Yates believes it matters or he wouldn't have said it.

Why would it matter? One possibility is that some parishioners want to be assured that although they've left The Episcopal Church they have not left the Anglican Communion. So Yates dissembles to keep them.

There's no trademark on the word Anglican. Yates can call his parish Anglican. He is calling it The Falls Church Anglican. Perhaps Anglican is a description of the ethos of the parish. But that doesn't make the parish a member of the Anglican Communion.

The Falls Church Episcopal is part of the Anglican Communion through its membership in The Episcopal Church. It welcomes any and all.

This all goes back to the "branch" argument in the lawsuits. If it can be shown that they are part of a legitimate "branch" of the Anglican Communion it might matter. The problem is that this goes right up against the traditional Anglican understanding of national churches, enshrined in the 39 articles to which so many give so much lip service. It is very unlikely that the Communion will recognize such a breach in polity, since it is central to the reason the C of E asserted its independence from Rome. The few places in the world where overlapping jurisdiction exists is due to historical circumstance, and efforts to work through it are under way.

What the Virginia Supreme Court ruled was that the Church of Nigeria was not a branch of The Episcopal Church for the purposes of the peculiar secular Virginia statute. The court didn't opine on the Anglican Communion's system of provinces. (Going on memory here.)

I say that in order to make your point all the more clear, Tobias. The Virginia courts have not ruled on whether Yate's church is in the Anglican Communion, nor is it in their purview; they have established ownership of property. That is established by the Communion. Once you leave the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church but remain in its jurisdictional territory you cease being a member of the Communion. If Yates wants an exception there exist procedures; ACNA has not pursued those.

Know why the Episcopal Church is "officially" Anglican, Jim? Because in 1868 or thereabouts, the Archbishop of Canterbury at the time invited the Episcopal bishops to the first Lambeth Conference. That's the only reason. If the Episcopal bishops hadn't been invited, TEC would occupy the same position vis-a-vis the rest of the Anglican world that ACNA occupies now.

Don't get me wrong; I think Yates' claim is silly and more a little counterproductive. As far as I'm concerned, you guys are more than welcome to keep the "official" connection to an institution a little more than a century old since (A) it's a worthless, meaningless bauble and (B) if what is now traditionalist Anglicanism wants to have a chance at success, it needs to completely reinvent itself. And the very first thing it needs to do to accomplish that is to get clear of the cold, dead hand of the See of Canterbury.

Christopher, I am not sure there is agreement on this point. Some folks on your side of the sexuality argument have argued that the standards of membership are broader than you assert. I am just pointing out here that ACNA has not been included in any of the so-called Instruments of Union or Communion or whatever we are supposed to call them. Not the Lambeth Conference, not the Primates Meeting, not the Anglican Consultative Council. And no recognition by Canterbury, either.

Like you, I don't know that this particular game is worth winning. But the Episcopal Church is 4-4 and ACNA is 0-4.

The "Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh" says on its website that they "are members of the worldwide Anglican Communion." I think that originally they considered themselves part of the AC via the Anglican Church of the Southern Cone, but I think the Southern Cone terminated that supposed connection a couple of years ago. Maybe they think that just saying it makes it so.

Jim,

You're absolutely right. Frankly, I wish my side would stop playing the game altogether. What used to be traditionalist Anglicanism has to forge its own identity and, in order to do that, the very first thing it has to do is to stop worrying about whether it's officially connected to Canterbury or not. That ship has sailed.

But in far more important spiritual issues, get Harper and Strasburg a supporting cast or you're going to lose both of them the first chance they get to try their luck on the market. And tell the Nats not to be afraid to go the veteran route. It worked here last year with Lance Berkman and it's working again this year with Carlos Beltran. For that matter, if you can talk John Mozeliak, our GM, east, your chances go way up. Last year's champion and this year's club are all his so the kid's got a pretty good track record so far. :-)

Christopher, I am very impressed with the Cards GM. At this point in the season, even letting Pujols go looks like a smart move. I think the Nats actually have a decent team when everyone is healthy. I don't know enough about the bullpen to be entirely confident, but otherwise, I think they have at every position except 1B the person whom they will likely want at that position for a few years to come.

Why would anyone being opposed to ACNA being members of the Anglican Communion? Is there room for "all voices" or just the voices that certain people want to hear?

There is room for all voices but they have to stay at the table in their own province according to the rules of the Anglican Communion. You do not get to pick and choose your Primate from one in another Province. Cross border intervention in a province is not allowed -- an early council of the whole church declared this. ACNA left the Episcopal Church which is the only expression of the Anglican Communion in the United States and several other countries in TEC.

I think with all of the changes, this might be a necessary change to make in order to maintain some peace. Maybe it's time.

1) There sure doesn't seem to be a lot of Communion in the Anglican Communion, so my first impulse, today, is why quibble with the misguided leader of the Falls Church Whatever.

2) Letting Albert Pujols go was a cheap, idiotic move but not unexpected given the ridiculous way the ownership of this team has acted over the last many years, and I say this as a Cardinals fan who is tired of seeing ownership demand loyalty from players they treat like chumps. And let's not even start about the Rams....

3) What do these things have in common? The way , in both instances, arrogant grandstanding has taken the place of relationship and concern for substance over form.

For those who feel that "it does not matter" I would suggest that branding and names matter very much. They matter in the corporate as well as the religious world. If the ACNA folks felt strongly enough their need to become minority schismatics, then they need to give up the fiction that they are part of the larger Anglican communion. To claim that they are is the "spin" that serves to advance their cause and to harm those of the legitimately constituted national church in the US, namely TEC.
To "allow them back in" because "it's time" hardly seems appropriate to me. If they wish to repent of their schism and return to TEC, then I would think that would be possible. We can be as compassionate as the mission and message of the church allow, but to "welcome them back" under no conditions is to provide them with a stamp of approval that could very well harm TEC legally, morally and in the arena of public opinion. It would give our tacit approval to their anti-LGBT, anti-women and ultimately, "un-Anglican" beliefs. With the covenant not yet fully dead in the water, I do not think that "letting them into the club" makes any sense at all.

Anne is right - you don't get to pick your Province if the Anglican Communion short of moving to another country, generally. And that's a good thing, at least theoretically. It keeps Anglican Churches from being conventicles of the like- minded, ensuring that you have to work with people with whom you disagree. At least, it used to be that way.

As far as branding and names are concerned, I wonder if that ship has already sailed. There are still plenty of parishes around which split with TEC over the ordination of women and the 1979 BCP. They all use the "Anglican" name in some fashion. I am sure I am not the only one who associates that word with "schismatic arch conservative."

I think he's asserting membership in the AC through CANA and the Church of Nigeria, not through the ACNA. CANA's website states that its clergy and congregations are "authentically in the Anglican Communion through the sponsorship of the Church of Nigeria."

The ACNA itself is not a province of the AC. Nor is it likely to become one anytime soon. In the great scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. The ACNA's best hope for growth is among the un-churched, most of whom don't care whether +Duncan (or +Jefferts Schori) are invited to the next primates' meeting or Lambeth Conference.

[Thanks for the comment. Please sign your name next time.]

I'm not sure what happened with that last comment. I thought I had signed in. Anyway, it was from me.

Paul Powers, the CANA website can say anything they want to, but that doesn't make it the truth. As I recall, the CANA bishops were not invited to Lambeth last time. Surely they're no more part of the Anglican Communion than the AMiA is?

That's what it's about now, being "a club"? When I said "it's time", I figured, since so many things were changing, there is no real reason to hold that particular rule in place. If other things can change, that particular thing should be able to as well, and I think the next ABC just might put that on the table.

One slight correction: The Ugandan delegate whom the ACC refused to seat wasn't part of the ACNA. That was few months before the ACNA was organized.

One slight correction: The Ugandan delegate whom the ACC refused to seat wasn't part of the ACNA. That was few months before the ACNA was organized.