(thoughts to promote better thoughts from others)

Questions and Thoughts on the DENVER CONSECRATIONS
scheduled D.V. for June 24

1. Does the Anglican Way in the USA need more bishops?

Apparently so! For the AMiA [Anglican Mission in America] intends to make
four such on June 24 in Denver.

The American Episcopal Church has more bishops than any other Province in
the Anglican Communion and this is not because it has the most members. To
this number, we need to add those with the office of bishop in the
Continuing Anglican Jurisdictions and in the Reformed Episcopal Church –
around 100 in all.

The ratio of bishop to membership in the ECUSA is perhaps about 1:6000
whereas outside the ECUSA it is perhaps about 1:500 (here bishop includes
active and retired)

As of today the AMiA has 37 congregations, varying in size, with two
bishops, one of whom is semi-retired. After the 24th June it will have 37
congregations and six bishops. Then probably the ratio will be around 1:400
and will get larger as new congregations are added. But it will take a long
time to catch up with the ECUSA (even though by international comparison,
ECUSA has far too many bishops).

2. Are there similarities between the origins of the Continuing Anglican
Church [jurisdictions] and the origins of the Anglican Mission in America?

Yes. Each movement has gone out from the Episcopal Church USA to begin a
new Church/Province. Each began with the claim to be continuing the true
Episcopal or Anglican doctrine and ethos – but that of 1976 was primarily
anglo-catholic and focused on women priests as the presenting issue of
apostasy, while that of 2000 is primarily charismatic & evangelical and
focused on lack of true leadership by bishops causing apostasy as the
presenting issue.

Further, each movement seemed to be obsessed from the beginning with the
need for bishops in abundance (when it may be recalled that the Anglican
Church as such existed in the USA until the 1780s without bishops and only
had a few in its early years when it became independent from the C of E; in
fact the genius of the American Anglican Church has been – practically
speaking -- that it has been from parish to diocese rather from diocese to
parish and thus bishops have been the final layer on the cake not the
foundation of the cake).

3. Is there any major difference between the 1976 and the 2000 departures
from ECUSA?

Perhaps. The AMiA has had the support of two Primates and its 6 bishops
have the “protection” of these Primates [3 by each]--- but not full rights
as members of the House of Bishops of the two Provinces because they were
not elected in the canonical way of these Provinces. This connection of the
AMiA to two Primates provides it with the claim that it is within the
Anglican Communion of Churches -- a claim disputed by the Archbishop of
Canterbury and most Primates. In contrast, the Continuing Anglican Church
(which quickly subdivided after 1976 into various factions and remains so
divided in 2001) has never made a claim to be in the Communion even though
it has claimed always to be Anglican.

4. How good are the prospects for the creation of an orthodox Anglican
Province in the USA as an integral part of the Anglican Communion if
Churches and an alternative to the ECUSA?

Not very good. Certainly the AMiA sees itself as a Province in embryonic
form. However, to become a Province it will need not only acceptance by the
See of Canterbury but also [to have credibility in the USA] it will need to
draw to itself a major proportion of the membership of the Continuing
Anglican Jurisdictions and of the Reformed Episcopal church and of would-be
orthodox parishes within the present ECUSA. Now both of these are
problematic. The present Archbishop of Canterbury is unlikely to change his
mind and embrace the AMiA. Incorporating the Continuers will be extremely
difficult because the AMiA seems to be monochrome in churchmanship
(charismatically evangelical) and in doctrine (liberal evangelical allowing
women deacons and perhaps priests) and somewhat insensitive to both
traditional Evangelical Anglicanism ( JC Ryle etc.,) using the classic BCP
and [moreso] to anglo-catholics who dominate the membership of the
Continuing Churches and of the Forward in Faith movement.

5. Why did not the AMiA appoint and set apart four Evangelists to work to
make converts and establish societies/missions/ churches (with John Wesley
& George Whitefield as models)?

I can only guess. Lack of leadership by ECUSA bishops, not to mention
their false doctrines, has been a major word out of the AMiA and from Bishop
Chuck Murphy (its leader). This being so what had to be established to make
the AMiA not merely plausible but credible was real leaders, real bishops in
an Anglican polity. So whereas evangelists was the real need, bishops were
sought in the hope that the bishops as leaders would be evangelists as well,
for preaching the Gospel is certainly a priority for the AMiA.

[The Rev’d Dr. Peter Toon, Sunday June 17th 2001]