Well, there you are: Archbishop of ACNA understands ACNA as a new denomination.

The New York Times asked Robert Duncan, deposed bishop of Pittsburgh and Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, "How large is this new denomination of yours?" He responded, "In June, when the Anglican Church in North America was constituted, there were 702 congregations. Right now there are 755."

That was two days ago and granted the article, by Deborah Solomon, was printed as an "Interview...condensed and edited."

But the interesting thing is Duncan does not deny that ACNA is a new denomination. This in contradistinction to the notion that ACNA is the instrument by which his "call now is to lead all those Anglicans who stand where Anglicans have always stood."

This is NOT the continuing real successor to the Episcopal Church, which church has slipped into apostasy and heresy. This is a new thing, a new denomination. That means that all this business of claiming to be the rightful benefactor and holder of persons, places and things related to The Episcopal Church is hokum.

ACNA and Duncan have formed a new denomination, different from any other denomination. They are not the inheritors of The Episcopal Church. They may attempt to be the usurpers. But that is a different story.

The New York Times did not follow up on that possibility.

He also had odd things to say about the Presiding Bishop:

"Bishop Schori heads the Episcopal Church in this country, and you opposed her election in 2006?

She was the least qualified, the least experienced, of the candidates, but I hoped that what she would bring if she were elected was the kind of grace that women often bring. She turned out to be far harder, far less willing to bend or compromise, than any of the men."

So what is his problem? That she was least qualified? No it is that she might have brought "the kind of grace that women often bring." She was not feminine enough? She did not conform to his idea of what a woman's grace might consist of? Come on.

He doesn't like her because she doesn't give way to men.

This inteview with the New York Times is a disaster.


  1. "This interview is a disaster."

    Like we would expect anything less from Mr. Duncan?!

  2. Ah...a continued affirmation of "the girls are icky club."

  3. Duncan's edited sanswer does not address the premise of the question - namely, that ACNA is a new denomination. Now you may well be right that Duncan thinks of ACNA as a new denomination, but you can't deduce it from this interview.
    One thing we do know is that provinces in the Anglican Communion consider themselves in communion with him.
    But then again maybe we make too much of whether denominational structures are "in communion". Are we not in communion with all Christians?

  4. I would want to see verbatim the actual question he answered before saying he agreed it's a denomination. He may not have been asked in those terms. My own opinion is that it is well on its way to being a denomination, but it hasn't quite jelled enough yet. It's long term or even medium term coherence is pretty hypothetical at this time. The article was at a level of ignorance the NYT should be ashamed of.

  5. Duncan could do worse than read a decent biography of the lady for whom the Elizabethan Settlement is named (I see,incidentally, that he let the Henry VIII canard go uncorrected in the interview). Also still clinging to his Imaginary Friend Rowan.

  6. The problem was "she was less willing to compromise". The ultraright wanted someone who would bend over backwards to give them control. That is the whole problem.

  7. James wrote, "The problem was "she was less willing to compromise". The ultraright wanted someone who would bend over backwards to give them control. That is the whole problem." Another proof that the bending over backwards of TEC to the newly elected PB's over-backwards plea, at GC 2006 - BO33 - was a waste, except in so far as we were able to prove to ourselves that nothing short of capitulation in sackcloth and ashes and turning the keys of the kingdom over to Bp Duncan et al would satisfy, and I bet you anything even that would not have been enough.

    Time for me to move on. The "magic word" for comment moderation is "suppe" as in "wilt thou suppe with me, Bob?"

  8. What I find interesting in the NYT's interview is Duncan's remarks about his parents. Must not have been a joyous childhood and adulthood experience. Any unfinished business?

    Fr. Maxwell Smart+

  9. Two deputies to General Convention whom I trust told me that Bishop Duncan walked out when Bishop Schori was being installed as presiding bishop. Bishop Duncan also barred Bishop Schori from visiting any parishes in our diocese while he was diocesan bishop, even though she was invited here by Pittsburgh clergy. It was not until All Saints' Day last year, after Bishop Duncan & his followers departed from the Episcopal Church for the Southern Cone,that I was able to see & hear Bishop Schori in person.

  10. So what do you do with an ACNA congregation half a mile up the road?

  11. And you didn't even get INTO the "mother issues."

  12. The guy has woman issues.

  13. Hard to defend Schori, really, in light of her patently duplicitious and illegal use of the wrong canon to discipline Duncan, which she can only do b/c there is no mechanism, no idependent body, that exists apart from the HOB (which is politically aligned with her) to interrogate her fantastic interpetations of the canons.

    She also torpedoed Peter Lee's protocol for departing parishes and has made policy, in effect, for other dioceses which were trying to come to gracious settlements.

    This is not to mention the weird things she says about Jesus, faith, and the church. John

  14. To all lurkers, Duncan and his little groupies are lying. It's what they do. If anyone wishes to defend the Presiding Bishop detail by detail, feel free, but, if it worries you that much, look at the posts for any and/or every Duncan-contrived "controversy" on this very blog and you will see full and cogent answers to his hissy fits.

    The "charges" have been answered satisfactorily - ad nauseam - and the only thing left to say is: That, folks, is why Duncan and his supporters are lying! Enjoy!

  15. Is it significant in any way that the 'time stamp' on all of these comments is WAAAAAYYYY off?

  16. Dear Elizabeth...I think some of the comments are way off, indeed. (Never yours of course.) As to the time stamps I get them in the right order, at least I think. Using D,M,Y I get yours as the 10th of November, 09.

    Looking back they all seem in order.

    Maybe our computers are handling it differently.

    Who knows?

    Meanwhile, love the major project you are doing on Professional Standards.


OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.