provinces and Diocese all over the world regardless of their particular views and with who ever wishes to work with them. ERD's mission statement is this:

"Episcopal Relief & Development is the compassionate response of the Episcopal Church to human suffering in the world. Hearing God's call to seek and serve Christ in all persons and to respect the dignity of every human being, Episcopal Relief & Development serves to bring together the generosity of Episcopalians and others with the needs of the world.

"Episcopal Relief & Development faithfully administers the funds that are received from the Church and raised from other sources. It provides relief in times of disaster and promotes sustainable development by identifying and addressing the root causes of suffering.

Episcopal Relief & Development cherishes its partnerships within the Anglican Communion, with ecumenical bodies and with others who share a common vision for justice and peace among all people."

ERD makes clear its financial statement on the website and has published a summary in its Annual Reports. ERD spent $25,000,000 on programs of relief and development last year.

I like ERD's clear financial statements and its mission statement and its involvement in large multi-denominational projects as well as ones implemented with partner churches in the Anglican Communion.

ARDF works with "The Global South," and with those who will not take monies from The Episcopal Church and is funded specifically through "North American Biblically based Anglicans" and directed to "Biblically based poor Anglican communities in the Global South." ARDF speaks of its funding standards, "Our standards for project funding are kept objective due largely to our partnership with independent philanthropic research service firms, who analyze each project expenditure with an investment mindset." So it does not fund efforts that cannot be measured. ARDF has raised $3,000,000 in it four years of existence.

ARDF's Mission statement is this:

"Anglican Relief & Development Fund (ARDF) provides effective and efficient relief and development assistance for objective high impact projects with measurable transformational results. ARDF exists to maximize life change in some of the most challenging parts of the Anglican Communion in the Global South adhering to the biblically based Anglican tradition."

The reader may be puzzled by the reference for "adhering to the biblically based Anglican tradition." It could be a reference to ARDF's own adherance, but the immediate noun cluster is "the most challenging parts of the Anglican Communion in the Global South," that is ARDF is funding actions in churches adhering to the biblically based Anglican tradition."

ARDF does an interesting analysis of how monies are spent, indicating how much is spend in a project on each individual helped.

ARDF's web pages give bits and pieces of a financial picture - how much is spent on particular projects and how much has been raised since the inception of the Fund, but as far as I can find there is no "financials" page similar to the ERD page. The ARDF annual report does not carry a financial summary page. ( I am sure someone will point out to me where to get that financial information on the web if it is there.)

I like ARDF's use of the Geneva Report form that tells about the extent to which programs fulfilled their expectations. ARDF has easy to read project proposals.

But the big difference concerns who is helping and who is helped: ERD has no litmus test about "biblically based" Anglican funding. ARDF does. ERD funds projects around the world with churches that agree with TEC and those who disagree both. ARDF takes into the world of Relief and Development the stance of its source community, the Anglican Communion Network and the Common Cause Partnership. That stance is that ACN and CCP are like minded with churches in the Global South who are biblically based Anglicans. Thus ARDF funds its friends, and its friends only.

TLC reads the tea leaves badly (revised)

(George Conger commented on The Living Church article on the Primates role in admission of new members of the ACC / Anglican Communion over on Stand Firm. I have revised this article to take account of what I believe is an important insight from George. I find his argument to the point and he certainly has access to the history of how things are actually done. At the same time I believe TLC did miss it, and George does not dissuade me from thinking that the ACC is the place of final decision. So, here is a cobbled together revision of this blog entry.)


The Living Church, always willing to opine on matters of canon law and organization, have volunteered this information:

"It is the primates, not the Archbishop of Canterbury, who are directly responsible for granting official status to a new Anglican Communion province. That responsibility is spelled out under section 3 of the constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC).

The constitution explains that a new province may be admitted “with the assent of two-thirds of the primates of the Anglican Communion.”

TLC knows how to make good headlines. Unfortunately they don't seem to get it quite right.

Section 3 of the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council states that, "With the assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the council may alter or add to the schedule." It is the ACC that determines to add to the schedule (that is the list of membership in the ACC). Two-thirds of the Primates consent is required for it to take effect.

I took "assent" to be a matter of confirmation or consent. George Conger reads it historically as follows (on Stand Firm):

A province becomes a member of the Anglican Communion, as a province, by virtue of its membership in the Anglican Consultative Council. Membership of a province in the Anglican Consultative Council assumes communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, not all churches in communion with Canterbury are members of the ACC---e.g., the Porvoo churches. While the Archbishop of Canterbury issues the invitations to the Lambeth Conference as Archbishop of Canterbury, he does not issue the invitations to the primatesprimates meeting invitations are sent automatically to each primate or moderator of the provinces of the Anglican Communion---under the signature of the Archbishop as president of the meeting, acting on the authority of the primates standing committee. The Anglican Consultative Council does not initiate the process of a province becoming a member---it acts in response to the initiative of primates---and before the primates meeting was created, the provinces. But never has the ACC meeting in that same personal capacity. The

been the engine for the creation of the province.

The process has never worked by the ACC initiating action, sending it to the primates for approval, who then endorse/reject, send it back to the ACC who then endorse/reject.

The ACC has always been the last stop. The history of the ACC and the Primates meetings on this point are clear.

At its first meeting in 1971 the ACC laid out how Provinces were formed, see resolution 21, and offered a series of recommendations on how to do it which concluded with the statement, “Before the creation of a new province there should be consultation with the Anglican Consultative Council or its Standing Committee for guidance and advice, especially in regard to the form of constitution most appropriate.”
The Primates Meetings did not begin until 1978, and they evolved over the years from Coggan to Runcie to the present function created by George Carey. In its early days, the ACC offered resolutions of advice on how to proceed with the creation of provinces, addressing concerns about the United Churches of South Asia, for example—or the viability of West Africa when it was separated from Nigeria.

However, you will find no resolution initiating the process for the creation of a province. The resolutions on the creation of provinces have always been in response to the initiatives of others. For the past twenty years or so the ACC has been a rubberstamp for the primates. At ACC-11 in Dundee---the last ACC meeting where provinces were added and the first meeting I attended as a reporter for the Church of England Newspaper, the ACC received the primates vote to admit Central American and Hong Kong. The first order of business was receiving Central America was resolution 1, then Hong Kong 2. Upon passage of these votes, the representative from Hong Kong was seated --- (Central America was not present).

Also, the assumption that membership in the Anglican Consultative Council is presumptive membership in the Anglican Communion is born out time and again by the resolutions approving the primates request that a province join the ACC. Look at resolution 47 from ACC-9 Cape Town (Jan 1993) which admitted Burundi, Rwanda and Zaire (now the Congo).

It reads: Resolved, that this Joint Meeting of the Primates and the Anglican Communion and the Anglican Consultative Council welcomes the creation of the Province of Burundi, the Province of Rwanda, and the Province of Zaire and requests the Primates to add them to the list of Member Churches of the Anglican Communion, and that they be added to the Schedule of Membership of the Anglican Consultative Council.

The issue of who gets to go the primates meeting was raised at Dar es Salaam, as John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, was included in the gathering. Questions were put to Dr. Williams as to who invited Sentamu. Williams said the invitation had come from the primatesprimates meetings are not like Lambeth. Williams does not choose who comes. standing committee—a move he endorsed by the way. In other words, the

Getting down to the present. Could the question of a third province come before the Alexandria primates meeting---yes it could. Will it? The agenda has not yet been created so no one knows. If the primates endorse it by the requisite 2/3 margin could it go to the ACCACC adopts a resolution confirming the primates actions, a third province in North America could be part of the ACC, part of the Anglican Communion as early as May. in Jamaica? It would. Could the Third Province send delegates to Jamaica? Yes the y could, and if the

Will this happen? I have no idea. Is it possible for this to happen if the Archbishop of Canterbury disapproves. Yes it could happen as he has no veto. Would it happen? I don’t know.

(This changes considerably the remarks I want to make. My revisions are now in italics. This does not make me a revisionist!)

What both the decision by ACC and the assent of the Primates does is make a regional or national church a part of the Anglican Consultative Council. That certainly is "official status" and the ACC is the last line of the decision making chain. If the Primates were to decide to recommend this new Province to ACC at the Primates Meeting in February and in any way insist on inclusion in the ACC "schedule" it would be in effect to destroy the power of the ACC to name its own membership.

More importantly, what ACC membership does is recognize a province as part of the ACC and the Anglican Communion (for ACC purposes). Stand Firm notes that the Archbishop of Canterbury invites Primates to meeting and bishops to Lambeth. George Conger notes that the invitation to the Primates Meeting is by decision of the Joint Standing Committee.

This still raises the matter that the Primates Meeting is, to quote the Anglican Communion web pages, "an opportunity for 'leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation'." The Primates Meeting has taken on greater advisory tasks, but has never been given authority to make binding judgments by any Church in the Communion. The Primates must yield final decision making power to the ACC to decide who is part of the ACC. The Primates would have veto power if the ACC were to act without their assent, but the Primates cannot invite a new Province without ACC's action. To press for ACC action in May is to invite further disunion in the Communion.

TLC opined that, "Assuming that at least two-thirds of the primates of the Anglican Communion do consent to the formation of another province in North America when they meet in February, it is likely that the matter would come before the ACC when it meets in Jamaica next May."

We might hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury would determine that the Primates Meeting ought not act in February.

Should the Primates at the meeting in February even move to consider the matter of this new and novel province I would suggest that that will spell the end of the Primates Meeting as a useful tool for unity.

In a previous posting TLC said, "The unilateral creation of a new province just two months before the start of a scheduled primates’ meeting leaves Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams with seemingly little room to maneuver." Which leads me to think that TLC is brewing up a storm for better readership, rather than reading up a storm for better facts. What the realignment community of CCP is doing is forming an organization that might or might not be a Province of the Anglican Communion. That is challenge enough, but there is no new province until the Primates ask for its admission and the ACC takes action.

In stating that "it is the primates, not the Archbishop of Canterbury, who are directly responsible for granting official status to a new Anglican Communion province" TLC is misleading at best, stirring up trouble at worse. It is more complex than that. It appears from George Conger's remarks that it is a both / and situation. The Primates seem to be the ones to initiate, but ACC must determine (they may act, not must act). Either way they have missed out on reporting the full complexities of the matter.

Proposition 13 of the GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration.

Well, something is happening on December 3rd related to the formation of a GAFCON recognized North American Province of Something. (See Living Church and Anglican Communion Network News)

Let us remember that the GAFCON Jerusalem Declaration, which has reappeared as a statement that will have to be signed by those of the Common Cause Partnership who want to be part of the GAFCON North American Province, includes this proposition:

"13. We reject the authority of those churches and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or deed. We pray for them and call on them to repent and return to the Lord."


Now, just so everyone understands: Those who sign the Jerusalem Declaration will be pledging "to reject the authority of church and leaders who have denied the orthodox faith in word or dead." Who are those churches and leaders? Well, clearly the Provinces of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada and at least all its bishops who have voted or acted in support of the inclusion of gay or lesbian persons by blessing their vocations to ordained ministry or to committed relationships.

That means that North America is, as far as the signers are concerned, without Episcopal leadership or Provincial governance. North America is an open mission field.


The Jerusalem Declaration has fourteen points. The headings of the thirteen others are, "we rejoice (three times), we believe, we uphold, we gladly proclaim, we recognize, we acknowledge, we gladly accept, we are mindful, we are committed, we celebrate. Only the one, Number 13 begins "we reject."



This single proposition, number 13, is what gives license to the GAFCON / Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans to carve up the map of TEC and ACoC to their liking.

Assuming this December 3rd Thingy goes anywhere, it will result in a new world wide Church that will call itself Anglican but which will not be Anglican at all. They will lead Anglicans astray and they will beguile others into thinking that they are indeed uniquely Anglican.

In this they will be wrong, and should they meet with some momentary success, it will be followed by their crash into conservative Calvinism on the one side and the lure of Rome on the other.

Meanwhile The Episcopal Church will continue to be broadly welcoming, although not as good at that as it should or could be. Likewise the Anglican Church of Canada will continue to be Anglicanism at its best. All of these troubles will lead to some reduction in membership, but in the long run the face of Christ that welcomes is better news than the face of Christ that rejects. I say that knowing that sometimes rejection is a way to greater love.

Just as sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, so sometimes rejection is just rejection.

The New North American Thingy...coming, maybe, sometime, December 3rd or after.

First it was predicted, over on Stand Firm. Then it was proclaimed by The Living Church. Then the Anglican Communion Network put out a press release. December 3, 2008 is the big day! What is going to happen on that day?

The Living Church article proclaimed, "Convention Planned to Form New Anglican Province." At that meeting representatives of the various groups belonging to the Common Cause Partnership will need to "sign on" to the Jerusalem Declaration and proclaim their willingness to work together (one supposes that here the draft Constitution and Canons are the issue). It is the first step in a process leading to a new ....something, a thingy, a province of something.

The announcement came at a meeting of the Anglican Relief and Development Fund. The Living Church reports that,

"During the meeting at Christ Church, some of those primates present agreed to recognize the new province if the leadership of the CCP would “set aside territorial issues and ego struggles” and sign the so-called Jerusalem Declaration drafted during the Global Anglican Future Conference in the Middle East in June."

The Anglican Primates on the board of ARDF are The Most Rev. Dr. Peter J. Akinola, The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis, The Most Rev. Justice Akrofi, The Most Rev. Benjamin Nzimbi, and The Most Rev. Dr. John Chew. Who among those were actually at the ARDF meeting is unclear, but at least Archbishop Nzimbi was, since he preached at Christ Church, Vero Beach, Florida, where the ARDF meeting was being held.

The parish news of Christ Church, Vero Beach, wrote, that provided the CCP folk sign on, "the Primates’ Council is likely to recognize the new province as the legitimate expression of Anglican Christianity in North America."

What we have then is an event on December 3rd where representatives of various groups sign on to the draft constitution and canons, the Jerusalem Declaration, and promise not to get into infighting, and form the new North American entity which will be recognized as a Province (one assumes immediately) by Primates that said they would at the ARDF meeting. The GAFCON Primates Council will then at a later point formally "recognize the new province as the legitimate expression of Anglican Christianity in North America."

This of course is opposed to the illegitimate expression in The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

There then seems to be a plan to go about to all the Provinces asking them to buy on the GAFCON recognized province. It is unclear if they will be asked to recognize it as the sole legitimate Province in North America or as a parallel Province. How this then relates to the Primates Meeting in February or the Anglican Consultative Council in May is also unclear.

The Living Church observes,

"The unilateral creation of a new province just two months before the start of a scheduled primates’ meeting leaves Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams with seemingly little room to maneuver."

The question is of course just what this new entity is - it is called a province, but a province of what? The GAFCON Primates do not constitute a world wide organization that can "admit" provinces into its overarching organization. For that to happen the GAFCON Primates have to decide that they too are ready to declare themselves the core of a world wide Anglican provincial system that would exclude TE and the ACoC and others and include the CCP new province in North America.

December 3 may be the birth of some new entity - a thingy. But it is unclear just what this provincial thingy is in relation to the Anglican Communion or for that matter in terms of the GAFCON Primates until they exact the final costs. So far those costs are signing on to the Jerusalem Declaration and promising not to get into territorial fights among themselves and resolving to keep their leadership egos out of it. The costs will get higher before this is over.

Meanwhile we can prepare for the hype about December 3rd by remembering that what is being celebrated there is the front edge of a small and very tenuous radically conservative Christian organization claiming to be the salvation of Anglicanism in North America.

In any reasonable read they are trespassers with hunting licenses, bishops not in communion with TEC or ACoC here to grab what they can under the guise of saving North American Anglicans. They have declared TEC and ACoC to be the enemy. Talking a good line about live and let live they have signed on to "reject" the authority of TEC, ACoC and their leadership.

It is time to get on with being the Church we have been called to be. "Trespassers," to quote Walt Kelly, "will not be missed, if they leave or if they stay."

Bishop Iker asks some questions, doesn't answer others.

Bishop Iker held a press conference following the Fort Worth Diocesan Convention. He was asked about border crossings. He responded according to one transcript:

"The whole issue of border crossings is a red herring. Honduras, a diocese in Central America is in TEC. Is that provincial border crossing? What about Taiwan in Asia. They are part of TEC. Isn't that provincial border crossing? What about Columbia in South America? Isn't it a border incursion for TEC to pick up dioceses that are were bought and paid for? Doesn't TEC pay the vast majority of their expenses now?"

There is no question that Bishop Iker must have been tired after all that went on at the Convention. But here are the answer to his questions:

• "Honduras, a diocese in Central America is in TEC. Is that a provincial border crossing?"  By whom?
• "What about Taiwan, in Asia. They are part of TEC. Isn't that provincial border crossing?" Again by whom?
• "What about Columbia in South America? Isn't that a border incursion for TEC to pick up dioceses that are were bought and paid for?  Doesn't TEC pay the vast majority of their expenses now?"  Aside from the confusion in the reporters writing, what is this about?

If the references are to the possibility of TEC being engaged in provincial border crossings in these dioceses the answer is NO.  Tiawan is part of an internal province of TEC (province 8) and Honduras and Columbia are part of internal province 9.  They are all dioceses receiving grants from TEC as part of the mission strategy of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society.

I suppose he is making the point that these are just exactly what they are: dioceses not contiguous with TEC mainland dioceses, but that does not make TEC's relation to these dioceses incursions. Thus the fact that the 4 dioceses in the US that are distant from the Southern Cone are not incursions either.  

The incursion however is real because people left the Episcopal Church and with them took a diocesan apparatus so that they became dioceses in the Southern Cone but with jurisdiction in the United States, in locations where The Episcopal Church is already present. The incursion is the new dioceses (the ones of the Southern Cone) superimposed on the existing dioceses of TEC. The Province of the Southern Cone has made incursion into TEC. 

Bishop Iker's examples are completely irrelevant. Oh well.

He then said, 

"The Presiding Bishop has no ecclesiastical authority in Fort Worth. Read the canons. She cannot go anywhere without permission. They’ve made that office much more than it was written or intended. Now she is acting like a Primatial authority when her only stated jobs are to chair meetings and make some appointments."

I am not sure what planet the Bishop comes from. Title 1 Sec. 4 (a) of the Canons of The Episcopal Church begins by stating,"The Presiding Bishop shall be the Chief Pastor and Primate." Furthermore he and others have been seeking alternative Primatial oversight for years. 

Bishop Godfrey of Peru, formerly of Uruguay, was also given to shooting himself in the foot:

He said the following:

"The Southern Cone did not cross borders. One or two bishops from that Province did. I see the Southern Cone used all over now in an accusatory fashion and it is a bad understanding of what we are about. It is a negative characterization of very good, honorable, orthodox people."

No one suggests that an abstract something called "the Province of the Southern Cone" crossed borders. Indeed at least two bishops from the Province - the Primate, Bishop Venables, and Bishop Frank Lyons have done so.  Bishop Godfrey seems to be cross about everybody being stained by the inappropriate behavior of a few.  But mostly his comment precisely confirms the incursions of "one or two" bishops.

Bishop Godfrey also tried out the idea that Bishop Robinson's ordination as bishop set off a wave of anti-Anglican propaganda in Lima. 

"But I will tell you the ramifications in Lima, Peru. The day after Robinson’s consecration, there was a three page spread with color pictures in the largest local paper. They said what else would you expect a religion founded by an adulterer King to do? They smeared Anglicanism for weeks."

Seemingly the smear is that Anglican churches are a religion founded by Henry VIII, whose proclivity for marriage and remarriage, combined with occasional beheading, was well known.  Well long after those who have smeared the Anglican Church in Peru have forgotten Bishop Robinson, they will still remember Henry VIII.  The problem is not Bishop Robinson, it is Henry VIII.  Perhaps Bishop Godfrey needs to do some work on that one.  People who want to dump on Anglicans can find much better reasons than Bishop Robinson. 

This was an unfortunate comment by Bishop Godfrey. But at least it was not the foot shooter the first remark was.

Rumors of Dates for GAFCON Province of North America, etc.

Right now the four groups that have left The Episcopal Church in San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, Quincy and Fort Worth and have formed as Dioceses in the Province of the Southern Cone and are appendages to the Province of the Southern Cone. In addition a deposed bishop and some clergy and people from the Diocese of Recife in Brazil have done the same. Any two of these groups has more members than all of the Province of the Southern Cone put together. At least in the case of the 4 from TEC It is only temporary, for which the PSC ought to give thanks. They claim they are only part of the PSC until a new improved GAFCON Province of North America NIGPNA can be formed.

Of course this may not be all that good as good news. When they form NIGPNA they will cease to be part of the Anglican Communion, having lost their already tenuous connection through membership in PSC. But it appears they don't really care. GAFCON is the wave they are catching, not the Anglican Communion.

The PSC expanded involves the dioceses already in the Southern Cone plus the 5 formed by people having left TEC or Brazil.

Meanwhile rumors abound that sometime near the beginning of December - say the 3rd or the 6th - the NIGPNA will be formed. No doubt Moderator Duncan will be the primate-like persons for this GAFCON invention. NIGPNA will, one assumes, cover all of North America where TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) is or has been the jurisdiction. Mexico gets included because it is part of North America and also was at one time part of TEC, noting of course that it started on its own and now is a separate Province. La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico is not particularly happy with GAFCON. I do not include non domestic territory of TEC in this map because it is hard to get all the figures for those dioceses into the mix.

The NIGPNA is really about the US and Canada. The whole population of Canada and the US is roughly 337,000,000 persons. So taking that population and the figures given by the Moderator as to ASA (100,000), and giving them the benefit of the doubt and allowing that 1/2 of their membership is in church on a given Sunday, that means the church population of the Common Cause Partners is about 200,000, or about .06% of an overall Canada / US population of 370,390,000. The percentage for the combination of the ACoC and TEC is about 2,740,000, or about .8%. The numbers turn out to be about what we have expected from other ways of working the numbers. NIGPNA will represent about 7% of the whole of ACoC/ TEC membership.

A commentator has asked why there is such interest in this really very small grouping of Anglican and Anglican like groups called the Common Cause Partnership.

No matter the fine words from CCP and most recently Quincy and Fort Worth about compassion and brotherly love for those who have not joined them: The object of the exercise is to form a new Anglican entity in North America that stands over against the ACoC and TEC which are viewed by the groups making up this new "Province" as heretical and apostate. This new entity, called by them a Province, will not be in communion with TEC or ACoC. At least some parts of this new entity will believe that the women in ordained ministry in TEC or ACoC are simply lay ministers in clergy dress. Most will believe that TEC and ACoC are wrong about the way these churches deal with the issue of marriage after divorce, abortion, and certainly the possible full inclusion of gay and lesbian persons in the life of the church (remembering that neither church has completely made its peace with the issues here.)

In other words, this blue colored map of North America proclaims the emergence of a so-called "orthodox" community that makes the claim that it is Anglican and we (TEC and ACoC) are not.

They may be small in number, but in their pretense to be the carriers of the true faith which they believe has been abandoned by TEC and ACoC, they will speak so as to convince many to abandon TEC and ACoC for their solution. Fair enough! But we must pay attention because it is now time to be clear about what TEC and ACoC hold as central to our faith and witness, and what makes us believe that we are carriers of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. (More on this later.)

Our primary tasks must rest with the case for The Episcopal Church as a community true to the Gospel. Mostly we need not to obsess or worry about this new GAFCON Province. It will succeed or not as God wills. We ought to be about God' work as we know that work to call us. Our only attention to this GAFCON business ought to be to deny them the option of usurpation.

Over on Confessions of a Carioca, Dan Martin believes that is going on with GAFCON / CCP is either revolution or rebellion. There is another possibility: what is going on is usurpation. Perhaps we are dealing with a takeover which is not guided by great ideals of turning things around or protest, but by the desire to power. This is not to deny the real concerns for being true to belief that drives many in the realignment community. It is to say that forming this Province like entity is about more than community, it is about the power to claim authority in the place of the defunct authority of the existing churches.

The new improved GAFCON Province of North America purports to be closer to the true Anglican ideals and corrective of the awful TEC and ACoC. But come the first week in December I believe we will be dealing at last with the great effort to change the nature of leadership in the Communion. This is the hard right of the Global South flexing its muscle, testing its strength. The rest of the Communion in the Global South and elsewhere will have to decide if the flexing is to be challenged.

Of course, given that all the churches (Provinces) of the Anglican Communion are autonomous, it hardly nees to be said that all such power is assumed and an illusion. TEC and ACoC will go about being who we are quite independently of the NIGPNA or any other church with which we are not in communion.

The Fort Worth Votes are in: The Mess Continues.

Well no surprise but there it is from Katie Sherrod's webpages:  She is carrying a full report on all the followup that will come from those who remain. Thanks to Katie for all her work.

The Diocese of Fort Worth this morning voted as follows:

Clergy -- 92 ballots cast with one invalid ballot Lay-- 127 valid ballots cast

A. Preamble

Clergy - 73 for, 18 against

Lay -- 101 for, 26 against

B. Authority of General Convention

Clergy -- 72 for, 19 against

Lay -- 102 for, 25 against

C. Deputies to General Convention

Clergy --71 for, 19 against

Lay -- 103 for, 24 against

D. Canons

Clergy - 72 for , 19 against

Lay - 102 for, 25 against"

Katie has just updated:

" UPDATE II:

Resolution for Admission to the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, meeting in its 26th Annual Convention, does hereby accept the provision made by the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth does hereby immediately enter into membership with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone as a full and equal constituent member of such province, and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth does hereby accede to the authority of the Constitution and Canons of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone to the extent such Constitution and Canons are not contrary to Holy Scripture and the teaching of the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

Clergy - 73 for, 20 against

Lay - 98 for, 28 against

78 percent for, 22 percent against

Letter read from Gregory Venables welcoming "diocese" into the province."

The deal is done.

So now it is time to get to work.

Bishop Iker predicted that, "I fully expect that I'll receive notification from the Presiding Bishop's office, within days of our diocesan convention, that I've been inhibited. Of course by then it will be irrelevant, because I won't be under the authority of the Episcopal Church. But they'll play that out in the same that they did with Bishops Schofield and Duncan. What the "Remain Episcopal" people here are told by David Booth Beers - they've been to New York and met with him - is that I'll be inhibited right after our convention, then I'll have sixty days to recant, and if I don't then I will be deposed at the next meeting of the House of Bishops, which is some time in March. After that, they're planning on having the new organizing convention here in April, and probably get organized, elect a new standing committee, and a new provisional bishop."

Bishop Iker also points out, concerning the development of a new improved Anglican Province in North America, that "It's interesting...that historically to form a new province it's been customary to have 4 dioceses."  Well, that's true. But the idea is that the entities are dioceses, with bishops. Now of the four dioceses in The Episcopal Church who have "left"are not dioceses of a recognized Province of the Anglican Communion. Two of the four bishops have been deposed. One has retired. At least in the Anglican Communion there is insufficient "matter" to constitute dioceses able to be a new Province.

But of course the GAFCON bishops don't recognize the depositions. The Province of the Southern Cone considers these groups of bishops, clergy and laity to be dioceses, whether or not continuing or new entities. 

Bishop Iker at 2:37 PM in the Press Conference has just said that all the clergy are now in the Southern Cone.  Once again the decisions of the diocesan convention assume that clergy are somehow property of the diocesan leadership and if the decision is to join the Southern Cone the clergy automatically are part of the Southern Cone.  They do not make a decision to join, they only make a decision to disassociate.  It is unclear what sort of permission clergy will need to stay part of the Episcopal Church. 

This is a form of chattel slavery.  

My sense is that the Instruments of Communion will be split on the matter, if it ever comes to them.  The Archbishop of Canterbury, NO. The Anglican Consultative Council, majority NO. The Lambeth Conference...never mind - its 9 years away. The Primates, majority NO.

That may not be of much concern to those who have left, they are busy forming a new Anglicanism to meet the needs of the new dioceses of the Southern Cone standing over against the Episcopal Church. This new Anglicanism will be only vaguely recognizable. 

Then of course, I could be wrong.

Oldsters Art

OK, so I am outrageously proud.  My sainted mother, Anne Eldredge Harris, at age 90 is part of an exhibit of Oldester Art at 205 Lavinia Street, Milton, Delaware.  She will be exhibiting hard copy of the computer art pictures of "Experiencing Old Age" and "Post Mortem Anne."  She will be exhibiting together with two other ninety year old artists, one working with masks and the other in photography. Opening is December 6. We are all psyched!

Here is a video on the three artists.  Anne is the second one shown.

I am so proud.

Numbers on the Gang of Four

In all likelihood the bishop, and a majority of clergy and lay delegates to the Diocese of Fort Worth convention will vote to leave the Episcopal Church, align temporarily with the Province of the Southern Cone and wait upon the right time to become part of a new improved Anglican Province of North America. 

In this action the bishop and delegates will  join similar groups of  folk in the Dioceses of San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and Quincy.

The question is, how may people does this represent?  Well, its hard to tell.
In terms of raw numbers, the most recent estimates we have on these dioceses are as follows:

                   total membership          average Sunday attendance (ASA)
San Joaquin :   10,500                                                4,000
Pittsburgh        20,000                                                8,000
Quincy              1,850                                                1,000  
Fort Worth       17,000                                               7,000   
totals:               49,350                                              20,000

The current figures given for the membership of The Episcopal Church is 2,154,000 (domestic) 2,320,000 total. The average Sunday attendance is 764,000 (domestic) 804,000 total.

This means that if everyone in the four dioceses left those dioceses, the percentage of the whole membership and ASA would be approximately  2.2% total and 2.5%. ASA.

But of course not all the people of those dioceses are leaving. Supposing ¾ are, that percentage drops below 2%.

There are a variety of parishes outside these four dioceses, and a larger group of disaffiliated laity and clergy who are now wanderers who simply don’t get included in this group. The overall numbers leaving the Episcopal Church it seems to me still grow to about 7 percent, or about 155,000.  In terms of ASA that is about 56,000.  Moderator Duncan estimated the overall numbers of ASA at about 100,000, meaning the other groups in the Common Cause Partnership (CANA, AMiA, REC, etc) bring in about 44,000 worshipers.  That is a generous but reasonable figure.

The point is, that in terms of The Episcopal Church these four dioceses account for something like 2.4 percent of the whole.

When it is all over I still believe about 7 to 8 percent of the Episcopal Church will have left. The number leaving and taking the property?  1 percent.

But that’s another story.

Meanwhile, remembering that Bishop Iker, all the people of Fort Worth, and the people set on realignment and those set to remain members of the Episcopal Church are all part of the community of the faithful, let us pray that they and we may have peace in our hearts towards one another.

Denial and the Management of Avoidance in Anglican Land

The now inhibited and tried bishop of Pennsylvania, Charles Bennison, has been sentenced to deposition. The whole process has been one of pain and sadness on all sides. Bishop Bennison has had every opportunity to respond and in most instances seems not to have been able to distinguish the reality of his improper behavior from whatever mitigating circumstances there may have been. Quite apart from the charges in the trial, his wider behavior as bishop has been marked by an apparent unwillingness to deal with the many dissatisfactions with his leadership style and his actions. So it comes as no surprise that he is now mounting a plea that the sentence of deposition be lifted. (Photo on right from Religious Intelligence.)

Religious Intelligence reports that "On Nov 11 attorneys for the Rt Rev Charles E Bennison, Jr, asked the nine-member court meeting at a Philadelphia hotel to modify its sentence, saying that deposing their client was tantamount to an ecclesiastical “death penalty.” The attorneys, acting no doubt with the full cooperation of Bishop Bennison, rightly consider deposition following trial to be the end of Bishop Bennison's career in the church. It is hard to know what sort of modification of sentence might be considered. Having found him guilty "of conduct unbecoming a member of the clergy, and conspiracy to cover up the sexual abuse," there is little room for any other response than deposition. To think that he might not be deposed and somehow continue in an ecclesiastical office seems pretty far fetched. It is a participation in denial.

Beyond the unrealistic hope that there will be a mitigated sentence, Bishop Bennison is quoted in The Living Church as having said,

“I love the church and I don’t want it to be unjust,” he said. “The Presiding Bishop repeatedly urged me to resign and make this all go away. That is the way that the church worked too often in the past. This is not just about me, it is about the integrity of the church.

“The charges are not fair and they are not true,” he said. “I don’t want to be remembered for something the court claims I did. This has been very costly, but no matter how it comes out, I’ll know I’ve done everything I could to make it come out right.”

I have no doubt that Bishop Bennison loves the church, but this is about him. Saying "This is not just about me, it is about the integrity of the church" echoes the lament of Richard Nixon whose battles were often seen by him and those around him as about the presidency rather than about him as president.

Denial takes many forms, of course, and Bishop Bennison is not alone in the practice of that particular skill. In a far ranging interview with Greg Griffith, Bishop Jack Iker has his own brand of denial. Bishop Iker is leading most of the clergy and people from the Diocese of Fort Worth out of the Episcopal Church and momentarily into the Province of the Southern Cone, there to wait the formation of a new improved Anglican Province in North America, recognized by the GAFCON bishops.

Here is Greg's exchange with Bishop Iker about the origins of the diocese:

"Greg Griffith: Do you have any intention of changing the name of the diocese?

Bishop Iker: We'll remain The Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, because that's who we are, and who we were when we were formed, before we came into union with General Convention in 1982. In 1982 the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth applied to be admitted into union with the General Convention (the wording of the resolution), and we were. This will be our 26th annual convention, and we've decided we cannot remain faithful to the Gospel and the teachings of scriptures while we're under the authority of the General Convention Church. But that doesn't change who we are; it changes our relationship with the General Convention authority.

Greg Griffith: So not just from a conceptual standpoint, but really from an official standpoint, the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth is not a creation of General Convention.

Bishop Iker: Not at all. If it's a "creation" of anything, it's a creation of the Diocese of Dallas, which decided for missionary and church growth purposes that they would divide the diocese in two. Two-thirds of the geographical area remained the diocese of Dallas. They wanted to create a new diocese which at the time didn't have a name; it was referred to as the "western diocese," so the first convention had to, among other things, choose our name - it wasn't given to us by someone else. There were several proposals, and the vote was that we call ourselves the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth."

He fails to point out that the Diocese of Dallas had to petition the General Convention to separate out a portion of the diocese to form a new diocese, or that the "Western Diocese" in formation was not actually a diocese but rather a "convocation of clergy and laity" which group is a diocese in formation until its constitution and canons are received and approved by Executive Council. At the point of union with the General Convention the new diocese is a reality, and not until then. None of this matters very much to most of us, except we ought to note that Bishop Iker is arguing that the diocese existed prior to the union with the General Convention and is not a product of that union and therefore can do as it wishes concerning being part of the Episcopal Church. This is simply the practice of denial.

Unfortunately, Bishop Iker omits the canonical requirement that "a certified copy of the duly adopted Constitution of the new Diocese, including an unqualified accession to the Constitution and Canons of this Church, shall have been filed with the Secretary of the General Convention." The C&C makes no provision for a diocese to leave the Episcopal Church without approval of General Convention or to have a life apart from it. There are numerous instances where dioceses have left The Episcopal Church, either to become parts of new Provinces or to be "extra-provincial," but they all involved prior approval of General Convention.

Over in Pittsburgh the realignment community consisting of the bishop, most of the clergy and many of the laity, have organized themselves as a diocese related to the Southern Cone. In a statement filled with wonderful inventions of the mind, well attested to by Lionel Deimel on his Web log, there is this:

"Leaders representing a majority of the world's Anglican Christians, as well as many inside and outside The Episcopal Church in North America, never accepted the validity of The House of Bishops' decision to remove Bishop Duncan from leadership. In spite of the decision's deep defects, Bishop Duncan and the diocese elected to submit to the purported "deposition," so long as the diocese was part of that denomination."

Moderator Duncan was wise to submit to the deposition, since the "leaders representing a majority of the world's Anglican Christians" have no say in the matter and those "inside The Episcopal Church" who "never accepted the validity of the House of Bishop's decision" to depose him did not determine the results. The majority of bishops in the House of Bishops voted to concur with the decision to depose him. The notion that one can submit only until he, or more strangely, the diocese was no longer part of the denomination and call that submission is very peculiar. This sort of thinking makes it possible for any person deposed - say Bishop Bennison - to accept deposition until he leaves the denomination, in which case he can recant his submission to authority and simply go about being a bishop again in other fields.

The notion that submission to the Church's authority is morally binding because of the promises made in ordination seems to have simply slipped by and been forgotten. Denial has a home in the hearts of many, it appears.

And, to round it out The Living Church proclaimed in its banner for the article, "Quincy Promises 'Christian Charity' for Remaining Episcopalians." It seems that the Clergy and Lay leaders at the Diocesan Synod who voted to leave the Episcopal Church are reported to have been filled with Christian Charity. They would work “diligently, in good faith, and with Christian charity with any member of the clergy who might wish to seek canonical transfer to another diocese of the person’s choice.” He added that parishes have a nine-month grace period in which they may withdraw from the synod, provided that such a move is approved by a two-thirds vote of eligible parish members."

Sounds great, except that the decision to leave was accompanied by a form for clergy that made it clear that unless they wrote "reject" on the certificate making them members of the Province of the Southern Cone they were in. It appears that clergy who wrote reject are being told that they must be the ones to leave and find another diocesan home. Further, parishes can withdraw from synod but only by a two-thirds vote. The whole charitable attitude is based on the proposition that clergy and parishes not going with those who voted to leave the Episcopal Church are the ones who are leaving, and having to ask permission to do so to boot. Charity too often looks exactly like this: we are glad to help you provided you understand you are one down.

And of course the denial here is that the clergy and laity in Synod who voted to leave deny that they are doing so at all, but rather that they are staying exactly as they are, but "simply" changing the Province to which they relate.

So denial floats, and people latch on to it, and if the same twists in facts are repeated over and over again there is always hope that people will be numbed to the reality. The reality is that Bishop Bennison's trial is about him, that the Diocese of Fort Worth is a product of General Convention, that Moderator Duncan was deposed and that the realignment crowd in Quincy has left, not those who remain Episcopalian.

Two sane voices from Pittsburgh, one less sane.

Lionel Deimel and Jim Simons of Pittsburgh have some wonderfully sane things to say in an insane time in Pittsburgh. Lionel wrote The Anglican Neighborhood of Make-Believe. There he outlines the "Through the Looking Glass" world of Anglicanism in Pittsburgh as understood by the deposed bishop of Pittsburgh and those who with him have realigned.

Jim Simons runs a remarkably sane and caring site, "Three Rivers Episcopal" that addresses matters of continuing life in the Episcopal Church and a whole host of other matters pastoral and social. It is indicative of Jim's pastoral stance in the midst of the craziness swirling around in Pittsburgh. Take a look.

And then we have the strange less sane comments of the Rev. Peter Frank, a spokesperson for the realignment group in Pittsburgh. In The National Post he is reported to have said, "that any opposition from Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, will be moot because the spiritual head of Anglicanism has lost his moral authority.

"Frankly, [he] is not in a position to do anything. At this point, the leaders of a majority of the world's Anglicans are going to recognize us when we [separate]."

But he added it would make it more difficult if Mr. Williams did not give his blessing."

I believe The Rev. Peter Frank will discover that the moral authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury, battered as it may be, is relatively intact. Also, it is not Mr. Williams. It is Archbishop Williams.

It is much too early to dismiss the Primates Meeting, Lambeth Conference and the Anglican Consultative Council, all of which are chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury, as having given up on him. The possibility of the Archbishop giving his blessing to this new improved GAFCON province is a long shot indeed, and if he did I would then question his moral authority.

Fort Worth Via Media provides pastoral care and vision.

Desert's Child author Katie Sherrod has written about an event held last Saturday  "entitled The Once and Future Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth -- Dealing with the present, planning for the future."

Her description is well worth the read and is indicative of the possibilities of pastoral care and mutual support available in the midst of crisis.  She reports, 

"A panel of professional counselors both lay and ordained offered tools for coping with the stress, anxiety, anger, grief, and fear many have been suffering as we move closer to our diocesan convention. That's when our leadership will urge delegates to pass illegal resolutions they claim will realign the diocese with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. Regardless of the illegality of their move, the effect on the ground will be split parishes, split friends, even split families. The grief already is palpable.

The panel offered much good advice, including using humor and visualization, and stressed the importance of staying in community through the coming days."

This is an amazing witness by an amazing group. 

The Diocese will meet this weekend to decide if a majority of the clergy and lay delegates will vote to remove themselves from the Episcopal Church and the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth. However that comes out it will be a difficult time for all.  Whatever else, prayer is in order.