Reflections on the decisions of the Anaheim General Convention

July 22nd, 2009
by Vinay Samuel and Chris Sugden

An analysis of the noes ( those who said no to DO25 and CO56) shows that those who did it out of a confessional doctrinal basis are only a small number – no more than 10 people. This is very clear when some of them who have said no are on record as saying that this is not the right time or the right strategy. Some of those who have voted yes to the motions (see Thinking Anglicans 21 July) have also signed the Anaheim statement. The motives of the people seem to be as broad as the The Episcopal Church (TEC) itself. The desire of the orthodox to witness leads them to work with fellow travellers, but being fellow travellers does not mean that they are fellow orthodox. The view that there are a substantial number of orthodox is seriously flawed.

The Anaheim statement also makes clear that they no longer define themselves as members of TEC. The first draft commited them to the canons and constitution of the TEC. That is now dropped. But what kind of a communion is this of which they want to be a part. Is the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) part of the communion of which they want to be a part? Is the communion to be defined by the Ridley Covenant? If that is so, then that has not been adopted yet and is unlikely to be for some time. What is in common is their fellowship with the Archbishop of Canterbury. That is a personal identity of an office of bishop which is constitutionally in communion with Canterbury, What about a local church? Can it be in communion with Canterbury? How low do you drive this – to dioceses or parishes? Will dioceses be able to sign up to the Ridley Covenant? These are questions which the whole thing leaves unsatisfactorily vague. the rest