Well said, Mark+

I'll have some coffee too!

Erich+
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Clavier+" <anglican@...>
To: <faithandlife@...>; "Michael L. Ward" <mward@...>
Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: [FaithandLife] ECUSA


> Y'all,
>
> I've been giving some thought to the discussion we have been having
> regarding our ecumenical talks with the Episcopal Church.  A few things
have
> occurred to me.
>
> First of all, it would be naive to think that these talks would be
> universally received well.  Some of us may even have members of our
parishes
> who might walk (or have threatened to do so) if we should enter into any
> type of binding agreement with the Episcopal Church.  Considering that
some
> parishes have lost 1 or 2 members over our plan to unite with the REC,
this
> concern may be very real.  To date, many of our parishes cannot easily
> afford the loss of membership.  Incidentally, the looney left in ECUSA is
> having absolute fits over the news of these talks.
>
> Second, most of us have been fed on a steady diet of anti-ECUSA for a long
> time now.  Many still feel the hurt of wounds gained when leaving the
> Episcopal Church.  And lots of our laity who are former Episcopalians had
> mentally to write-off the Episcopal Church in order to stomach a
separation.
> In recent years, the writings of David Virtue have not helped Continuing
> Anglicans get past the happenings within ECUSA.  We have also remained
> focused on the scandals and heresies of ECUSA even while we ignore (quite
> innocently) the good that still goes on.  Indeed, such is the state of the
> Continuing Church that we really have never had the means nor the
legitimacy
> to reach out to the good that still goes on in the Episcopal Church.
>
> Third, in my view we must really begin facing up to the fact that short of
a
> miracle, the Continuing Church isn't going to amount to much of anything.
> The expected 1,000,000 members mentioned in 1977 has materialized into no
> more than 30,000 in the USA spread out among a dizzying array of
> jurisdictions.  The APA has enjoyed wonderful prosperity as of late, but
we
> have only now reached the membership level of 1994.  Nationwide we are
half
> the size we were in 1991 before uniting with +Falk's crowd.  And while we
> have experienced growth (as has the PCK) the rest of the movement has
> shrunk.  The ACC is a shadow of its former self.  The ACA, which before
the
> split numbered close to 9,000, has only about 4,000 members.
>
> Obviously, numbers aren't everything.  But they do mean something.  If
what
> we hold to is good and true, then the fruits of it should be evident in
our
> spreading of God's Kingdom.  I believe what we hold to is good and true,
but
> what we openly espouse is too often a negative conservatism.  Certainly,
> this is much less true for the APA (hence our growth), but it nevertheless
> remains a feature of the Continuum.
>
> Fourth, as you all know I have been a member of the Continuing Church (and
> of this diocese) all my life.  I can dmily recall when we amounted to no
> more than a few living room churches with only a handful of membership.  I
> can recall the prosperous days of the late 80s when the AEC was becoming
the
> main traditionalist body within the USA.  And I can recall the excitement
of
> the Deerfield Beach Synod in 1991 when it appeared that we would achieve
> critical mass.  And, because of all that, I can enjoy with wonderment the
> many strong parishes we have today.  And so, I can appreciate that while
> haven't seen much numerical growth, we have seen tremendous inward growth.
>
> But in all this time, I have witnessed failed unity schemes, ugly schism,
> and a constant rhetoric against the Episcopal Church.  I was surrounded by
> it growing up and, not surprisingly, mouthed it myself upon reaching
> adulthood.
>
> Watching us tear each other apart, complain about the liberals in the
> Episcopal Church, and mix all that up with secular politics, it has
> increasingly weighed upon me (especially as an ecumenical officer) that we
> are desperate need of changing our course.  Because what we are amounting
> to, despite our own desires, is simply a small sect that can't be
justified
> from a Catholic perspective.  This is why I weary of talk about the
> "faithful remnant."  Not only is it a wee bit self-righteous, but it also
> confirms us in our isolation.  Besides, if according to OT propheicies,
the
> Church is the "faithful remnant" then it get's a little absurd to call
> ourselves "the faithful remnant of the faithful remnant."  It doesn't
speak
> very highly of God either.
>
> All this (and much more) is why I place so much importance on our talks
with
> ECUSA.  Not only are we being afforded the chance to enter into a wider
> fellowship (with churches that still contain many who agree with us and
many
> more in need of hearing us) but also the chance to stop identifying
> ourselves in opposition to "official" Anglicanism.  Yes, they ordain
women.
> Yes, they have failed to prevent the local use of same-sex blessing
> liturgies.  Yes, they use a different prayer book.  These are real matters
> for us to tackle, something we can't easily do from the security of
> "splendid isolation."  I, for one, can't decide if the above heresies are
> better or worse than the frivolous view we have of schism.
>
> Any way, just my early morning thoughts!  Time for more coffee.
>
> Mark+
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to
<faithandlife-unsubscribe@...>
>