High marks have been awarded to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and the 2009 primates’ meeting by conservative archbishops, who report that consensus was reached following four days of intense talks in Alexandria, Egypt.
“Archbishop Peter Akinola is pleased, I’m pleased, Henry [Orombi] is pleased” with the outcome of the meeting, the Presiding Bishop of the Southern Cone, the Most Rev. Gregory Venables, told The Living Church.
“Something like the freshness of the Holy Spirit” descended upon the meeting, Bishop Venables explained. There was “something different here, something special,” he said. “Without a doubt there was a lot of anger and tension,” he added, but the “orthodox had a calmness and peace” that Bishop Venables attributed to divine intervention.
I’m sorry, it sounds like manufactured blue sky and sunshine to me, given the product on paper. I mean, “Archbishop Orombi urged traditionalists to make their case to Archbishop Williams, as to why they needed a province”? Then he goes on to essentially throw out the pro forma, “Yeah, guys, you have our moral support, best of luck!”
If the case isn’t obvious to Williams and every other province by now, the Anglican Communion is beyond hope.
Disgusting.
Phil, I suggest that you check into things a bit further. I could be wrong but the course is set and Jesus will be the focus of His bride – all eyes upon the Master.
ABp. Orombi actually used the word “club” when refering to the non-Christian part of Anglicanism. I really doubt that he got that from me but I have made that arguement for 5 years or so, regularly calling TEC, “TEClub”.
You might be discusted by whatever proccess is occuring but I truely hope that you are totally sold on the mission of the church.
God bless that mission. God bless the sharing of light in a dark North-American Continent.
Don
But Don, what is the mission of the Anglican “Communion”? We know that the C of E and The Episcopal Organization and their allies regard the furtherance of the Millennium Development Goals as their mission. As for the much-vaunted “Global South” and their sophisticated waffling, one waits for some sign that perhaps some day and in some way they may actually dissociate themselves from their apostate brethren.
3. Dan Crawford wrote:
But Don, what is the mission of the Anglican “Communion�
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you think that Jesus is confused and distracted by the MLGs? Do you think that Jesus Christ cowers in a corner because of the power of TEC and the irrelevance of Rowan Williams? If you are waiting for a “sign” then you are not doing evangelism. If you trust Jesus to sort things out in front of the Great White throne then trust Him to also sort things out this year and next. We tend to worry about the froth upon the water – how it blows, how deep it is, its color and texture, when our primary concern must be the fish beneath.
Dan, I am convinced that God has given you a mission. I also know that all the confusion going on up above (the froth) confuses and increases the difficulty of that mission, but your communion with me (and millions of other lay people) is most probably more vital than the question of “whose in commmunion with whom”, upstairs. Focus on Jesus Christ – see Him, follow Him, Know Him, listen to Him. Humans will continually be a disappointment – even archbishops. Don’t spend too much time looking at them or you must too often be disappointed. Look to Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith and work.
God bless His Church!
Don
These conservative bishops were “pleased” and believed that “something different [was] here, something special,†because they know where they are going and who they are following. It is Jesus Christ. Their grounding has clearly shifted for them from an institutional authority to Biblical authority. As the institution known as the AC moves further away from Biblical authority, they will continue their path and leave an institution behind. Many of them illustrated their ability to do so by not attending Lambeth. These bishops are leaders in Christ and freed by the Holy Spirit to move on as oppose to those institutional leaders who are slaves to the canons, culture and sin.
I would very much like to hear from these gentleman or from Minns or Duncan or Iker or Geurnsey how this communique is helpful and why they conferred their support. Specifically,
Do the churches under their authority agree to not proselytize members of the TEClub? One of the churches main reasons for existence is to provide lifeboats to safety. Do they tell those in the TEClub presently, “Sorry but the lifeboat is full.”?
Do they really think that Communion Partners (which does squat for those in revisionist dioceses) and Ms Schori’s Episcopal visitors (which simply does squat since there are no participants) are sufficient for the disaffected?
The call for more talks is something to be hailed as helpful? But this time they will be mediated! By whom? Peter Carnley is available and has prior experience (of writing reports destined to be bird cage lining). Speaking of the [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5457 ]worthless panel of reference[/url], we have it’s reincarnation, the Pastoral forum, which was mentioned and despite the Lambeth requirement to name members by last October, Rowan hasn’t named anyone.
Some answers, please.
#6, wouldn’t “proselytizing” be deliberately trying to recruit parishes and people from TEC dioceses? Merely responding in Christian love to those requesting admission is another thing, yes?
The reference to the Episcopal Visitors program as being sufficient is the one that bothers me. The history of the treatment of those who dissented on the women’s ordination question is enough to show that this won’t work. The CofE is now facing the same kind of scheme on the same issue, and people on the dissenting side know it won’t work.
Also, I’m trying to find in the Communique the recognition of the TEC departees in ACNA being still part of the Anglican Communion, which Archbishop Venables saye there has been agreement to. And does this mean that the TEC departees are Anglican but the rest of Common Cause/ACNA isn’t? They’re not kidding about this needing time to consider. This is very muddled and unclear.
I agree with Don. We should not rush to judgment here. Who ever thought this was going to be an easy or quick process? The lions of orthodoxy are thrilled by the meeting – unanimously. Here is how the ENS describes Bishop Schori’s response:
“Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, who attended the annual summit as head of the Episcopal Church, said her church is “going to have to have honest conversations about who we are … and the value we place on our relationships and mission opportunities with other parts of the communion,” according to Episcopal News Service.”
She doesn’t sound very happy to me. One the one hand she says TEC needs to consider “the value we place on our relationships and mission opportunities with other parts of the communion.” On the other hand ACNA is being directly engaged by the Communion. Yes, it’s being asked to do things it may not want to do, but the reality is that engagement — and engagement at the level of the ABC, no less, is tacit recognition. So, in the final analysis, we have one part of the official Anglican family, TEC, which has consistently NOT observed the wishes of the Communion now going off to consider: “the value we place on our relationships and mission opportunities with other parts of the communion.” and another group, not yet fully an official part of the Communion family being asked to participate in mediated dialogue and behave in conformity to the wishes of the Communion. If we really want to be part of the Anglican family, and I think we do, then it would behoove us at this point to adhere to their request — unless ignoring the will of the Communion and following one’s own path is a universal American phenomenon which applies to both liberals AND conservatives. Who here thinks that ACNA doesn’t need a little time on its own to organize itself, work out relationships, and figure things out – like canons and constitution anyway? Read how thrilled the orthodox primates are and then read what Bishop Schori has to say about the meeting and decide for yourself, but my reading is that this was a MUCH more positive development for ACNA and orthodox Anglicans in North America than it was for TEC. The Communion will ultimately know us by our actions, so my vote is for patience and listening closely to the Communion. I know that TEC won’t be patient and will not listen to the Communion. They’re trying to decide how important the Communion is to them vis-a-vis their new theology and what they think the Spirit is calling them to do. Who knows? Maybe there won’t be a need for a “Third Province” in North America. Maybe at the end of the day there will only be ONE province and it will be called ACNA! Good things come to those who are willing to wait. This is moving on God’s time scale, not ours. Things have moved VERY far from where they were a year ago, there’s nothing to be lost by slowing down a bit and listening to what the Primates are saying. I’m going to put my trust in the orthodox primates, if they’re happy, I’m happy!
Well said, Chris. However slowly, things seem to be moving in the right direction. We need to be patient. As the Irish say, “When the good Lord made time, He made a lot of it.”
Thanks, Chris and Jeff. I am also with you. I am relieved by much of what I read in the communique and by the response of the Global South Primates. If indeed we are undergoing a shift as big as the one the Church went through in the Reformation we are talking about a change that will occur over generations and even centuries (Remember the pope’s recent remarks about Martin Luther: 500 years later! [url=http://www.zenit.org/article-24302?l=english]Seen here.[/url])
We each have to do what God calls us to do. I trust that these godly and spiritually powerful Primates from the Global South are doing what is in front of them for the Lord — probably imperfectly. But nonetheless, seeking to be faithful to Jesus with what he gives them to do in the places he gives them to do it. This week it was at the latest Primates’ Meeting.
I think our impatience reveals our own pride in thinking that things must work out as we think they are supposed to work out if they are really to be “right.” Is the Lord in control or not? Are we really afraid of the things in this world which may look terrible and life-threatening in this news cycle, but in fact are really only at the end of time straw, sticks and stubble (1 Cor. 3:11-15)? “No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid.” Where is our Faith? TEC’s agenda [b]WILL NOT WIN[/b]. It may not be defeated in our lifetime — Arian Church’s existed in Germany until 800 AD — but it cannot and will not win. It will be destroyed in the fire of judgment at the end of time. So, what is there to be afraid of?
Please, let us endeavor to do what God has called each of us to do and — as best as we can — trust our co-labors as well. Because God is able to undo our failings, to multiple our small acts of faithfulness and to thwart the proud and haughty, we can trust Him with the results.
I think the money quote from ++Venables is this one:
“There is the recognition that this whole thing is falling to bits,†Bishop Venables explained. Past agreements had left him wondering “is this just pushing the ball forward†to be decided later. In Alexandria, he said, the primates agreed “this is a broken communion. Let’s start with that and see where we go.â€
I don’t think most of us have been able to understand the struggles of the reasserting Abs in Primates Meetings and other meetings to get the rest of the AC, including the ABC, to recognize the seriousness of the problem. Clearly, ++Venables seems to be saying, “finally they are listening and understand that this thing could blow apart, and finally they are willing to try to do something about it.” I think that is where the GS Primates are very happy; additionally, as Chris noted in #8, they are happy, ++Schori is not. They reaffirmed :110; they reaffirmed all moritoria; they acknowledged the existence of ACNA and asked it to keep its powder dry, but apply for membership (it seems). What did TEC get out of this? Nada! And the GS Primates don’t have to actually worry too much about border crossings anymore, because ACNA will take in any new folks or churches, and GS Primates won’t be to blame. It’s apparent that the ABC was listening a lot more to GS Primates than ++Schori at this meeting. Remember, she’s not a big fan of the Covenant; ABC is a big fan of it. GS Primates have all signed on to it also. ABC may be finally figuring out that GS Primates will play ball more than she will. Or he may have finally figured out that he better play ball with them (since GAFCON has been set up) or he’ll lose them. Something changed in this meeting, and the GS Primates liked it and ++Schori didn’t. That’s good news, whatever it is.
Katherine (#7), the revisionists might hedge on the meaning of “is” or state “not in my diocese”, but I don’t think hiding behind semantics is proper. No one lights a lamp and puts a bushel over it.
Chris and Billy (and Brian – in response only to the first two paragraphs of #10 above):
On the specific points that you address, I cannot fault your analyses if they intended as an effort to express a reasonable optimistic perspective on the outcome of the Primate’s Meeting. In the end, however, we must take equally into account what is not being said or written as much as what we do see and hear, and examine it in the light of the actual record of our Communion’s leaders.
From a traditional high church, evangelical catholic or Anglo-catholic perspective, two very important omissions must be observed:
1) The Primate’s Communique does not address the spiritual disease and theological and Christological failings of TEC’s leading bishops and teachers and other wayward and apostate provincial leadership. Nor does it even recognize that such departures from the orthodox Christian faith even exist, with the possible exception of the oblique reference in paragraph 9 to “bearing faithful witness to… the inheritance of faith as our Church has received it.”
2) The Windsor Continuation Group report, while pushing lightly in the direction of some kind of discipline for provinces like TEC, does not offer a clear theological basis upon which we could establish Anglican orthodoxy and thus a foundation from which to correct theological error. It does not mention Lambeth Conference resolutions, doctrinal canons of the CofE, ecumenical councils, the 39 Articles or even the catechism of the 1662 BCP or any catechism for that matter. It also fails to offer any concept of a reasonable framework that would provide traditionalist parishes that are currently still in the official North American provinces a way to protect their doctrinal heritage.
In other words, whatever the mediated reconciliation sessions might look like, it is highly unlikely that they will be based on much more than personal feelings, dueling interpretations of TEC canons, and practical considerations. If it will be a slightly better future for the orthodox faithful (and it might be), from what is actually definitively being provided to us with this Primate’s Meeting, it will be a future of general marginalization and having to in some way show respect to heretical regimes for generations to come.
Young Joe, you are correct, of course. But all of what you wish for has been said by the GS Primates many times and ignored by TEC and the others in the AC. There is no mind of the totality of AC for discipline or for apparent theological debate (which in some ways occurred at ACC meeting a few years ago, when TEC submitted that nonsense called “To Set Our Hope on Christ,” – I believe that is what it was called). There was a reference, I believe in the latest communique or by a blogger, to a potential hermaneutics debate from each side to settle theological issues in the AC. In fact, I suspect both sides may be fearful of that occurring, as the result would set forever the theology of the AC (or at least for a long time) and it might not be to anyone’s liking. It absolutely appears to me that the GS Primates are getting exactly what they want – time and space to grow their provinces and to grow their ACNA. And they perceive that the more time given, the more TEC will diminish (as will ACofC and probably CofE), and the more the reasserters will grow and rise to the forefront of the AC. They have no worries because they know that time is on their side, even if it takes longer than their lifetimes. They know the foundation is in place now in the US and Can and they can just continue to feed their flocks, regardless of geographic location. And ++Schori is now worried because nothing was said in the communique to bludgeon ACNA and it, in fact, was acknowledged. She now knows she has a rival on her shores that the rest of the communion is just going to watch and see whose ministry increases and whose decreases. And she has to know which way that is going. Time is on ourside. Christian patience is what we need now more than anything.
robroy #12, the other point is that why do we have to observe a provision (not “proselytizing”) to an agreement that is null and void from the first day, since TEC will not stop same-sex blessings? The whole thing is moot. The ACNA people won’t go picketing TEC parishes and putting leaflets on their windshields in the parking lots on Sundays. They will accept people who come to them asking to join.
In church this morning in Cairo I was told that the GS Primates were having an after-meeting. I don’t suppose for a moment they are planning to fold up shop and stop working with the ACNA.
I think GS Primates understand now that words do not mean anything to TEC, ACofC or the ABC. So they are graciously and politely getting what they can in words (which the more I see of the communique the more I realize how much they actually got), but then they are moving along with action, in spite of any words in any communique. As shown by TEC, et al, it is apparently the way in AC. In other words, ABC you want gracious, we can be gracious. But now we’re still going to do what we are going to do, just like TEC. No fights, no arguments – just spreading the Great Commission. See you at the next meeting. We can compare notes then.
Joe (# 13), I agree with much of what you say. I certainly don’t think that professional mediation is going to bring together heresy and orthodoxy. However, we have to see this as a process, I think. The Church catholic rarely moves quickly. Consider how long in the past it has taken to suppress other heresies. In the end orthodoxy will win, but this isn’t going to be over quickly. It didn’t begin in 2003, and it’s not going to end in 2009, of that I’m quite sure.
On your first point above, you might want to watch the interview on Anglican TV with Archbishops Oromby and Venables. They understand completely that this is a conversation between Christians and non-Christians which cannot be “mediated” to arrive at some mutual understanding. They also know that TEC will NOT be able to renounce its own commitments in favor of an orthodox Christian understanding. That’s NOT going to happen.
However, if ACNA is serious about being a part of the Anglican family, I think we need to do what the family is requesting of us – don’t you? I don’t think that in the final analysis that TEC will be able to do what the Anglican family is requesting of them, and they will ultimately take themselves out of the family – either implicitly or explicitly. They will NEVER be kicked out of the family, but they will surely continue their walk away from the family. I suspect the next big step, in fact, will come this summer at the next General Convention.
This is precisely why ACNA needs to walk WITH the Communion at this moment. What is being asked of ACNA? Two key things as I see it: (1) participate in professionally mediated talks – I don’t see that as a problem, do you? (2) ACNA bishops are not to cross borders and launch open raids against TEC. That is my understanding of what they mean when they say no proselytizing. This is obviously harder for ACNA, but I frankly don’t think ACNA is ready yet to launch full-scale mission into TEC turf. ACNA still has a lot of details to work out. I also don’t think that the “no proselytizing” provision stops ACNA from providing refuge to those who seek their assistance or request to join them in the meantime — nor does it prevent ACNA from reaching out to people who are not currently part of TEC.
The Presiding Bishop of the TEC is saying that TEC now needs to reflect on how much its own relationship to the Communion means to it. I take her at her word on this. What’s more important to them: their relationship to the Communion or their new theology? I’m pretty sure from all their actions over the past decade that the answer will be the latter. Every time they answer this question and choose the new theology, they take another step away from the Communion.
Meanwhile, and this is the hugely significant part of what happened in Alexandria, ACNA has now been invited to walk WITH the Communion, by two key instruments of the Communion: the ABC and the Primates. I think this is potentially HUGE for ACNA. If we consider what’s being asked, I think it’s more than worth it to walk with them, don’t you?
That “prosyletizing” bit just seems, however it is intended, like an egregious insult.
Sherri, it doesn’t need to be seen that way. I don’t think there’s anyway that this should be seen as a prohibition against reaching out to those not in TEC, and Lord knows, there are plenty of souls NOT in TEC who need to hear the Gospel message. In fact, I think it would be VERY unwise for ACNA to base itself exclusively on people fleeing TEC. ACNA needs to make its primary outreach to the unchurched. To focus exclusively on those in TEC might raise the risk of genetic disorder! I know that AMiA and CANA, for example, have already been quite specific in reaching out well beyond the narrow pool of TEC. I think ACNA would be well advised to make that the primary focus of their own mission. Be positive, proclaim the Gospel in word and deed. We need to get out of the rut of defining ourselves in relation to what TEC is and how we’re different! We need a positive message, not a long-winded explanation of what we’re not. TEC is the past, we need to look to the future!
[Comment deleted – would commenters please refrain from instructing other readers to leave or join a particular church or denomination. It is in breach of comment policy – Elf]
[Comment edited with regret rob k as it refers to a deleted comment – Elf]
I think if there has been a change in the Primates meeting it is because the conservative side is now engaging in the same behaviour that the liberal always have — it is putting “facts on the ground’ rather than ideas onto paper. People like the ABC and Schori understand facts on the ground — they know that people who do that are serious, and so their behaviour as changed accordingly. Before they believed that if they just strung things along for long enough the conservatives would give up. Now they know they are going to have to engage with them — hence the attempt to control the process through “mediation”.
My own advice to the conservative side is whatever you do, concentrate your efforts on growing those facts on the ground. That is the way of success — not talk or high flying resolutions.
Well, gee whiz, at least you could have kept the part of the post that pointed out the total accuracy of my prediction of last week: that NOTHING was accomplished, that this latest conference was simply ANOTHER well-paid junket for the Purple-Shirted Wonders, their families and their minions, and that we have been served another large helping of Anglican Fudge.
“It also affirmed the call for a halt to cross-province violations.”
Somebody help me out, please. What, exactly, is a cross-province violation? I used to know what a cross-border violation was, for example: if TEC Bishop A went to a congregation in TEC Bishop B’s diocese and performed a pastoral or sacramental ministry there without Bishop B’s invitation or permission.
On the other hand, if Bishop X of CANA, let’s say, went into the geographical boundaries of TEC Bishop Y’s diocese, to minister to a congregation that is not TEC– maybe they were TEC before Bishop Y became an unrepentant heretic, or maybe they never were TEC but Bishop X has come there to provide oversight to a newly-formed congregation that wants to be Anglican, but not in TEC… in one or the other of these situations, is that a cross-border violation?
And if the Primate of Province C offers oversight to a diocese or congregation outside the boundaries of his own Province, a place where there already exists Province D, and the congregation in that geographical area wants to be Anglican, but not under the oversight of the heretical Primate of Province D– is that a cross-province violation?
What actions do the Primates intend to forbid? I can understand their unanimously not wanting their own authority within their own Provinces challenged by other Primates. But I’m still not clear what a cross-province violation is or is not. Could someone illustrate for me, using recent examples of inter-continental ordinations, consecrations, interventions, and rescue missions, which ones were cross-province violations (within the intent of the Communique) and which were not?
Pax Christi!
Chuck Bradshaw
Hulls Cove, Maine
I have reflected at length on The interview with Archbishops Venables and Orambi. One comment that I initially failed to appreciate was about vastly different understandings of terms like “repentance”. If there are mediated talks, I would hope that there would be agreement on what key words mean. It is as if TEC and the rest of the Anglican Communion are separated by different understandings of the same words; common words like justice, reconciliation, inclusiveness etc. There must be a term for this that a linguist would know. It actually goes way beyond the different understanding of words to the different understanding of concepts such as Scripture, Tradition and Reason. It has almost become the tower of Babel part II. I don’t know if Dr. Schori is being purposely vague with her response or simply lacks clarity. Archbiships Venables and Orambi although cautious were still quite clear about their disagreements with the revisionists. They flatly stated that some of the others in the Anglican Communion were not Christian. That is crystal clear!
I am somewhat bemused that the Bishop does not consider me a Christian.
But I am greatly interested to know the source of the “[as we know it]” in brackets, because it makes a significant difference to the interpretation of the phrase. Is that Fr. Conger’s gloss on the Bishop’s comment, or is it a paraphrase of the way the Bishop concluded his thought, or what? Does anyone know?
#26, you can hear it for yourself here:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/20160/