The link we provide to The Affirmation of St. Louis is the ACC link, simply because I posted it, and that is the jurisdiction to which I belong. It could as well have been the ACA link, or the UEC link, or the APCK link. Because I have posted the ACC link, you will find that it contains an additional remark that was not in the original. Nonetheless, I believe we all agree with the content of said additional remark. After the place where the Affirmation stated, in the original, "We affirm our continued relations of communion with the See of Canterbury and all faithful parts of the Anglican Communion," the following comment appears: "[Note: Because of the action of General Synod of the Church of England, Parliament, and the Royal Assent, the College of Bishops of the Anglican Catholic Church is obliged no longer to count the See of Canterbury as a faithful part of the Anglican Communion.]"
Near the end of 2007 I was approached with an offer, in fact I was almost drafted really, to be prepared to take over as editor of The Christian Challenge from Auburn Traycik, who has always done a fine job with that publication. And, even though the magazine continued to have an impressive subscription list, near the end of 2008 it could no longer afford to publish. Nonetheless, my duties near the end of 2007 and going into much of 2008, required that I research and stay on top of all the news of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion (and that I know everything I can about our Anglican Continuum). Not only did I read the news; I wrote it. Much of it was, frankly, torture. The news about the official Anglican Communion, including my coverage of the Archbishop of Canterbury, was never good. The constant law suits by the Litigator in Chief of the Episcopal "Church"-or Presiding "Bishop"- was really sickening stuff. It was like a nightmare in which one is strapped to a chair and forced to watch soap operas. "I'll talk, I'll talk! I can't take it anymore!"
It is relevant to the time that we remind ourselves of the mission we have as Continuing Anglicans. It is especially relevant because of the growth of the Common Cause Partnership led by Bp. Robert Duncan into a separate Anglican Province, seeking recognition from Canterbury. Some of the bishops in this movement have my respect, especially the three FiF/NA bishops. We all know that their actions led to Realignment with the Province of the Southern Cone. And, I alone, of all the reporters, wrote that Bishop Jack Iker had identified the original cause of Realignment as the issue of women's ordination, not the newer heresy of homosexualism; not that they accepted that newer heresy. They did not. Nonetheless, whether the Stand Firm people like it or not, it was women's ordination that led to realignment, and that was clearly stated in an October address given by Bishop Iker at a FiF gathering in England.
But, where has Realignment led so far? Archbishop Venables of the Province of the Southern Cone made no move to stop one of the first Realigner bishops, the Canadian Bishop Donald Harvey, from "ordaining" a woman to the priesthood. The silence is clear: This shall be allowed to continue. It has been problem enough that the FiF bishops have never understood why women cannot be ordained to the diaconate; and now they are in communion with a bishop who goes even further on the road of heresy. It has been uncovered that even back in the 1970s, the clever undercurrent of "gay" activists promoted women's ordination every way they could, and that was in order to lead to the present situation. In a sense, the "gay" activists understood something about Holy Orders that many so-called orthodox Anglicans have missed: That is, that it is one sacrament. Also, they seem to have understood the sacramental system and its interdependence: That is, if the sex (I refuse to say "gender") of an individual does not matter in one sacrament (ordination) why should it matter in another (matrimony)? This applies even where secular laws require that the true "intention" be cloaked with the word "blessing." (After all, in the sacrament of Matrimony, blessing the union is what the Church does. How stupid do they think we are?)
This continues to infect the best of the well-meaning "orthodox" Canterbury Anglicans. They allow the one, and in time must accept the other, and imitate the very practices they seek to avoid. It also shows that their use of the word "orthodox" has a slippery definition, adjusting itself to the latest crisis as something merely comparable to the worst of the worst, making the better of the worst seem godly and true relatively speaking. This is reactive and false orthodoxy, since proactive and genuine orthodoxy is consistent with Christ and the Apostles, and can neither be relative nor subject to change. We need to love and pray for the GAFCON and CCP folks, and to have faith that God can reveal the fullness of truth to them, inasmuch as prayers that are uttered apart from faith and charity have no hope of ascending before the throne of God as the incense. This new North American Province is full of people who need our prayers, and wherever possible such patient dialogue as our theologians and bishops may have opportunity to engage them in. And, that need is because of the infection of modern heresies that they have never renounced, because have never fully renounced them.
I remain Anglican by conviction, believing it the best way to be a Christian. And, the Anglican Communion once gave us right doctrine and practice; and we hold that doctrine and practice to carry it into the future. We must do so in this state of separation, that is, without them. In no way is that something we may afford to do without charity and hope for their conversion and return; but in no way can we afford to forget the causes that have impelled our separation.