Kondo, sudan: I want to add my voice and thank the cdg…it seems to me section 4 is the most important…to accept this resolution is to mean we will debate this issue again and again…
Anis: without section 4..we can not call the covenant a covenant..it is section 4 that makes the whole covenant a covenant…the crisis we are going through now is because of the absolute autonomy that this covenant with 123 and 4 affirms the interdependence…we are a communion with autonomy…i would appeal that you would vote against this b/c 1. if we accept this we will lose a great chance to be united…i assure you that there are churches that affirm the whole covenant…and the communion will be divided…if we don’t approve 1234 together…if we wait 10 years we will never get a perfect covenant…the cdg has worked for 3 years very hard..they have broght us a good covenant…we can not undermine the work of the cdg…section 4 is from lambeth and the responses of the diocese/provinces…all that has been done is the commentary has been brought in..its not truet that it hasn’t received any study…it is the outcome of a lot of study…
SE Asia, Stanley Isaac. I want to say that this resolution a should be rejected because it would be disastrous to send to the provinces the text of the covenant without 4 because it would mean nothing for all the rest of us who have been waiting for this document to find a ray of hope for a problem that has divided the communion and embarrassed the churches. This is a defining moment for the communion, We grab it or we dont. It would be a way of united the communion once again in the bond of Christ and truly regard ourselves as one body. That will be a unity only in the past if we do not pass section 4…We have not been taken by surpruse by section 4. I want to express the appreciation of my province we feel disappointed that the concerns to tighten up the appendix, was watered down. We think it is a weak provision of measure for achieving a soluton to the problem. Allow this full text to go forward..
Friends–continue to pray. Resolution A was defeated by a wide margin. It now appears we are revisiting that in some very confusing process of voting on amendments to B/C, and the possibility of losing the plot is great. Prayers for +Mouneer and his leadership, as well as Stanley Isaacs and others. If the majority that defeated A remains unconfused and focused–no easy thing given all the complex rules–then the ensuing resolutions might also be turned back and the Covenant unimpaired. It is not as though the CDG did not already go through things like this/weigh things now being weighed, in its own work. It appeared the ABC stood to defend that logic, and then things got into rules of order.
Dr. Seitz, prayers rising.
It seems inescapable they we are witnessing the polity of the ACC breaking down, just like we saw the polity of the ECUSA breaking down at General Convention 2006.
It sounds to me from the press conference that section 4 of the Covenant is not going out for approval so what is the point of sending out sections 1-3? Will it be approved piecemeal?
Dr. Seitz, I’ve been reading things that make this meeting sound like it was a mockery and a sham. If you can shed any light on the day’s events, I would be grateful.
Things got out of order and crashed and burned. We will need to see what all that means.
We cannot tell if resolution B was even voted on. Conger and others can tell us. My live stream comes and goes. Pray for +Mouneer. I doubt one can live with the mess that eventuated today, even if one favors ‘revisionism.’ It is too untidy and too many people are watching and involved. +RDW rises to call for a vote on A. A defeated roundly. Then questions about procedure, and after that, chaos. I suspect the press conference was to change the subject rather than face the delegates. Pray for +Mouneer and others there, and remember that a big majority defeated A.
BTW, even Naughton at Cafe states clearly that things were not done in anything like obvious ways. Did Resolution B get voted on? These kinds of things are not easy to get away with. Kearon is having to carry a very smelly load.
I am sure that Kearon will be fine. He has, after all, carried a very smelly load for some years now.
One thing is certain: ECUSA’s goal of preventing the adoption of the covenant during this meeting of the ACC was clearly achieved, in a remarkably non-democratic and ugly manner. When they
What a very peculiar day. One has the sense of a watershed moment.
And so, +Anis, and the MAJORITY of the Communion need to fold and walk right now. They are in a den of thieves led by liars in the room. They should simply state that the Communion no longer exists and that the Anglican Communion will be established around another Province. Let Canterbury be the thing of mere tales. Let TEC rot.
That leaves appx. 50 million Anglicans in communion with each other. This is insufferable. To be held hostage by the bulls*&! that is KJS and Williams and their acolytes.
I would be VERY interested in hearing an analysis of this from some members of the design group. Where do they believe this leaves the process, their work, and how do they see the way forward from here?
[blockquote]
…Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.
-Galatians 1:7b (New International Version)
The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be.
-Galatians 5:10b (New International Version)
[/blockquote]
Why can’t provinces and or dioceses who are on the ACC schedule sign on now? As I understand it (I’m certainly open to correction), the ACC’s ratification of the Covenant is not necessary for these Churches to sign on. It’s decision is suggestive, and it would have been helpful had they provided a positive vote; but where would its actual authority come from to deny any Churches that wish to sign on to the present draft of the Covenant to sign onto it?
#15. optimus prime,
[blockquote]Why can’t provinces and or dioceses who are on the ACC schedule sign on now?[/blockquote]What about section 4? What will it look like after is has gone through the “redrafting process”?
This is kind of like buying a car while it is still on the assembly line. That’s OK if you trust the process. The problem is that the back end of the car will be put on at another assembly plant by another company. Do you still want the car?
#16. Dcn Dale,
ACC has certainly suggested that it needs to go through a redrafting process; but again, it is my understanding that any two Churches on the ACC schedule could, as we speak, sign onto the Covenant Agreement and it would become effective for ordering their relationships with one another. So if Indian Ocean, Burundi, Kenya, etc were to sign on to the Covenant as it is, it would become effective (morally authoritative) for ordering the decision-making practices of those particular Churches. At least this has been my understanding to this point.
Oh I forgot to add, I do not believe that these Churches would need to await a redrafting process as the ability to sign on to the Ridley-Cambridge draft was built into the Covenant itself. By whose authority (juridical or moral/spiritual) would they need to do so. After all, the Covenant itself is addressing the fact that none of our instruments currently have an agreed upon means of enacting any authority!
#18 optimus prime
Churches can indeed sign on, but I will bet you that Dr Williams will not recognise this. As for enacting any authority you can guarantee that Dr Williams will continue to undermine the authority of any instruments other than himself as he did again today.
Read the Rev Phil Ashey’s report of today’s shenanigans:
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=10307
#17. optimus prime,
[blockquote]it is my understanding that any two Churches on the ACC schedule could, as we speak, sign onto the Covenant Agreement and it would become effective for ordering their relationships with one another.[/blockquote] What Covenant Agreement are you referring to? What exactly would they be signing onto? There is no Covenant to sign onto.
Pageantmaster, thank you for that link. After years of believing better of the ABC any faith I had in *his* faith is gone.
#18. optimus prime,
The ABC has the title to the car, it has not been built and sales orders are not being taken yet.
#19 Thank you for the link. Well, this does muddy the water I suppose. I guess we’ll receive some more clarity as to where things now stand in the days to come.
Facing into God’s judgment and his mercy with prayer, courage, repentance, endurance, charity, humility and perseverance. I suppose this is our never ending call.
Re #12 particularly (and others) I’ll repeat what I said on another thread . . .
There is no point in preserving particular forms, formularies, prayer books, etc., as such. Anglican=Communion w/Canterbury. No more, no less. That happens to be the way in which we have held particular forms, formularies, prayer books, etc. (all very dear to us, of course) in a Catholic context, i.e., in communion with an historic see.
When that goes, I have no interest at all in being an Anglican-style Protestant. I shall have to be a Catholic in the one and only way that remains.
#25
RC or EO?
[blockquote]Under a succession of archbishops who were all missionaries from Italy (this includes the Greek S. Theodore) or Saxon disciples trained in their school, the Anglo-Saxon church was ‘ROMAN OF THE CITY’ in its rite, in its calendar, in the dedications and fittings of its churches, in its church music and in ecclesiastical details generally. [/blockquote]
–Dom Gregory Dix
BTW, a tip of the biretta to [url=http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com]Fr John Hunwicke SSC[/url].
If today’s decisions stand, expect a quiet rallying around +++Mouneer Anis of Egypt. More than 10 years ago the Global South observed that if the Anglican Tradition wanted historical roots, the Global South had deeper roots than Canterbury–when did Augustine arrive there? And where did Jesus live? Bethlehem, Egypt, Nazareth and Jerusalem? Let’s see, who’s the archbishop there? The Global South does not need the patronizing, colonialist Western Church to validate its history, authenticity, tradition, or purpose in the Faith. This meeting, beginning with the refusal to seat the delegate appointed by the Archbishop of Uganda, has been ugly for its abuse of power. The liberal voices have shown their bias and prejudice, abandoning their own values of justice for all people. It’s too early to tell, but it may be that the Covenant dies here, and the Jerusalem Declaration takes its place henceforth. The new Communion will have history and tradition centered in an archbishop, Jerusalem and the Middle East, not Canterbury. It will have a covenant, the Jerusalem Declaration. It will affirm and proclaim the Scriptures and the Creeds, and it will unabashedly witness to Jesus Christ as the only name give for salvation among the 1 in 5 people around the world who still have no access to the Gospel, the Scriptures or the Church in their own language. Lord, give us the grace to humbly step back and watch you lift up others where we might once have stood and have led. Amen.
The chaos and confusion that reigned today in Jamaica is likely to have at least one clear outcome: it will undermine confidence in yet another of the Intruments of Unity, just as the non-event that was the Lambeth Conference last summer undermined that one. Today’s disastrous session certainly provides further evidence that the current structures of the AC at the international level are still far too influenced by the decadent western provinces, who are still acting in a colonial, manipulative, controlling manner. But colonialism inevitably breeds resentment and eventual rebellion, and we may well see a backlash, because the clear will of the majority of delegates who voted down the resolution A proposed by revisionists ended up being thwarted.
It’s never polite to say, “I told you so.” But I’ll indulge in it for a moment here. For months I’ve been saying at T19 and SF that we should put no hope in the Covenant nor any trust in the current Instruments, and sadly, today’s events have shown I think that I was right. For unfortunately, those Instruments have again proven themselves to be Instruments of Disunity rather than Unity (even if unwittingly).
For months I’ve been arguing that a merely superficial institutional unity was of no real value. What we need is REAL unity. And that is only possible on the basis of agreeing on the truth of the authentic gospel, and the emphatic rejection of the false gospel of relativism that’s shamelessly being promoted by the spiritually blind and utterly self-deceived leaders of TEC and the ACoC, who mistake evil for good and error for truth. And the debacle that resulted from today’s parliamentary pandemonium only reinforces that conviction in my mind and heart all the more.
Bottom line: As the Master said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” The whole Covenant process is a broken reed. It can bear no weight, as today’s legislative disaster shows all too plainly.
We’ll see if there is a revolt now and the delegates insist on revisiting this whole mess and clearing up the confusion. I’m not optimistic, but after all there are several days left, so I suppose it’s not totally impossible.
But I’m happy to agree with Dr. Seitz’ appeal for us to pray for this ACC gathering, and not least for ++Mouneer Anis, who displayed real courage and leadership today. His stock certainly rose today, while that of ++Rowan Williams sank to a new low.
David Handy+
Its really about power, let me do in my province what I want and I won’t bother you in yours.
This is why there is no discipline in TEC, bishops agree not to bother each other. Let me sue and mistreat whomever I wish, and I won’t bother you in beating up on whomever it serves you to abuse.
My perspective is that the Communion needs someone to read prayers at the time of death over it and let resurrection begin.
William Sulik (#14),
Thanks for contributing the apt dual citations from Galatians about those who sow confusion in the Church. Those two quotes are both highly appropriate and quite ominous. They are useful reminders that St. Paul didn’t seek a conciliatory via media with his Judaizing opponents. He cut heretics no slack in Galatia. And neither should we today.
David Handy+
One grows so tired of it…. I suppose this helps in the pruning.
David wrt #30: I appreciate your general comment, but actually wonder if the Covenant has proven more effective than many of us anticipated. On the one hand, the liberals/progressive/reappraisers must have feared it far more than I reckoned if they were so anxious to undermine it by today’s kind of chaos, etc. Thus, had the Covenant gone through (or if God surprises us in the days to come with it being renewed), it may very well have the impact that many of us hoped for (and others fear). On the other hand, if today stays as is, then the failure of the ACC will complete the dismantling of the Communion as describe above.
The Congregationalists left Anglicanism in the early Colonies up north and over time became the core of today’s Unitarians. On the other hand, Rome had two popes for 70 years. In the first case, no restoration has ever been accomplished. In the second, God did bring the Church back together again. I wonder what God might bring to the Communion in the future?
Today’s events in Jamaica are surely greatly disappointing to those who have worked hard and with great sincerity and integrity to craft a meaningful Covenant. For those of us who do not believe that there ever will be a meaningful Covenant, today’s events are not surprising at all. Fortunately, the global majority who support orthodox Anglicanism do not have to rely on the historic “Instruments of Communion,” or the Covenant that will never be to ensure the future of faithful Anglican witness to the Gospel. That future globally is assured by GAFCON, and in North America is is assured by ACNA. It’s time to get on with the critical business of building the Kingdom folks, what happened today is not worth losing any sleep over, because it’s about the continued failure of structures that were eclipsed years ago. If you’re looking for the future of Anglicanism with the ACC or the ABC, you’re looking in the wrong place! They failed Anglicanism long ago, and even if they allowed a meaningful Covenant (which they won’t!), it wouldn’t make any difference. The Communion is evolving and moving on, no reason to stand gaping at this empty tomb!
Not to irritate you, Chris, but moderate conservative Primates — who will be immensely disappointed by the outcome of today — do not wish to have the involvement with the ACNA/Gafcon/FCA.
This is, of course, the age old problem of the orthodox in TEC as well. Since Gafcon/ACNA aren’t options for many of us, then we end up — if we leave — leaving for Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome or the PCA.
So I suppose the question before the house is . . . is there a way for the moderate conservative Primates and the conservative Primates to work together in such a way that will allow them to repudiate Rowan Williams’s actions and leadership, cease playing his game, and come up with a viable strategy for the Anglican Communion, without also being forced to support one segment’s chosen personal solution, which is the ACNA/Gafcon/FCA.
It will be very interesting to see how the conservative Primates — all of them — end up working together, if they do.
I am so distressed for Bishop Mouneer. What has been lost, now even for the moderate conservatives, is trust. Would you buy a used car from Kearon, Williams, et al.?
I applaud Sarah’s third paragraph in #36. This may be the push to get the conservatives of various stripes to work together, and to stop being manipulated by the ACO. Even a vote of no confidence in the Chairman at the ACC, and a replacement Chairman elected, and proceeding with the originally schedule Covenant vote would be possible if they will get organized and do it. If they don’t succeed, they should walk out.
And supposing nothing further is done at this ACC meeting, which is probable, what is to stop the two-thirds of the Communion (in population) from simply considering the Covenant at their provincial meetings, proposing changes if needed, and making a Covenant among the believing Provinces? Just go around the present Anglican structures, which don’t work and are manipulative, and get on with the business of building trust and global cooperation without them? Who needs this present nonsense, and, as Bishop Anderson points out at Anglican Mainstream, who will pay for it in the future anyhow? Email and phone calls make circulating this draft and coming to common decisions really possible without expensive meetings, visas, travel expenses, and so on.
RE: “what is to stop the two-thirds of the Communion (in population) from simply considering the Covenant at their provincial meetings, proposing changes if needed, and making a Covenant among the believing Provinces? Just go around the present Anglican structures, which don’t work and are manipulative, and get on with the business of building trust and global cooperation without them?”
I completely agree — come up with your own Covenant — one that is actually real — and sign off on it amongst yourselves with as many as can do it.
I’d actually model it on the Covenant that was produced, only make it a real Covenant and add in the consequences.
Perhaps a little ire should be directed at ++Orombi. Thanks to him Uganda had only 1 vote instead of four. As a JSC member he skipped ACC in favor of New Wine, failed to appoint an alternative Ugandan episcopal ACC rep. and tried playing politics with the clerical ACC rep. Those three extra votes would have ensured the addition of the fourth ‘moratoria’ and may have made a difference in the Covenant debate. He messed up. Big time.
#34, my reading of the events at ACC suggests you are right: the Ridley Cambridge Covenant scares the North Americans and their allies enough for them to resort to tactics worthy of an overbearing colonial administration. This suggests that the latest draft of the Covenant has enough teeth to be worth fighting for.
barthianfinn, Canada
OK, we have yet one more example of Rowan Williams of subverting Windsor. He puts Ms Schori on the JSC. He then personally resurrects a defeated resolution that delays the Covenant till after the GenCon gayfest and lays Covenant down sacrificially at the feet of Ms Schori…er…the JSC…er…those are the same thing apparently. It is so very dead.
Will those that were placing their hopes in the Windsor/Covenant process give up hope in this Delphi-technique-on-steroids sham? Can they admit that they were being strung along all the while by the homosexual-unions-can-be-equivalent-to-Christian-marriage ditherer?
Bishop Mouneer
I am aware of God’ s timing. I am very disappinted. I will not let this stop me doing Gods mission. But I am not going to go on mission now as the Anglican Communion. We will go on our own way. Right now the mission is delayed. There will be separation
(from Anglican Mainstream)
Sarah Hey, this may very well be the way forward. Take the work that the Covenant Group has done and sign people up, including dioceses within hostile provinces. It could very well be that the critical mass of the vast majority of Anglicans working with each other within the Covenant will over time make the “official instruments” irrelevant, except of course for the ABC, and my sense is that England is as a whole Church still capable of turning the tide if it wishes and joining with the rest of Anglicanism.
And by the way, the Diocese of Egypt does outstanding social services work with limited resources. You can support them with your cash as well as with your words, with a tax-deductible donation in either the UK or the US. Send me a private message if you want that contact information.
LCF+ (#34) and barthianfinn (#40),
You have a valid point. Clearly TEC and the ACoC do find the Covenant worrisome. Their whole takeover strategy in part depends on keeping many potential resisters in the pews in the dark about the extent of their innovations and how glaringly unbiblical and unAnglican they are, and the Covenant threatened to expose all that and bring it into the light of day. But I still stand by what I wrote in my #30 above. Even had the Covenant been adopted without alteration, it’s actual impact would likely have been minimal, for it is a classic example of doing “too little, too late.” It still left far too much power in the unworthy hands of ++Rowan Williams, the JSC, and the ACO. Those colonial structures, the old wineshkins of Anglicanism at the international level, simply must be replaced (not renewed or reformed, I do mean replaced).
Katherine and Sarah Hey,
I’m happy to say that I heartily agree with you both. Only I’d add that in one sense that’s exactly what the FCA leaders are already doing, just going ahead and building alternate structures and linkages that aren’t dependent on the current wineskins of the AC. And in that light, maybe ++Orombi’s deliberate choice to boycott the ACC meeting and continue building that alternate structure can be seen as not such a blunder after all.
This ACC meeting may prove to be more fateful than anyone would’ve guessed in advance. For the proponents of the Covenant seem to have been foiled in a way that’s likely to undermine confidence in the whole way the AC currently operates, with perhaps a lasting sense of distrust of the whole Covenant process and the ABoC persisting long after people leave Jamaica in a few days.
I’d use the word, “disillusioning.” That is, for some, I think the debacle in Kingston will prove disillusioning because it will show that all hopes that a Covenant might solve our deep-seated problems in the AC have been just a mirage. There really never was any substance to them, for they depended far tii nuch on Canterbury and left the highly dysfunctional Instruments still in place and in charge.
Now disillusionment is painful and sometimes distressing, but in the end it’s always good for the truth to come out, for to be deceived and to take an illusion as something that’s real is inherently bad. What happened in Jamaic was a rude awakening for some, but in the end it may be a divine mercy. For it has exposed the ugly truth that there never was any real hope in the Covenant anyway.
I’d also use the word “disenchantment” for the likely effect of yesterday’s proceedings on many conservative Anglicans. For some of them (such as the noble ACI leaders and the CP bishops in the US), the prospect of the Covenant seemed to work like a powerful enchantment. It served to keep up appearances and to preserve the old wineskins of the AC basically intact. But once again, the AboC has intervened in a disastrous way (even if perhaps unintentionally this time, who can say for sure?) and the highly compromised Instruments have again failed, one more time. And for at least some “moderate” leaders, I suspect the effect will be that the spell is broken, and the whole Canterbury engineered process is finally seen as hopeless. That’s a bitter pill to swallow, but it may be healthy medicine anyway. Facing reality is always a good thing.
As I’ve been saying for a long time, the Old Anglicanism (in terms of its polity and much of its British, Erastian, and colonial culture) has to die, in order that a New and Better Anglicanism can be resurrected in its place.
Let’s watch what those “moderate” conservative primates and provinces do. I imagine that +Drexel Gomez and ++John Chew feel betrayed. I suspect that ++Mouneer Anis and ++Ian Ernest are feeling pretty disillusioned right now. Maybe even angry.
And that’s not always bad. Anger and righteous indignation can give people the courage to do bold things that ordinarily they wouldn’t do.
Personally, I think this whole mess will accelerate the deaath of the old AC, and speed up the birth of the new replacement for those obsolete ways. The old Elizabethan, Constantinian Settlement is fading fast. The new Global (not British), Post-Colonial, hopefully Post-Christendom Settlement is going to get a big boost from this. And for that I say, Thanks be to God.
David Handy+
RE: “Only I’d add that in one sense that’s exactly what the FCA leaders are already doing, just going ahead and building alternate structures and linkages that aren’t dependent on the current wineskins of the AC. . . . Personally, I think this whole mess will accelerate the deaath of the old AC, and speed up the birth of the new replacement for those obsolete ways.”
Right. Problem is . . . we — and by we I mean me and many like me — don’t have any interest in what the FCA/ACNA is doing. They’re not an option for us. So the “new replacement” that you folks came up with isn’t going to be any such thing for me.
What does this mean?
It means that yeh . . . people will get discouraged. And many will leave TEC.
For Rome.
For the PCA.
And for Eastern Orthodoxy.
That’s something that many in the ACNA simply have never gotten.
But each time the ComCons get discouraged, and some of them leave, there’s another fresh sense of “wha?” . . . and every single time, we have people in the ACNA thinking “this’ll be the time.”
Incredible levels of denial all around.
[blockquote]That’s something that many in the ACNA simply have never gotten. [/blockquote]
Of course, we get it, Sarah. I have had several friends leave for Rome, and here in the Diocese of Pittsburgh Edith Humphrey just left for Antioch.
For myself, I decided over ten years ago, that whatever decision I made would be made in concert with other orthodox Anglicans. I would not be acting on my own and going to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy or another mainline Protestant Church. And I certainly would not become a Fundamentalist, as they would not have me.
That leaves either TEC or ACNA. I have been convinced since GC2003 that TEC is no longer a Christian Church, so that narrows the options. The final decision for me was made the day that my bishop responded to our parish’s request for DEPO by invading the parish, changing the locks, and later having his proxy priest-in-charge dismiss those of us on the vestry for “numerous [unspecified] offenses.” Being locked out of your church narrows the options of whether you can stay.
I wish nothing but the best for those
Sorry, I hit “submit” too soon.
I wish nothing but the best for those who choose to fight the good fight within the Episcopal Church. There are places, like the Diocese of South Carolina, where that may still be possible, although I fear GC2009 will likely close that door. For those who cannot, and leave for Rome or Orthodoxy or . . . whatever, I wish you godspeed.
When Kendall Harmon visited our parish in Bristol, CT, a month or so before the bishop invaded, he pointed out the desirability of everyone staying in the same life boat. As the ship is sinking, it is becoming clear that we are not going to be on the same lifeboat. Some of us still think that Anglicanism is worth saving–even if TEC fails to remain Anglican. Even if the ABC fails to remain Anglican.
#47 Bless you Dr Witt and thank you for all you do.
It seems for me, the place I come to worry, fret, commiserate and complain is the blogs; primarily T19. It maybe even takes up more of my energy than it should. I continually hear the Lord say, “Accentuate the positive”. When I am working as a Deacon (beyond the reflecting and praying part) then I find myself doing just that; accentuating the positive. A part of one of our morning prayer collects states, “to know Him is eternal life and to serve Him is perfect freedom. When I am preaching or serving in the liturgy, being a chaplain in a hospital, or even in our weekly clergy meetings, there is such a sense of meaning and purpose. There is such a sense that all things are possible. Maybe it is just the peace I get from a Saturday “long run” but life is better now than I have ever known it. I know that this is somewhat off topic but it is a “time out” for me in the world of “aint it awful”. The reason I’ve said this is because I can also picture all you folks out there with that same contrasting life going on too. The frustration of the politics and the joy of service.
Blessings,
RE: “Of course, we get it, Sarah.”
Please note that my statement was “That’s something that many in the ACNA simply have never gotten.”
The word was “many.” Not “William Witt.” ; > )
Dr. Witt (#47-48),
I’m glad you chimed in. Thanks for sharing your testimony and wry comment. Ironically perhaps, I myself decided long ago that if I despair of Anglicanism altogether I’ll go over to Rome, but I’m actually LESS inclined to swim the Tiber today than I was five to ten years ago. And that’s precisely because I see a very real prospect of the New Reformation succeeding in Anglicanism. And that is why I’m not disheartened by all the signs of the Old Anglicanism that we’ve always known and loved dying a thousand deaths. I really do believe that a New and Better Anglicanism is going to arise from the ashes of the one that has crashed and is now burning. And its vanguard is the ACNA and the larger FCA movment.
And Sarah (#46),
As usual, Dr. Witt is absolutely right. Like him, I get it. I fully understand that you, and many other faithful and honorable orthodox Anglicans, won’t join the ACNA, no matter how it might evolve in the future. I’m not in denial about that, as you seem to think. I freely concede that many who leave TEC or the ACoC will also leave Anglicanism altogether. That’s perfectly understandable, and I don’t fault them for it. After all, my own mentor in ministry, former Bishop of Albany Dan Herzog, went over to Rome a few years ago, and I still have the greatest admiration for him.
I was hoping, Sarah, that you might recognize that what the ACNA is doing is in fact very much the kind of thing that you yourself suggested in your #39:
“,,,come up with your own Covenant–one that is actually real–and sign off on it amongst yourselves with as many as can do it.”
I like that idea. And in a very real sense that’s just what the Jerusalme Declaration is, a sort of Covenant of our own, and one signed by representatives of the largest (and many of the most dynamic and influential) provinces of the AC. I find our future prospects very bright and exciting indeed.
But like Dr. Witt, I wish all orthodox Anglicans well, no matter what road they may choose to take as they continue their spiritual journey. There are many fronts on which the great spiritual war of our time is being fought, inside and outside Anglicanism. Let each of us fight bravely and hard wherever we choose, or wherever we must (for whatever reason).
David Handy+
RE: “I was hoping, Sarah, that you might recognize that what the ACNA is doing is in fact very much the kind of thing that you yourself suggested in your #39.”
No, not at all. And that is precisely what people begged — yes, begged — not to happen, precisely because now the ACNA is committed to theirs, and the rest are going to have to come up with theirs.
RE: “And in a very real sense that’s just what the Jerusalme Declaration is, a sort of Covenant of our own, and one signed by representatives of the largest (and many of the most dynamic and influential) provinces of the AC.”
Very very true. But that’s what six Primates decided. And — as is being rather strikingly shown in TEC — plenty of people find what those six and others decided on not something they wish to be a part of. That’s why if the conservative and moderate conservative Primates get together they’d have to come up with something entirely different. And then, we’d have our many and varied groupings, which is exactly what many conservatives didn’t want.
Oh well.
RE: “I find our future prospects very bright and exciting indeed.”
I am sure that you do.
Sarah,
Thanks for responding. I stand by what I wrote.
David Handy+