The Episcopal Church in Haiti: Stretching towards a new future.

-->

The 2018 statistical reports for the Episcopal Church are out. There is considerable wringing of hands and some very enlightening commentary around. Among the most challenging is the commentary by Crusty OldDean, Tom Furgerson.  His conclusions present one sort of challenge for TEC, namely to get off the high horse of acting like a corporation. I hope the General Convention will listen to him. Unfortunately, the track record on critical rethinking by TEC is not good. The last round of efforts to deal with the structural problems of TEC fell decidedly flat.

Hidden in the weeds of the Statistical Reports are interesting bits of information regarding the resilience of at least one diocese in TEC. On the basis of the records received from the dioceses, it would appear that the Episcopal Church in Haiti, with 89,717 baptized members, is the largest diocese in TEC. And, looking at ASA (Average Sunday Attendance) figures, it ranks among the top 10 dioceses. It is among only 8 dioceses that have recorded an increase over the last 10 years, and this in spite of the terrible earthquake of 2010.  It has more members than Province 6 or 9. About one in 20 baptized members of TEC is Haitian.

The Episcopal Church in Haiti is remarkably resilient. Even with the horrendous earthquake, governmental and economic uncertainty and accusations and counter-accusations within the leadership of the church, the church has continued in its ministry and is growing.

It is within this context that The Venerable Fritz Bazin has challenged the Episcopal Diocese in Haiti and The Episcopal Church to a conversation about the future for a more autonomous Church in Haiti. 

Archdeacon Bazin is an honorary canon of the Episcopal Church in Haiti and in the Diocese of South East Florida he is Archdeacon for Immigration and Social Justice.

On July 30, 2019, Archdeacon Bazin wrote the following to church leaders in Haiti and officers of The Episcopal Church:

“On July 19th the Anglican Communion News Service posted a photo of Archbishop Fred Hiltz of Canada, anointing the leader of Canada’s National Indigenous Anglican Church.  This gesture clearly points to a courageous action of the Canadian Church to grant a certain autonomy to this indigenous Anglican expression.

Bishop Mark McDonald, now Archbishop of this Indigenous church said “people often misinterpret what we’re doing as an attempt at independence away from the church.  We really wish to become an indigenous expression of the church and we are only asking for freedom and dignity that other Anglicans already enjoy.

Although there are various reasons that often cause misunderstanding between the mother church and her former “missions” now Dioceses, what took place in Canada invites us all to look at the need for greater autonomy of the churches in countries of marked cultural differences.

In 2001, the late Canon Jacques Bossiere published a study in French entitled “L’ame de Anglicanisme” in which he points to the need to “deanglicise” the Anglican communion, meaning that Anglicans in Africa, Latin America or the Caribbean do not need to resemble the church in Great Britain, in Ecclesiology, Liturgy and Theology as long as they preserve the basic tenants of Anglicanism.

Our Episcopal Church today is an international structure, yet it is still in the image of the church in the United States of America.  The Canons of the Church in Haiti, The Dominican Republic or Honduras reflect the American form of governance, liturgical practices and theological positions in almost every area of the faith.

Exploring the possibility of granting the greatest possible autonomy to our overseas churches would offer a more powerful testimony of the spirit of Anglicanism.   

I am inviting the church in Haiti and the general leadership of the Episcopal Church to prayerfully initiate dialogue towards a special autonomy of the Haitian Church within the structures of the Episcopal Church.”

As TEC prepares for the work of the 2021 General Convention, the Church is challenged to consider the possibility of “a special autonomy of the Haitian Church within the structures of the Episcopal Church.”

My sense is that among the concerns that need to be part of that dialogue on special autonomy we will find the following:

(i)             There have been wide-ranging discussions in Haiti of dividing the current single diocese into 4 dioceses, with appropriate changes in expectations of and provisions for the episcopate – “locally adapted in the methods of its administration” to the Haitian context. (see the Lambeth Quadrilateral.) This concerns the church being self-propagating.

(ii)            A change in expectations of engagement in the life of TEC so that the burdens of TEC engagement do not put a strain on the resources of The Episcopal Church in Haiti. (ECH).  (This concerns changing the representation of ECH at General Convention, representation in the House of Bishops, and provision for canonical differences reflecting the Haitian context.) This concerns the church being self-governing.

(iii)          There will have to be a clear understanding of the extent to which the ECH is financially dependent or independent of TEC support, and a greater sense of its ability to be self-sustaining.

That is, the ECH and TEC are being challenged to a dialogue concerning the Henry Venn’s marks of indigenous churches: that they be self-governing, self-propagating, and self-sustaining.  At the same time, ECH and TEC need also to take the Canadian model seriously: that autonomy does not mean the dissolution of unity with others, but rather greater regard for the uniqueness of ministries within the body of the Church. Autonomy can be enjoyed in mutual responsibility and interdependence.

The stretch for a new future for the Episcopal Church in Haiti is a reality. We in TEC need to stretch too to meet the Church in Haiti at a place of dialogue where such a future can be celebrated by the whole body of the Church.

Why I am not giving to the"Bless, 2019 Annual Appeal."

On Holy Saturday I received, as did many of us Episcopalians, I suppose, “Bless, 2019 Annual Appeal” from the Episcopal Church Center. I am only now able to get around to responding to this.

I have decided not to respond by supporting this fund. Here is why:

According to the Presiding Bishop’s Cover Letter (on the inside of the front cover of the Appeal booklet), “The General Convention of our Church gave us a goal of raising $1 million over the 2019-2021 triennium, with every dollar going to support the collective ministries of a Church…”

The booklet then features seven individuals whose work blesses and is a blessing. These are people engaged in the “collective ministries” of the Church. I know several of them personally, and they are wonderful people doing really good and important work. They are indeed a blessing and blessed.

Still there are problems with this appeal.

(i) Nothing indicates what the relation is between the funds given and any of these ministries. A number of these are paid employees of the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society. At least one is a Diocesan staff officer. Several serve in federal chaplaincies and are (I assume) paid by the government.

My sense is this funding request is unrelated to the specific stories being told, rather the funding is to augment the general budget. That is both good and bad. Good, because I would hate to think that these specific ministries were on the line if the funding did not come in. Bad because there is a disconnect between the asking and the stories.

(ii) The general budget of the Episcopal Church is underwritten primarily by diocesan support, investment income, and services rendered. This million-dollar goal, over a three-year period, is primarily meant to offer individuals a way to personally give to the work of TEC. In some ways that is commendable and there are some individuals who will want to do this. But the literature does not point out the fact that we already give by way of our pledges to the church, in that some portion of our parish income goes to the diocese, and the diocese pays into the work of the whole church. That is, the literature for this million-dollar fund does not connect it to the funding we already give. The answer to the question, “did you give to the Episcopal Church” is already yes. But many Episcopalians don’t know it. A teaching moment passed.

(iii) My sense is we would be better advised to relate these ministries described in the funding plea to the reason for contributing to your parish, so that parishioners can see the direct relation between their offerings and the work of the whole church.

(iv) If this funding program is meant to reach people who do not otherwise give to the church, fine, but if so, say so. Make this fund an opportunity for thanksgiving by those who do not already give by way of their pledge or offering through the parish.

Unfortunately, this request comes with only a vague connection to the realities of either the breadth of ministries in the church or the budgetary needs to support them. A rather large portion of the TEC budget concerns administration costs, which have little funding appeal. So it is indeed much more interesting to highlight ministries of blessing. But it does seem to me that unless we can see meetings of various committees, costs of support staff, funding of mission by dioceses, as blessings as well, we are not making a compelling case for funding through this project. This funding proposal is for the general budget of the church, not just the work of easily identified blessings.

I believe the funding of the church is the funding of an instrument of blessing and that the accountability for that funding is not by way of highlighting the “easy” avenues of blessing, but by highlighting the blessing that is the whole thing. Meetings of ecumenical committees, committees studying prayer book issues, coordination of particular sorts of ministries (campus ministry, hospital chaplaincies, etc), investment committees, etc. all need to be brought into the ring of blessings.

So, thanks but no thanks. I already give to the work of TEC, and I pay attention to that giving. And, indeed, I see that as supporting a blessing that blesses.

This project needs more work.

Who is minding the store? ACNA's plan to become part of the Anglican Communion.

Concerning the Episcopal Church as part of the Anglican Communion, who is minding the store in Episcopal-land? Beats me. But its time to wake up.

Somewhere in the headwaters of The Episcopal Church (TEC) or the Anglican Church of Canada (ACoC) there needs to be some attention paid to the fact that the American Anglican Council (AAC) is churning away at the process to declare that the Anglican Church in North America is a province of the Anglican Communion, and that TEC and ACoC are not. There needs to be a response from on high. Something more than a news article.  

Until then, let this be a start.

The AAC is playing a dirty game of ecclesiastical politics with hostile takeover in mind.

The American Anglican Council is the mouthpiece for the gang that believes The Episcopal Church has lost its bearings and taken up heresy. From AAC's standpoint TEC's primary heresy is that TEC does not convey the Gospel "once delivered of the saints."  The outward and visible signs of its heresy is seen in ordaining women, particularly to the episcopate, and considering sexual orientation no longer a barrier to full inclusion in the ministries of the church. The inward and spiritual depravity (to hear them tell it) is that TEC is not bible based.

The AAC has mounted a long term campaign to dislodge TEC from its place in the Anglican Communion and replace it with The Anglican Church in North America. This week, in an website article, it has admitted to a "10 year process" by which it is moving to hijack TEC's place in the Communion.

For a long time now ACNA has contended that it is indeed part of the Anglican Communion because it is recognized by a number of the largest national churches in the Communion.The churches that recognize ACNA are Sudan, South Sudan (I assume), Nigeria, Uganda, Tanzania, Kenya, Congo, Rwanda, South America, Southeast Asia, West Africa, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. This is the list of the Primates of the Global South group. They represent 14 out of 39 provinces. 

It is about half way to the goal of gaining approval by 2/3rds the Primates of the Communion. That approval is what ACC believes is needed for inclusion in the Anglican Communion.

The Secretary General of the Anglican Communion has contended that, no, ACNA is not part of the Anglican Communion and that the process is not about garnering more and more votes from Provinces that would reject TEC or the Anglican Church of Canada for the ACNA. From the Anglican Communion News Service -

"The Secretary General, Archbishop Josiah Idowu-Fearon, has stressed that the Anglican Church of North America is not a province of the Anglican Communion. Speaking to ACNS as he delivered his report to the Standing Committee, Archbishop Josiah said he wanted to correct any suggestion that ACNA was the 39^th province of the Communion rather than Sudan, which was inaugurated in July.

“It is simply not true to say that ACNA is part of the Anglican Communion,” he said.  “To be part of the Communion a province needs to be in communion with the See of Canterbury and to be a member of the Instruments of the Communion. ACNA is not in communion with the See of Canterbury – and has not sought membership of the Instruments. 

“There is a long-standing process by which a province is adopted as a province of the Communion. It was a great joy for me to see Sudan go through this process and it was a privilege to be in Khartoum in July to see it become the 39^th member of the Communion. ACNA has not gone through this process.
“ACNA is a church in ecumenical relationship with many of our provinces,” he went on. “But that is also true of many churches, including the Methodist, Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches.”

The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey, President and CEO of the American Anglican Council, has just written this in response to the Secretary General: 

"The Anglican Church in North America is already in a 10-year process of recognition by the Primates, who have the jurisdiction to extend such recognition.  The ACC (Anglican Consultative Council) may offer advice if requested.  They have not been requested by the Primates recognizing The Anglican Church in North America to do so." 
 
So we now have in print the "plan." The idea is this: to get more and more of the Primates to recognize ACNA as a province, arguing in process that those Primates represent the majority of the worlds Anglicans, until finally 2/3 of the Primates recognize ACNA rather that TEC (and the Anglican Church of Canada) as the Province of the Anglican Communion in North America.  As far as the American Anglican Council is concerned, that is sufficient for ACNA to become a province of the Anglican Communion. 

Ashey argues that communion with Canterbury is not essential for a province to be part of the Anglican Communion, nor is recognition by the Anglican Consultative Council. In his read, recognition by 2/3 of the Primates would constitute the basis for inclusion of ACNA. Of course that would be accompanied by those Primates also declaring impaired or perhaps non-existent communion status with TEC.

On its web pages ACNA states, "On April 16, 2009 it was recognized as a province of the global Anglican Communion, by the Primates of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans." Of course recognition by these 14 Primates does not make ACNA a province of the global Anglican Communion. Perhaps it makes ACNA a province of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Churches, but nothing more. 

To be clear: The Anglican Communion is NOT the Global Fellowship of Confessing Churches. Being a province (whatever that means) in the latter does not make a church a province in the former.

The Anglican Communion is not a church. It is "a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer."(from the Preamble to the Constitution of TEC, wording from the resolution from the 1930 Lambeth Conference.)  

The Anglican Communion is "a fellowship."  Nothing about TEC or any member church being part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is compromised by either being or not being part of the Anglican Communion. It is a fellowship of churches willing to share experiences, best practices, mission engagement, and common understandings concerning worship and church order. 

Still, membership in the Anglican Communion means a great deal in the highly divided and broken world of christian churches. It is a sign of catholicity even as catholicity eludes every effort to bind ourselves into a universal church. The Church Catholic is a goal. It is not a reality. 

Still, even with that falling short, the Anglican Communion is about finding ways to be united in the work of the Gospel. It is a pearl of considerable price, and worth it.

Ashey believes the Anglican Communion is joined by being voted in by 2/3rds majority of the Primates, and arguably that those same Primates could effectively "vote out" an offending Province (TEC) by the same process. So the way in is to have more and more of the Provinces choose ACNA rather than TEC. This "10 year process of recognition" doesn't petition the ACC or even the Primates for inclusion as a province. It works at getting Provinces to abandon their relationship to an existing province and choose ACNA instead. It is a process of inclusion by poisoning the well so that a province TEC is excluded and ACNA takes its place.

The AAC would have us believe that the vote of the Primates is all that matters, and that the invitation by the Archbishop of Canterbury to attend Lambeth, or communion with the Church of England by way of his See, or inclusion in the Anglican Consultative Council are all secondary to the decision by the Primates, one at a time, to choose ACNA rather than TEC as the jurisdiction of the Anglican Communion in North America.

This is all a rather complex smoke and mirrors attempt to legitimize the attempt by ACNA to do a hostile takeover of the positions held by TEC and the ACoC as provinces of the Anglican Communion.

That's a form of robbery. In Episcopal-land headwaters it might be useful to remember the Gospel and act accordingly:

"But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into." (Matt 24:43)



It is time for watchers to awake.