|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Network Announcement Seeks to Give Appearance of ProgressPittsburgh, Pennsylvania — June 21, 2004 — Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP), a member of the Via Media USA alliance of grassroots groups working to preserve the traditional theological diversity of the Episcopal Church, today criticized as misleading an announcement by six supposedly independent groups that they intend “to make common cause … for a united, missionary and orthodox Anglicanism in North America.” The June 17 announcement by the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes (NACDAP) describes a letter written by the leaders of the six groups to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams pledging to work together. PEP believes that the NACDAP press release is intended to give the appearance of growth within the conservative movement when, in fact, little progress is being made in luring Episcopalians from the Episcopal Church. The announcement follows conspicuous frustration among NACDAP supporters at the recent “Plano West” conference that the network is not growing as anticipated, the concern that network views will be discounted by the Lambeth Commission if the NACDAP is seen to be foundering, and recent press reports observing that the damage done to the Episcopal Church has been minimal. Less than it appearsThe promised coöperation among the six conservative groups is, on close examination, less than it appears. The six are hardly six independent groups, and they represent fewer people than their press release suggests. President David Anderson signed the joint letter for the American Anglican Council (AAC), which created the NACDAP. Anderson also serves as secretary for the network. Until very recently, Robert Duncan, the network moderator and Bishop of Pittsburgh, who signed for the network, was also vice president of the AAC. He continues to sit on the AAC board. The two parachurch organizations have worked tirelessly but unconvincingly to portray themselves as somehow fundamentally distinct, but their close coöperation and interlocking leadership belie their public protestations. Most parishes affiliated with the AAC are in dioceses that have joined the NACDAP. Forward in Faith North America (FiFNA), a tiny group of opponents of women’s ordination, has been integral to the NACDAP at least since its organizational charter, which provides for a special “convocation” designated for parishes opposed to women’s ordination, was drafted. Thus, the announced alliance with FiFNA has not added new supporters to the existing network. Irregularly consecrated bishop Charles Murphy signed for the Anglican Mission in America (AMiA), a “missionary” effort claiming sponsorship by the Anglican primates of Rwanda and South East Asia but not recognized as part of the Anglican Communion. The AMiA consists of approximately 65 congregations that have already left the Episcopal Church. Presiding Bishop Leonard Riches signed the letter on behalf of the Reformed Episcopal Church (REC), a conservative church that broke away from the Episcopal Church in 1873. This church has fewer than 14,000 communicants in the U.S., but it has been courted assiduously by network moderator Robert Duncan, who recently allowed a REC bishop to celebrate the Eucharist and confirm parishioners in an Episcopal church in the Pittsburgh Diocese. Presiding Bishop Walter Grundorf signed on behalf of the Anglican Province in America (APA). The APA, which consists of about 50 congregations, broke away from the Episcopal Church in 1970. This church, which uses the 1928 Prayer Book, is in the process of merging with the REC, with which it now shares a Web site. It is important to recognize that the agreement touted by the network press release is one among leaders. We doubt that unity with the NACDAP has been much discussed in, for example, APA churches. However close theologically ordinary members of the groups whose leaders have pledged to make common cause with the AAC and NACDAP may feel to those organizations, they may well not want to involve themselves in yet another fight with the Episcopal Church or a wider struggle with worldwide Anglicanism. More troubling is the contention that nine network dioceses “provide pastoral oversight for approximately 140,000” Episcopalians. First, only eight dioceses are known to have joined the network officially. (The list of network dioceses recently disappeared from the NACDAP Web site, and the press release does not enumerate the nine network dioceses.) Moreover, substantial opposition to the network exists in each network diocese. In Bishop Duncan’s own diocese, parishes representing over 27% of diocesan communicants have formally repudiated association with the NACDAP. Via Media USA groups and their supporters, who reject the need for the NACDAP, reside in each diocese that has joined the network. The network does not speak for these Episcopalians, even if they are currently under the pastoral care of a network bishop. Additional ironiesThe NACDAP press release is curious in light of the fact that network leaders have repeatedly emphasized the innocuousness of their organization. Bishop Duncan has often spoken about remaining within the Episcopal Church and obeying its rules, of working within the Episcopal Church. The letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury emphasizes a concern for unity: “The divisions [among the orthodox in North America] are, in fact, scandalous and we recognize that we must do everything we can to bring them to an end.” Network supporters seem to harbor no such guilt with respect to unity with the 90+% of the Episcopal Church not overseen by network bishops, however. REC, AMiA, and APA members, on the other hand, are outside both the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Clearly, what network leaders are looking for are allies, wherever they can be found and at any cost. The new alliance may prove troublesome, however. The AMiA has encouraged parishes to leave the Episcopal Church and join the AMiA, bringing their property with them. What will happen now if the local bishop overseeing such a congregation is part of the NACDAP? What of his obligation under Episcopal Church canons to protect Episcopal Church property? Or is the AMiA now going to restrict its recruiting of new congregations to non-network dioceses in deference to the NACDAP? Will all parishes unhappy with the Episcopal Church and sympathetic to the AMiA be willing to remain Episcopal Church parishes under a network bishop? PEP suspects that these details have not been worked out. The groups included in the new alliance are united in their opposition to the Episcopal Church, yet their opposition was born of different issues in different times and places. The NACDAP has already taken the FiFNA into its bosom, yet even most network supporters, like the overwhelming majority in the Episcopal Church, seem to support women’s ordination. Even network leaders have acknowledged that the accommodations made for the sake of unity on this issue are uneasy. The fact that the AMiA has come out publicly against women’s ordination can only exacerbate tensions within the new alliance. It is difficult to believe that the unity in the conservative ranks advertised in their announcement will not, in time, fall prey to disagreements over the Prayer Book, the importance of ritual, and other heretofore unidentified issues. Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh calls for all these groups to rethink their narrow focus and consider whether the traditional broad and tolerant “big tent” of the Episcopal Church is not the best place for all American inheritors of our Anglican tradition to thrive. Contact: Additional Web references: Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh is an organization of clergy and laypeople committed to unity and diversity of the Episcopal Church and of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. |