As we careen from one year of artificial intelligence combined with (and to some extent born out of) real stupidity, it’s time to stop and take a look at the Anglican Church in North America, that rickety chandelier of an organisation mired with serious problems with its bishops, and three in particular. The matter of Stewart Ruch has been disposed of in a manner that makes few happy (although in the circumstances surrounding it virtually guaranteed that result.) That leaves us with Derek Jones and Steve Wood, and to avoid making this article a sprawing mess I’ll focus on Jones, as I did in my earlier post on the subject.
In working my way around the old blogosphere on the subject, I’ve encountered a source I’ve run into before: Robin Jordan. We’ve had our sword crossings on a wide variety of subjects. With recent events he has brought to our attention some interesting posts of his from 2010 on the subject of Derek Jones in his posts Episcopi Vagantes in the Anglican Church in North America and The Sound of Silence. Another post of interest is More unanswered questions in Derek Jones’ reception as an ACNA bishop, where he crosses swords with George Conger (with whom I share a home parish) and Bill Atwood. In the course of this he makes some interesting points and conveys some valuable information:
- He goes into the whole origin of the episcopi vagantes and their impact on the ACNA. I had never heard of such until my first Catholic parish priest mentioned them to me in passing. As Jordan points out, “What the CEEC bishops are describing as Church of England recognition may be a reference to what happened early in the last century when a group of Anglo-Catholic priests in the Church of England concerned about the validity of their Anglican orders sought re-ordination at the hands of an episcopi vagantes bishop whom they believed to have valid independent Catholic orders.” There are of course other bishops who have filled that role, and Jones was consecrated by one of them.
- Jordan notes the lack of transparency surrounding Jones’ admission into the ACNA as a feature of the organisation, not a bug. That has come back to light in the recent conflicts.
- Jordan makes the following statement: “Bishop Jones’ reception raises some very important questions about the future direction of the ACNA? Does Bishop Jones’ reception signal that the ACNA is no longer pursuing Anglican Communion recognition? Is the ACNA with Jones’ reception hoping to bring Convergence congregations and clergy into the ACNA fold and increasing its size through their absorption? Is the ACNA moving away from Anglicanism to become a Convergence church? What are the implications for confessional Anglicans and confessional Anglicanism in the ACNA? How will such a movement affect Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA and their commitment to Catholic order, doctrine and practice? Will the reception of a bishop from a church that ordains women further strain relations with Anglo-Catholics in the ACNA and move the ACNA closer to the consecration of a women bishop?” All of these are still very relevant with the ACNA, and are prescient points–if not entirely unique to Jordan.
- He also stated the following back in 2010: “In the meantime, Bishop Jones’ supporters have sought to discredit those who call attention to the question of the validity and regularity of his consecration and to impugn their character. Jones’ fellow CEEC bishops, when a query was directed to them about his consecration, declined to give a straightforward answer. They claimed that Jones’ consecration had the recognition of the Church of England as well as the ACNA and referred the inquirer to Jones himself. However, they did not provide any details in regards to who in the Church of England had recognized Jones’ consecration and under what circumstances. Nor did they volunteer where documentation of this recognition of the consecration is to be found.” Jones’ supporters have always done so with gusto, and that is certainly the case today.
I would urge my readers to take a look at Jordan’s material on the subect. That said, I have a few observations to make as follows:
- Jordan’s question “Does Bishop Jones’ reception signal that the ACNA is no longer pursuing Anglican Communion recognition?” has largely been answered elsewhere. The new Archbishop of Canterbury (if she can get past her safeguarding woes) has done what years of stating the obvious to ACNA dreamers has not: the whole idea of the ACNA being a part of the “old” Church of England-centred Anglican Communion is dead. What will come out of the upcoming Abuja meeting will be interesting and impactful, but getting past those dreams is a step forward, and it’s unfortunate that it happened when the ACNA is mired in its internal problems.
- Jordan’s leitmotif is that North American Anglicanism needs to get back to a more Reformed, Protestant way, and much of what he says here–and elsewhere–is directed towards that aim. Irrespective of the merits of that, I don’t see that happening. Looking at recent history, if the Reformed Episcopal Church can be moved in an Anglo-Catholic direction, how can anyone else reverse course? Catholicism has appeal for two reasons. The first is that it, like the Patriarch Nikon’s reforms vs. the Old Believers, makes people feel that they’re “keeping up with the Jonses'” (pun unintended) when in fact they’d be better off being the Jonses! And someone needs to point out that the Catholicism generally practiced in parishes (outside perhaps the Trads) today has little to do with the Anglo-Catholicism we see in Anglican/Episcopal circles. The second is that it is authoritarian in structure and administration, and the very Gothardian Boomers in the ACNA feel a strong thrill up their leg when they think about that. (This also speaks to the accountability issue.)
- I do not believe that the ACNA’s chaplaincy should have been a separate diocese but a department of the central church. Most of the present fiasco would have been avoided if it had been constituted as a department to start with.
- The ACNA has too many dioceses and bishops; with its “rickety chandelier” structure and authoritarian mindset amongst much of its leadership, problems are inevitable. Instead of worrying about his ordination, a more significant question regarding Derek Jones–or anyone else the ACNA has brought into its episcopal or clerical rank–is whether they are team players. We saw this play out with AMiA Bishop Chuck Murphy. The Africans expect it and the Roman Catholics expect it but lessons unlearned are lessons repeated.
I’ve communicated with people on both sides of the Jones matter. I can’t help but think that, given the entry of the U.S. court system into the fracas–and we all know what happens with that–there will be no real winners when everything is said and done. Hopefully the ACNA, something which many of us looked at with optimism at its start, will weather the rough seas and end up safe in the harbour.
Positive Infinity 