Mr. Naughton, someone with whom I am in frequent disagreement on some Episcopal Church issues, nonetheless correctly assesses the significance of the Alexandria Primates Communique:
The Episcopal Church is going to have to make a decision this summer on whether to remove impediments to the consecration of gay bishops put in place at our last General Convention.
Now there are all sorts of problems with this. He doesn’t mention blessing of noncelibate same sex partnerships, which are also against the teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion and whihc need to be explicitly stopped. And he doesn’t mention that the “impediments” placed were not placed in the way in which they were asked to be placed, nor has restraint been shown by TEC in its practice since (one need only give evidence from the finalists in several dioceses for the post of bishop). He is also quite wrong to say this is about doing the “conservatives” bidding or playing into “their” hands. This is about submitting one to another in the body of Christ, and doing what the Anglican Communion has repeatedly asked us to do.
The key point Mr. Naughton and other activists have grasped is this: Lambeth 1998 1.10 has once again been affirmed. This is where the Communion is, and this is our communal standard. All the pressure is on the leadership of the Episcopal Church to agree to abide by this standard in 2009.
If “Lambeth 1998 1.10 has once again been affirmed,” then what about ordaining self-avowed, practicing and unrepentant homosexuals to the diaconate and priesthood? Why is this not on the radar screen?
LAMBETH 1998 1.1O has been “reaffirmed” – the reaffirmation joins the long parade of impotent words gushing from every Primates’ meeting since 2003. Yawn.
Who are the Deputies from the Diocese of SC? Is Kendall going into the lions den again? We shall have to pray for you big time and for Bishop Lawrence in the HOB.
B033 won’t be repealed. Nothing from past General Conventions are relevant. Kendall+ pointed out that there is an equivalent of Lambeth 1.10 in a GC resolution from the 70’s that has never been repealed.
What I see happening is a resolution declaring null and void any restrictions that go against the TEClub’s non-discrimination policies…including non-descrimination for sexual orientation.
But Jim Naughton need not be worried. They are talking about where there will be “impaired communion” between the members but all are in communion with Rowan Williams. Well, that is exactly what we have presently. The real question is whether Ms Schori will be allowed to sit on the primates standing committee. Well, let’s see…who put her there?
The status quo will remain unchanged.
It looks like we are going to have a communion in which groups will be in direct communion with the ABC, but not with each other. Other groups will be in communion with groups in communion with the ABC, but not in direct communion with the ABC. And groups which are in indirect communion with each other who are not in direct communion with the ABC and not with each other. (To even say this makes me think I am in the middle of a “Yes, Minister” episode) Which, as 4 points out, is what we have now. It will be sort of a non-communion communion.
Br. Michael, you describe a situation which already exists, and has existed for some time now. Robroy, I think you may be wrong about B033. It may not be formally repealed, but I anticipate that a serious effort will be made to reverse its effect – which will take TEC another step further away from the Communion.
I find Mr. Naughton’s characterizations of others amazing, but Kendall is right that he gets the significance of the meeting in Alexandria. TEC revisionists are clearly stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do they embrace their new theology proudly and live with the clear implications of that action, which are that they are taking yet another decisive step away from the Communion and its established teaching on human sexuality, OR do they adhere to the Primates request to continue the moratoria indefinitely, with NO indication that the mind of the Communion is likely to change on this matter in any of our lifetimes? GC is shaping up to be a moment where TEC will have an opportunity to demonstrate the level of their commitment to the “prophetic” new theology they embrace. Of course, they also might just choose to do what they’ve done so often in the past, say something totally ambiguous which might be interpreted as assent to the Primates’ request, and then proceed to do whatever they were going to do anyway — as per the Bishop of Colorado! However, regardless of what GC does, time is running out on this game for TEC. They either will embrace the new theology — openly, boldly and proudly, regardless of the consequences, or they’re going to have to face the music from the advocates of the new theology. So indeed, Naughton is correct that TEC leadership now finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place, but the situation they find themselves in is of their own making. As the ABC has said before, part of the problem with being prophetic is that you have to live with the consequences, and the possibility that you might be wrong!
I don’t keep track of the affectional preferences of the lay and clergy leaders of the “full inclusion” movement, so I can’t really tell whether any of them would personally benefit from a General Convention rejection of the moratorium on episcopal elections.
Why should TEc conform? After all, no action has been taken so far, except politely worded non-warnings. No, TEc knows the AC and the ‘Instruments of Unity’ are paper tigers with no teeth. They will keep on doing what they have been doing with impunity.
Chris, of course you are correct. Upon reflection I think this is what the Global South is saying and they are going to go their way and not worry about it.
When one is hyper-political and partisan as Bishop Chane’s spokesperson, one sees everything that happens in political terms. But I’d suggest that really isn’t the right way to view what is going on now. Rather, the important result of the Alexandria meeting is that ACNA was not squelched.
The facts coming out of Alexandria (even as reported in much of the secular press – Naughton cites only the Religion News Service, while even Reuters was clearer), are simply that ACNA is an entity, it is Anglican, it is not going away, some key primates support it, and the Anglican Communion has agreed to begin negotiating with it over its status. There is more work to be done. The rest is dicta, including the “no prosyletization†clause, whatever it means and whether it is a part of the communique or not.
I do think that Naughton is showing concern with the possible consequences for TEC of the continuation of the political fight between the “open” revisionists and the “secret” revisionists/institutionalists, the former of whom are quite happy, if not eager, to jettison the Anglican Communion if it stands in the way of their beliefs on SSB and bishops, and latter of whom are hoping to just kick things further down the road in hopes it will all not blow up until they have retired. If the open revisionists prevail at the next GC, or appoint another VGR, then it will probably drive more of the communion to support ACNA (I originally typed “the Anglican Communion may be forced to react”, but clearly that is most unlikely in this generation). Thus, the institutionalists argue that GC should continue to prevaricate, as it does on SSBs, to try to not further erode its standing in the Anglican Communion. As the orthodox depart from TEC, though, it will be harder and harder for the institutionalists to prevail at GC. If the open revisionists prevail, the next step is to begin recognizing TEC as having resigned from the communion and start transferring that recognition to a relacement province. Slowly, of course, as all things are in the communion. One does not need a crystal ball to expect this.
What TEC needed was to have ACNA stopped at the Primate’s meeting. Each year they are not stopped, the “province-in-formation”, as the WCGR calls it, grows while TEC shrinks, and, as Naughton seems to see, there are increasing opportunities for TEC to stumble on the new path it is choosing to follow. So far, TEC’s only strategy to its problems has been one of “scorched earth”, sue and depose, in some vain hope that the orthdox will give up. What they have failed to understand (and telling them this will not lift their misunderstanding) is that they can win all the lawsuits and kick out everyone they want, and it will not stop the membership growth of the ACNA. They are only digging themselves into a deeper hole. TEC really needs to try something else to stop their pain, to think about what they are trying to accomplish and why. I don’t see any evidence they will, and doubling up efforts to attempt to destroy Anglican orthodoxy in North America is not such a plan.
At the risk of mixing metaphors, TEC might be between a rock and a hard place, but if there’s no sharp end of the stick it really doesn’t matter. In the end, the GS can say, “Aha!” and TEC replies, “Well, whaddya gonna do about it?” With Rowan Williams running the show, the obvious answer is: Not a thing.
There is a certain irony, or perhaps even humor, in Naughton’s assertion of so-called “impediments”. TEC has demonstrably shown time after time after time that such impediments as 1.10, Dar es, Dromantine, Windsor, and 2000+ years of quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est are a mere collective sand pebble at the bottom of its shoe. Certainly, Naughton knows that TEC’s strategy of going ahead with its agenda while ignoring Godly council to do otherwise has served it so well that it is folly (for them) to begin even caring.
Haven’t TEC representatives shown plenteous angst in the past, only to go on with what they want to do? This will be the exact same thing. Heresy will continue apace.
Rev. Kennedy, I understand your frustration, but I think you’re wrong. As Anglicans we have no magisterium and no pontiff, as you know only too well. Were we to have those things I have no doubt that the consequences for heresy would have come much more quickly and more decisively. In our own Anglican way, however, I would suggest that we are muddling through, and there have indeed been consequences for the actions of TEC. Let me cite some examples: (1) more than half of the Anglican Communion, as defined by numbers of people, not numbers of provinces, are currently in broken or impaired communion with TEC; (2) the Primates and instruments of Communion have called upon TEC to observe two moratoria (one on the further consecration of gay bishops living in same sex relationships and one on the development of blessings for same sex unions). These moratoria are not without significance and they have not been easy for TEC to maintain. Furthermore, the call for their continuation has just been made by the Primates as GC approaches; (3) ACNA has come into formation and has been identified by the Primates and the ABC as Anglican (although its relationship to the Communion remains an open question). I would submit that the very fact that it has been acknowledged by the ABC and the Primates as authentically Anglican is a HUGE development and consequence of TEC’s actions. (4) In the Windsor Continuation Group report we are beginning to see emerge a discussion within the Communion about the possibility, even the prospect, of the Communion having to address its future relationship with North America on a diocese by diocese basis. (5) For all its imperfections we have a Windsor Report and it does lay out the process by which Anglicans will remove themselves from the Communion by their actions. (6) We are seeing the evolution of an Anglican Covenant, which while far from complete, suggests that there may be a powerful mechanism in the future for ensuring autonomy with accountability within the Communion. I realize that when you’re being sued and persecuted by your bishop these consequences may seem far too little and way too late, but, I think, in the grand scheme of things, there are indeed consequences that TEC is slowly having to confront for its actions. What I think Mr. Naughton sees is that the ability of TEC to maneuver is slowly but surely becoming ever more restricted. If you are waiting for the instruments of Communion to expel TEC, your wait will be in vain. If, on the other hand, you’re willing to wait for TEC to walk away from the Communion on its own, your wait may be rewarded – in this lifetime! I acknowledge that this is a painfully slow process, but I think there is more reason for hope than you suggest. If you are right, then Anglicanism is a dead end — it has no way of riding itself of heresy. If this is indeed the case, then there is NO hope for Anglicanism and we’re ALL wasting our time.
“He is also quite wrong to say this is about doing the “conservatives” bidding or playing into “their” hands. This is about submitting one to another in the body of Christ ..”
It’s all about “the spin,” isn’t it Kendall? And who has the power to define what the agrument is about? We maintain the question on the table is whether or not the Episcopal Church means everytime we renew our Baptismal Covenant and vow to “respect the dignity of every human being” and to “love our neighbors as ourselves.”
The Episcopal Church is poised to end up on the right side of salvation history on this one. Stay tuned. (And keep spinning … it’s your job and for all our differences, respect is owed for the skill with which you do it.)
It will be interesting to see what TEC does with it’s next convention. Will the revisionists (or “liberals” or “forward thinkers”) have the courage of their convictions and strongly state their case. Or will they continue to say one thing publicly , while doing what they want privately.
Personally, I think TEC is poised to end up in the dust bin of history, for there is no salvation without transformation, no matter how “inclusive” you want to be. I just can’t understand why the liberals hate homosexual persons so much.
Rev. Russell, do you think it’s possible to “respect the dignity of every human being,” and “love our neighbors as ourselves,” WITHOUT either respecting or loving everything that other people do? Furthermore, if what other people do stands in direct contradiction to both the plain meaning of scripture AND 2,000 years of Christian understanding of what the plain meaning of scripture is, are we required to ignore the scriptural message and love and respect those actions which scripture clearly opposes? We’re clearly still called upon to love and respect those people, regardless of what they do, that’s not my question. The question is whether love and respect for people implies love and respect for everything that they do?
He is also quite wrong to say this is about doing the “conservatives” bidding or playing into “their” hands. This is about submitting one to another in the body of Christ, and doing what the Anglican Communion has repeatedly asked us to do.
It’s about submitting to the conservatives bidding. As long as we do what they want, we follow Christ. If not we are a different religion. This was made clear by ++Orombi and ++Venables.
The key point Mr. Naughton and other activists have grasped is this: Lambeth 1998 1.10 has once again been affirmed. This is where the Communion is, and this is our communal standard. All the pressure is on the leadership of the Episcopal Church to agree to abide by this standard in 2009.
No pressure is on TEC. Absolutely, positively none. Lambeth 1998 1.10 is the ineffective rhetoric of the AC. The ABC, the CoE, the CoC and the other first world churches barely pay it lip service. And when they do mention it, it is as a guiding principle.
Here is the reality that Jim Naughton and Kendall+ both fail to perceive: TEC can pass resolutions that say “We deny and renounce Lambeth 1.10” and “We require that all Diocese consider partnered homosexuals as candidates for Bishop” and guess what will happen? Emergency meeting, communique’, responses, committees, reports, meetings, communique’, responses, churches leave, Dioceses try to leave, broken communion, threats, meetings, open letters, reports, analyses, coalitions, etc…THAT is what will happen.
Wow, one person’s spin is another Truth and vice versa.
OK, first, the EC will do whatever it wants to do unabated because it can. There are no longer enough Traditional Voices/Votes to stop the agenda of the Reappraisers. This is well known. Nor is it about respecting the dignity of every human being or loving our neighbors as ourselves. Why? Because if we embrace our sin we endanger our souls. One day this will be understood no matter how this is played out in Church History.
Sadly, a stand must be made for the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ that calls us to repent of our sins, whatever they may be, and to accept Christ’s Gift of salvation and transformation provided on the Cross.
Re-interpreting the Gospel in a manner that is inconsistent with Christian History and Holy Scripture is not new. It has been happening for centuries….
The choice is before us. What Gospel do you embrace, believe, and proclaim. They are not the same.
[i] It’s all about “the spin,†isn’t it Kendall? [/i] —#15
A cheap shot manifestly unjust to Kendall. But perhaps the sort of line in which a practiced Spinmeister would take pride.
There are no standards. There are no rules. There is no punishment or consequence. There is no common Gospel. There is little or no truth spoken. There is rampant hyposcrisy.There is only politics. There are scores of lawsuits. There are defrocked servants of God. There are evictions of Christians who paid for their property and it was stolen from them. There are martyrs in other countries slain for Christ. There is no sin. There are blessings for SS couples in God’s house. There is a phony Book of Common Prayer that replaced God’s words. There are ordained women as not before.
This is today’s Anglican Commuion.
Intercessor
[blockquote]It looks like we are going to have a communion in which groups will be in direct communion with the ABC, but not with each other. Other groups will be in communion with groups in communion with the ABC, but not in direct communion with the ABC. And groups which are in indirect communion with each other who are not in direct communion with the ABC and not with each other. [/blockquote]
Please send me the flow chart.
Intercessor
Susan,
The Baptismal Covenant has five questions, not just one. The first (and most important question) is “Will you continue in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, in the breaking of the bread and in the prayers?”
When you can show me that the Apostles blessed same sex unions or that blessing same sex unions is in line with the Apostles’ teaching and when you can show that what is happening in TEC is enhancing the Apostles’ fellowship, then we can talk about “Respecting the dignity of every human being.”
If homoerotic sex is sinful (and the Church has always held that it is) then calling it blessed it is disrespecting the dignity of those who are involved in it because it allows them to falsely believe that what they are doing it good and has no impact on their relationship with God.
If we break the Apostles’ teaching and their fellowship, then whom and what we respect is just “rubbish”.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Susan,
I am confused. Why do liberals equate respecting one’s dignity and loving one’s neighbors with allowing them to do whatever they please? Having limits to the practices in which we engage is what allows the dignity of every human, measured by God’s will, to be expressed. How do we determine God’s will? Historically, by common discernment of the Scriptures through time, constantly testing and revisiting our conjectural human knowledge.
If you read about the history of the Anglican Church, you will find that although the Lambeth Conferences have never been ‘juridically’ binding, they have had a moral authority for ordering the life of the Church to enable the process of continued discernment of Scripture to occur. In 1867, the bishops that came together for the first Lambeth Conference recognized in Resolution 4, that even without legally binding force, the “unity in faith and discipline will be best maintained among the several branches of the Anglican Communion by due and canonical subordination of the synods of the several branches to the higher authority of a synod or synods above them.” This is not unity for unity’s sake as liberals so like to proclaim; rather it is unity for the sake of constant and continual discernment of God’s Word. Without the peace, unity and order of the Church we do nothing but fragment into bodies that ever more narrowly construe the meaning of Scripture to the point where the Church becomes irrelevant to most people (as is presently the case … division breeds indifference and atheism). And so neither can truth be found through autonomous assertion that it is so; this leads only to self defined truth: idolatry.
Lambeth 98 declared the mind of the Communion on the matter of SSB and ordaining someone in a same-sex relationship. The biblical and theological nature of same sex relationships has been studied, prayed about, debated, discussed over a period of three decades; in the midst of this discernment and the decision made at Lambeth 98, the Spirit has been at work. To deny this would be to deny that the Spirit is at work in the Church entirely. I hope you would not suggest this.
So then the decision made at Lambeth and the expectation that it be upheld by the Churches of the Anglican Communion does not indicate a lack of respect and dignity, a lack of equality or inclusiveness for homosexuals. In fact Susan, quite the opposite. It is with love that God works through the structures of his people to guide them according to his purpose. Have we failed to follow God’s will? Most certainly we have and this has resulted in disgusting displays of human ignorance and wickedness. But it is one thing to challenge the decisions made and to seek a sound biblical and theological rationale for your perspectives. It is quite another to act so as to destroy the order of the Church that allows for continued discernment of Scripture. And it is this which is unfair. It is this which excludes people from coming to know God by being shaped and formed by the Church; the Church which is his gift through which we are shaped and formed by the Spirit according to his purpose.
The direction liberals seem to want to take is to live without true inclusiveness; you have room for people in same-sex relationships, but not for those who hold to the teachings of Anglican Communion. Liberals compromise the mission of the Church and the proclamation of the gospel by tearing its common life to shreds making it untrustworthy amongst those to whom it would proclaim the sure promises of God. Liberals further declare the Church’s common practices and means of decision-making irrelevant and antiquated destroying any sense of natural justice and equality for all.
This is not an issue of salvation. Only God knows who will and will not be saved. Any human presumption to know such a thing is simply conjecture and time wasted. The issue is the Church’s vocation: mission; the proclamation of the gospel and the transformative life into which one enters as they are guided and shaped by the Church’s continual discernment of Scripture in Christ, through the Holy Spirit. And this is the problem with the liberal perspective Susan. The actions taken contrary to the decision made at Lambeth have made the Anglican Communion rather impotent in mission; both in proclaiming the gospel and in enabling the transformation of those willing to submit to God’s gracious will.
Susan,
Until you are willing to become the rector of your own parish, your ideas are just theoretical and truly untested.
I think that Susan has self-insulated against any potential reality check by remaining as a staff member of All Saints and letting somebody else be the Rector in charge. Susan’s ideas really haven’t seen the light of day or reality until she risks associating with a truly diverse population in a parish outside of a liberal metropolitan pocket. Her oft-touted “listening process” mostly occurs in venues of her choosing among people of her own theology. Take it on the road of reality, Susan, and your comments will be heard. How about a nice parish in San Joachin? The new Episcopal Church there could use your talent and you can truly show us what a listening process should look like.
From one of the earlier works of our friend Irenaeus:
[blockquote]BAPTISMAL COVENANT
(1) Traditionally, the covenant made at baptism by which we repent, renounce sin, accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and become members of Christ, redeemed by his atoning sacrifice. “Obdurate sin grieves the Holy Spirit and violates our baptismal covenant.â€
(2) For Progressives, two related ideas: that baptism irrevocably confers good standing in the church so neither “sinful†conduct nor heterodox belief disqualifies any baptized person from holding church office; and that baptized persons need little trouble themselves about “sinâ€*, repentance*, or amendment of life*. “A moratorium on ordaining noncelibate homosexuals would betray our baptismal covenant.â€[/blockquote]
I’ll give a try to define “spin:”
[blockquote]SPIN (n)
…
4 b (1): a special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation presented by the Orthodox for the purpose of influencing opinion: “The blogger put a favorable spin on the Communique by citing an archaic biblical principle instead of the standing conferred by our Baptismal Covenant*” (2): spin control. (n.b. not to be confused with the special point of view, emphasis, or interpretation presented by the Progressive, more properly described as offering Context*)[/blockquote]
😉
Heh — good to see Susan Russell felt compelled to respond in a usual drive-by.
Good work, Kendall.
[i] This thread is NOT about Susan Russell. Please return to the original topic. [/i]
Chris Taylor (way back at #6 before the drive by shooting): I think we are saying the same thing. They won’t repeal B033 just like they never repealed the 70’s Episcopal equivalent of Lambeth 1.10. (That would require integrity which entirely lacking in the Integrity folks.) But they will render B033 moot by saying that “our unique Episcopalian polity” requires us to honor the “baptismal covenant” and consecrate unrepentant sinners whose lifestyle is an affront to the rest of the Communion and to holy scripture.
(Kendall+ or elves: What exactly was the GC resolution in the 70’s that is still on the books that condemns homosexuality?)
Nothing to do with Holy Scripture or telling the truth of the Gospel message as a way to show your “respect the dignity” and to “love our neighbors”. The way to “respect” and to “love” is NOT to praise them as they wallow in dysfunction and unnatural, ungodly lusts, ignoring God’s wishes and His Holy Word. The way to “respect” and “love” is to offer Jesus as a way to salvation through repentence and amendment of life.
AP+
“The Episcopal Church is going to have to make a decision this summer on whether to remove impediments to the consecration of gay bishops put in place at our last General Convention.”
TEC has already made its decision and will ratify it this summer.
“The Episcopal Church is poised to end up on the right side of salvation history on this one. Stay tuned.” (Susan Russell).
TEC is convinced beyond a doubt that Baptism allows full inclusion to anything in the church.
It is a puzzle to me however what (based on this “standard”) if anything would rule out membership in TEC or qualification as clergy.
Perhaps the salient question about TEC’s misuse of a portion of their Baptismal Covenant isn’t what it includes, but what it does not. Is there any behavior that disqualify a candidate from the espicopacy?
#32 Jeffersonian,
“Is there any behavior that disqualify a candidate from the episcopacy?” Looks like were we came to the same conclusion at about the same time. (see post 31)
Regards,
Jeffersonian, let’s say it was discovered that a bishop candidate had refused communion to a buddhist. Surely, that would be a disqualification.
Sorry, Deacon #33, I should have read your post more closely. And Phil, what is satire today is reality tomorrow.
True ‘nuf, Jeffersonian, especially since we’ll soon have a buddhist actually being a bishop – that is, “bishop.”
pendennis hinted at this, but there is more to TEC’s dilemma, then just the Communion’s pleasure. The more I read of the 2009 Primates’ Communique and WCG Report, the better I like them (I say that given that I had NO EXPECTATIONS at all). What the primates did was reaffirm Lambeth I.10 and the moratoria requests. But it isn’t just a case of same-old, same-old.
1. There is no a case of extra consequences for TEC’s continued walk away from the Communion. The ACNA was recognized as authentically Anglican, and its precise status has been made the subject of mediated negotiation. This recommendation came with the WCG Report giving TEC naively high marks for adhering to the moratoria requests. The clear, but unspoken, consequence is that if TEC explicitly rejects the moratoria, or moves away from them, the case for the ACNA strengthens. Thus, if TEC follows the liberal agenda on sexuality, the hand of the ACNA in the negotiations strengthens.
2. Note, also the treatment of the moratoria by the WCG Report. Yes, we can all quote the section where it says there must be “equal” consequences for moratoria breaking, but note a couple of very important points:
a) The WCG Report itself draws a moral distinction between the moratoria requests, suggesting that the two sexuality requests have a greater weight then the oversight one.
b) The WCG Report insists that there should be no more gay bishops, and no permissions at all for SSB’s or SSM. There is no call for the regularization of Robinson.
c) The WCG Report does, however, recommend negotiations to find a place for the ACNA in the Communion, even if on a temporary basis.
This is important.
The Primates Meetings of the past have simply said to TEC “please, please, stop, or else we will discipline you.” To which, TEC has always scoffed. But now, for the first time, the Primates have said to TEC “please stop, because there are Anglican alternatives, and we are prepared to begin serious consideration of them if you don’t”.
I would suggest that this point is a much bigger turning point in the Anglican saga then most currently are giving it credit for.
What Kendall missed is Naughton’s comment that he agrees with Ruth Myers that this dilemma is a false choice. According to Naughton God is not asking TEC to make a choice between their beliefs and their place in the Anglican Communion. This dilemma is really an example of false consciousness on the part of the conservatives and it follows that it’s the task of TEC to expose the false choice.
Phil Swain: My impression is that Naughton and Ruth Myers are essentially demanding that GC’09 refuse to consider the consequences of pushing forward on SSM despite the moratoria requests. They are saying that since SSMs are of such a high importance, that they must be approved as a first-rate issue. Only then, should the consequences be considered.
So the liberal sexuality agenda is an issue of first-rate importance. TEC’s relationship with the Communion is an issue of second-rate importance.
In Episcospeak, “Respect the dignity” is a euphemism for gay sex.
Jamesw writes (#37):
[blockquote]This recommendation came with the WCG Report giving TEC naively high marks for adhering to the moratoria requests. The clear, but unspoken, consequence is that if TEC explicitly rejects the moratoria, or moves away from them, the case for the ACNA strengthens.[/blockquote]
I would say the high marks may not have been naively given, but purposefully, and just for the reason jamesw indicates about the unspoken consequence of not living up to them. Something similar could be at work in saying that WCG believes the PB’s Episcopal Visitor’s scheme (along with the Communion Partners’ effort) should be sufficient to provide for the care of those alienated. The professionally mediated conversation should provide a vehicle to test whether that is true.
The ABC said in the closing press conference that he would have a role in brokering the mediated conversations. I imagine that doesn’t mean that he personally would sit through the entirety of it, but if the purpose is to find a provisional holding arrangement, then “all the significant parties†would presumably need to include not just TEC and ACNA players, but also some of those within whose authority it would be to take steps to cause an arrangement to be implemented.
Mike Watson (post 41) – Yes, I have wondered if the assessment by the WCG re:TEC’s following of the moratoria had this very goal in mind. It seems extremely clever – they make the somewhat falacious claim that TEC is mostly upholding the moratoria, then use that as justification to rein in the ACNA. But then they hold open the possibility of recognizing the ACNA. This sets up the unavoidable contrast – if TEC reverses itself on the moratoria, then it appears that TEC has just taken a big step AWAY from the Communion, and the ACNA is given a much stronger justification in the negotiations.
The clear choice given to TEC would seem to be:
1) Pursue the liberal sexuality agenda and accept a greater role, freedom and legitimacy for the ACNA; or
2) Accept the moratoria, curtail the liberal sexuality agenda, and accept Communion protection for your “turf”.
jamesw, it looks like that is the choice.
I am thinking option #2, after the anger produced by last GC’s infamous B033 has caused the sexual liberals to organize to make sure a “stab in the back” or “back of the bus” or “thrown under the bus” (choose your favorite violent cliche) motion does not get passed again.
Personally, I find myself (as an ACNA person) rooting for people like Susan Russell and Integrity to get everything they want and more.
DoW
TEC is in the hot seat in at least four ways.
If they nulify B033:
The CP/ACI folks will vilify them from the inside.
The AC Primates and WCG may finally consider that TEC has gone beyond the bounds of “gracious restraint”.
ACNA admission will gain traction in the AC.
More TEC folks will vote with their feet and the middle will shift further left. What continues to interest me on this point is that as TEC opens the front doors wider and wider through inclusivity few are rushing in to replace the many leaving through the back door.
It would be interesting to know how many people are actually in charge of the decision making process and who they are. To what extent does the leadership reflect the values of the average parishioner who’s age is 64?
There is NO reason for TEC to change course at all. They will remain firmly in the AC (and so will their $$$, much to the relief of the other provinces). The Alexandria meetings were so terribly disappointing because NO ONE openly, firmly addressed the elephant in the room, i.e., the fact that TEC has left Christendom. GC 2009 will do whatever it wants and there will be NO ACCOUNTABILITY. That’s the root of the problem, and it looks like that root is rapidly growing rather than being pulled up and out of the Body of Christ!
In matters of Anglican political intrigue I would always defer to Kendall. He has far more experience and wisdom in these matters than I do as a young rector. Nevertheless, I think this is the wrong take on the communique. TEC will pursue its agenda as it has always done, and the Communion will be satisfied with endless rounds of communiques as it has always done. The Communion will either be fractured or stuck within a deep rut of neverending complacency. Save nothing short of a massive work of grace at General Convention this summer, I do not foresee this ever being resolved along lines that the Orthodox will be content with. I wouldn’t even be surprised if the progressives took the whole show lock, stock and barrel. To be honest, I’m surprised people can still be optimistic over these matters.
[i] TEC will pursue its agenda as it has always done, and the Communion will be satisfied with endless rounds of communiques as it has always done [/i]
Not the Communion, of course, but the Communion’s processes as manipulated by ECUSA’s allies in Lambeth Palace.
Despite her iron-fisted lawsuit nonsense, KJS probably still has enough political sense to attempt spinning any B033-repealing verbage at GC 2009. “Oh, that’s not what it REALLY means”…and SSB’s and the ordinations of active homosexuals to the priesthood and diaconate will continue unabated.
Where it will get interesting is when the next actively gay bishop gets elected, or if GC asks the Standing Liturgical Commission to start developing “rites” for SSB’s.
Of course, the Russell slaves could attempt to thumb their nose at KJS and hijack the whole GC process, ramrodding their agenda with full-force.
And then you might see an all-out war between the activists and institutionalists.
Take your Orville Redenbacher with you, pull up a chair and watch the show…
Irenaeus, #47:[blockquote]Not the Communion, of course, but the Communion’s processes as manipulated by ECUSA’s allies in Lambeth Palace. [/blockquote]This is a very insightful comment. The so-called “Instruments of Unity” are indeed being manipulated by ECUSA money and allies. However it is clear that the vast majority of practicing Anglicans and the bishops who lead them are opposed to the Western rejection of the faith. We have a problem at the top, not necessarily throughout the body.
#49 Katherine,
“We have a problem at the top, not necessarily throughout the body.”
Katherine, unfortunately the top is where all the decisions come from. Additionally, you can say, “The so-called ‘Instruments of Unity’ are indeed being manipulated by ECUSA money and allies.”, but this manipulation [of the instruments of unity] is done with their permission. If ACNA winds up standing alone in this, so be it.
I think somebody cut a deal – and the deal appears to be at TEC’s expense. I am of course looking at it through the eyes of an attorney who is political. For those looking for ecclesiastical discipline – that is not in the cards. The sovereign nature of each province effectively rules it out. But if there is a majority to recognize the ACNA as Anglican – and still a majority to not kick out TEC – then that is a win for the ACNA and a defeat for TEC.
1) TEC may now have both a defacto and dejure competitor. 2) The fence sitting primates are watching; 3) TEC’s pew sitters have to be paying more attention because of lots of bad TEC press; 3) moderate Bishops are concerned (or should be) that their flocks might revolt at what may result from GC2009 (South Carolina (home of Fort Sumpter) may yet be another shoe to drop); 4) all of TEC’s trend lines are bad: and 4) the Susan Russell types are preparing the final offensive. If TEC were a company I think I would short its stock.