My "I Told You So" Moment

Update 7 November 2011: Over the weekend, the leadership of AMiA and the R'Wandan church issued a carefully worded denial of the press articles that have emerged regarding the alleged rift between the two institutions. It is amusing to this author to note how carefully it was clearly written, in terms that are similar to those used when AMiA, "redefined" its relationship to ACNA to make it clear that archbishop Duncan is not their primate. I think my observations stand.

At this writing, I have not read anything from Nigeria or the other holier than God groups.

Various news services are reporting that AMiA (the first break away group to leave The Episcopal Church over the ordination of +Gene Robinson) and CANA, the "incursion" church formed by Nigeria's primates to maintain control and over (and cash flow from)ex-pat Nigerians in the US, are causing trouble. Really? I have been predicting this for years!

Here then the view from archbhisop Duncan's desk. AMiA which is a major part of his intended empire church, with almost a third of the membership, is looking to become completely independent. If as my reading of the tea leaves suggests, AMiA won't servive this intact; it is possible that a somewhat smaller body will remain at arm's length as a, "mission partner." For an empire a church builder, this is not good news. Nigeria is up to its old tricks, creating bishops and diocese in the US subject to Nigeria (with pledges.) The new bishop and diocese are not quite in ACNA, which was supposed to be the single primatial structure for the holy in North America, headed by the single holy primate - archbishop Duncan. Oops.

Back on 3 July 2008, I wrote in a discussion of my post regarding the GafCon Communique

"I do think there is an effort there to paper over the cleavages. As I have observed in the past, one cannot build a church on opposition. Sooner or later one must be for something. Clearly, in my reading, the fact that Uganda and Pittsburgh ordain women is a problem for some of the others. The tap dancing on that issue does not lead to a solid statement."

And as I have frequently observed, the history of the St. Louis Declaration is instructive because its pledges of unity gave birth to the fifty or more "jurisdictions" of the Continuum. If one forms a church based on being holier than the other guy, being holier than the old rejected church, one can only expect schisms. After all, any opinion, any idea, or any change is subject to the question of whether it is holy, and schism is the correct response to disagreements. If one decides any thing is not holy, not orthodox; the correct response is that the unholy or unorthodox should be moved outside the fellowship. Schism is the ultimate ad hominem act.

So, I get to join Lionel Deimel. He wrote recently that he told the church: Bishop Lawrence should not have been confirmed and should be removed. He was right. I have written that by leaving TEC, AC Canada or other "indiscriminately inclusive" churches for a world of perfect holiness, the conservatives were on their way to ever more fragmented fractional churches.

I was right. I told you so.

FWIW
jimB