7. In the light of the way in which the Church has consistently read the Bible for the last two thousand years, it is clear that a positive answer to this question would have to be based on the most painstaking biblical exegesis and on a wide acceptance of the results within the Communion, with due account taken of the teachings of ecumenical partners also. A major change naturally needs a strong level of consensus and solid theological grounding.
8. This is not our situation in the Communion. Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole. And if this is the case, a person living in such a union is in the same case as a heterosexual person living in a sexual relationship outside the marriage bond; whatever the human respect and pastoral sensitivity such persons must be given, their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions, and thus it is hard to see how they can act in the necessarily representative role that the ordained ministry, especially the episcopate, requires.
9. In other words, the question is not a simple one of human rights or human dignity. It is that a certain choice of lifestyle has certain consequences. So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion’s voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)
Two tracks, two ways of being Anglican, two Gospels? The Arch-Ditherer has spoken opaquely as usual so as to avoid the obvious. And he has used the blatant lying covering “spin” exactly as predicted, too.
It was “nice” to have an Anglican Communion.
[i] Slightly edited to eliminate unnecessary sarcasm. [/i]
Maybe I’m not seeing what others are at Stand Firm (the system wouldn’t give me the comment box there), but I see this as suggesting TEC has placed itself on the “second track” of Anglican affiliation. Has he provided an opportunity for ACNA to be a “full” member of the AC? I wonder.
The only paragraph that is complimentary of TEC is the first. The rest seems to be “descriptive,” heh, of the ways in which TEC has put itself outside the traditional Communion. +++Rowan wasn’t fooled.
It also appears that he is implying that TEC should not be represented in the main councils of AC in paragraph nos 8 & 9. Is he calling for +Kate’s withdrawal from Exec Cmte of ACC and TEC to withdraw from active participation as in 2003-06?
The first paragraph is absolute fantasy, but it assures TEC that as long as they “affirm” (Does this mean contribute $$$ as “affirmed” in the resolution) their desire to be in the AC they are okay regardless of what else they do. Apparently, they can be reckless in their Gen Con and then gloss it over with a letter from the PB.
This letter only addresses the infractions and utter heresy of TEC in philosophical abstractions rather than a direct assault on statements and resolutions. The Archbishop clearly has no stomach for leadership.
And this letter completely ignores the tenuous situation of the orthodox in TEC who are under oppression and attack. It ignores ACNA.
This is not a time for philosophical eloquence but for direct statements of leardership and courage. This letter could have been written prior to Gen Con 2009; it is as if nothing occured contrary to the wishes of the ABC and the AC.
But in the end it says nothing. For example:
[blockquote]25. It is my strong hope that all the provinces will respond favourably to the invitation to Covenant. But in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. [b]It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.[/b][/blockquote]
Well duh! A truly great question. So how exactly is this question to be answered? The document is silent.
This is just a invitation to let things continue to drift and let the actions of individual Provinces, dioceses and parishes (facts on the ground as it were) decide the future of the AC.
I guess the real question for me is whether the tea leaves indicate that the ACN might be recognized. Yes, the ABC beholds a chaos of his own making through inaction and failure to lead.
Actually, I disagree with #4. TEC has not actually done anything yet, as it has pointed out in letters to him. So he is responding to that. What he seems to be saying in paragraphs 1-14 is that TEC has shown in words that it wants to stay in AC, but if it consecrates more gay bishops and if it goes ahead with SSBs, it will be beyond his understanding of a representative body of the AC and cannot represent the AC. The rest of it seems to be a call for setting up a means of discernment for the AC as a whole (the Covenant), so that rogue singular churches can be handled in situations like TEC presents and will present in the future.
He actually, IMO, is responding as best he can under the circumstances, until something substantial is actually done by TEC – i.e. moratorium is still in effect until we break it; we haven’t authorized SSBs as a church only study and preparation of rites for them (and some of our bishops may do them, but GC doesn’t officially authorize them, except as a pastoral measure, which is up to discretion of a bishop, and as GC, we really can’t control what a bishop does within his own diocese).
“Make your ‘yes’ ,yes and your ‘no,’ no.”
#7 I understand what you are saying and it makes sense, but in your first paragraph, you have to use the word “seems” twice (no fault of your own) about what the ABC writes. #8 makes the point…this is no time to require constituents to interpret “seems;” leadership requires better than that. This leads to further “seems” about “what if’s.”
++Rowan’s first paragraph which supports TEC spin perhaps can be seen as trying to soften the blow of the remainder of the letter. I see nothing much in any of the paragraphs that follow that support TEC at all.
Certainly sure to make 815 howl is the push to explore how dioceses or others committed to the Covenant could sign on even if a province (TEC) were to refuse. That won’t go over well.
I noted this paragraph as one that interested me:
[blockquote]18. To accept without challenge the priority of local and pastoral factors in the case either of sexuality or of sacramental practice would be to abandon the possibility of a global consensus among the Anglican churches such as would continue to make sense of the shape and content of most of our ecumenical activity. [b]It would be to re-conceive the Anglican Communion as essentially a loose federation of local bodies with a cultural history in common, rather than a theologically coherent ‘community of Christian communities’.[/b][/blockquote]
Bingo! This loose federation is exactly what TEC’s revisionist leadership claims the Anglican Communion is and should be. And that is exactly why they have pushed “local option” as they have and claim that American context trumps Catholicity. They don’t give a @$#& about Catholicity or Covenant.
Some initial thoughts:
Though the tone of the inital paragraphs is positive towards TEC, it appears he tried to do so by leaving just enough doubt as to whether he accepted Anderson and Schori’s obvious misrepresentations (e.g., “There has been an insistence at the highest level that….”) to avoid ridicule. In this he may have succeeded, and it is probably this that took so long to draft with just the proper nuance, but I do not think he has enhanced his reputation for truthfulness.
However, “The relationship between the Episcopal Church and the wider Communion is a reality which needs continued engagement and encouragement.” I think this is an important early sentence and apparently confirms that, in his view, TEC should stay the center of the communion, no matter what they have done.
At bottom, the letter only calls for more waiting – in this case waiting until there is a covenant. But if, as was evident at Jamaica and from the last-quoted sentence, it is understood that he intends that any covenant be acceptable to TEC, it does not appear that there is much of a future for the CP or the ACNA in his formulation, should it succeed.
Note, for example, his statement that “in the current context, the question is becoming more sharply defined of whether, if a province declines such an invitation, any elements within it will be free (granted the explicit provision that the Covenant does not purport to alter the Constitution or internal polity of any province) to adopt the Covenant as a sign of their wish to act in a certain level of mutuality with other parts of the Communion. It is important that there should be a clear answer to this question.” Setting aside that he then does not answer the question, note what he does say – the CP may not sign the covenant unless and until TEC declines to do so (and even in that event it is not a forgone conclulsion that will be permitted at that time), and anyway they cannot do so if it will violate TEC’s canons. So the practical effect is that the ABC, at least, is indicating that the CP will never be able to sign the covenant – unless TEC agrees. Good luck with that.
The positive side is that it is not at all clear that the Archbishop fully appreciates what he has done by sanctioning the “two-track” system in the manner he has. He may think that he can control that process, but I am no so sure. GAFCON and the ACNA have become the second track, and I suspect that in the absence of leadership by the ABC they will simply proceed to create a communion within the communion with its own structures and support more or less independent of TEC and the currently nonfunctioning “instruments of unity”. And they will take him at his word that this “is an opportunity for clarity, renewal and deeper relation with one another – and so also with Our Lord and his Father, in the power of the Spirit. To recognise different futures for different groups must involve mutual respect for deeply held theological convictions. Thus far in Anglican history we have (remarkably) contained diverse convictions more or less within a unified structure. If the present structures that have safeguarded our unity turn out to need serious rethinking in the near future, this is not the end of the Anglican way and it may bring its own opportunities.”
Bring on the new opportunities.
From his final “reflection”:
[blockquote]the liberating gospel of Jesus Christ[/blockquote]
This is what ought to be proclaimed. But isn’t this the central problem?
The liberating Gospel frees us from slavery to sin (see the Trinity VII Epistle, Romans 6:19-23). It rightly does so by making us new creatures, transformed by the mighty power of our Lord and Saviour. It does [b]not[/b] do so by eliminating sin, by making it go away.
The shackles of sin, crafted and used as tools by Satan, have not vanished. They haven’t been made to disappear, as Satan himself hasn’t disappeared. But the Gospel, truly preached and truly received as proclaimed in the Word, frees us from these handcuffs and chains so that we may leave them behind, which is not our natural state nor inclination.
The Gospel frees us from slavery to sin. It does [b]not[/b] do so by freeing us from the Bible, the Word of God. IMHO, some see obedience to the Bible as slavery, not freedom. Therefore, one must decide which of two choices [b]is[/b] true slavery. So, is sin slavery? Or is the Word of God slavery?
What it all boils down to is whether one believes in the reality, both spiritual and physical, of evil, of Satan, or one doesn’t. Denying this, all hope is lost.
Clemmitt (again, IMHO)
Not to be unkind, but WHAT?!?!?
I have seen some digressions and bloviating, but this long-winded statement is so vague as to make all sides winners and confused at best.
How about:
“Since you (TEC) went ahead apart from the rest of the Communion with your GC decisions, please excuse yourself from the councils of this Communion”.
Look for the Primates to get gastric pains over this L-O-N-G epistle and just demand that the obvious be stated obviously.
One last mini-reflection: Abp. Duncan’s letter is far simpler and far easier to navigate and understand than the ABC’s. Shocking, right? I do hope clarity of the Gospel and refusal to resort to episco-speak counts for something!
Clemmitt
And all the Bishops/Diocese/and some parishioners wondering whether to ‘stay” or “go”, have something to tilt to the “stay” side.. See, no trouble for TEC, therefore no excuse to “go”.
“It is definitley time to “wait” some more.
Grandmother in Sc
Bravo, Clemmitt – you have stated the whole of the choice before humanity…to fear, revere, surrender to God and obey Him, WORD, Will, Law or the devil/flesh/world.
There is no in between. Halfway leaves us split, fractured, unstable.
Reply to #14,
That’s what I meant by my comment (#8.) that the ABC, acting as ABC, should make his yes, YES or his no, NO.
By doing neither, he opens himself up to being perceived by many as a Pharisitical equivocator. He may well be that sort of person, however, all that I know of him is based upon his utterances and his written words. But by this statement, he damages not only himself, he damages the whole Anglican Communion.
Not to respond to my own post, but, OK, I’ll respond to my own post 🙂
That the Gospel [b]cannot[/b] free us from the authority of the Bible should be self-evident. The Bible [b]contains[/b] the Gospel. If the Gospel frees us from the authority of the Bible, then the Gospel frees us from the Gospel. Therefore, the Gospel is void!
I fear that some people believe this is true. Therefore, their gospel is void. Consequently, what they proclaim is void, and should simply be ignored.
AnglicanFirst, thank you for your reply, and for using fewer words 😉
Clemmitt (who’ll try to be quiet now)
Rowan Williams seemingly has no concept of Archbishop (of Canterbury or any province) as guardian of the Faith and of The Church of Jesus Christ.
The most stunning and latest example (besides this letter which does not mention it) is his sitting silently through General Convention and not calling KJS’ error in her speech to the assembly (her Western Heresy foolishness) what it is.
As long as this man sits in Augustine’s Chair in the See of Canterbury, it is null and vacant.
3. Billy wrote:
[blockquote]It also appears that he is implying that TEC should not be represented in the main councils of AC in paragraph nos 8 & 9. Is he calling for +Kate’s withdrawal from Exec Cmte of ACC and TEC to withdraw from active participation as in 2003-06?[/blockquote]
That’s what I first thought when I read it. Then I reread the remark — it refers to “ecumenical partners” — i.e., those non-Communion bodies with whom the Communion has “dialog”, e.g. Romans, Greeks, Russians, and the like. TEC shouldn’t participate in those dialogs.
P.S. Elves, the “Notify me of the follow-up comments?” checkbox both here and on Stand Firm seem to be broken.
I understand that this letter will be a disappointment to those who wanted action. But I never expected action from the +ABC, so I’m actually fairly encouraged by several things here. Sections 2 and 3 are absolutely key in my mind and very strong and important.
1. Section 2 denies the GLBT lobby’s claim that it’s “all about human rights and human dignity and pastoral sensitivity” and that if we don’t ordain non-celibate homosexuals it is a fundamental human rights violation. ++Rowan takes a strong stand for human rights, AND a strong stand for the Church’s right to uphold Christian teaching for 2000 years in authorizing who is permitted to represent the Church to the world. He shows that respecting human rights and promoting orthodox doctrine are not mutually exclusive. He clearly challenges the LGBT lobby’s claim that all the problems and setbacks are due to bigotry and prejudice, etc.
Look again at Rowan’s para 6:
[blockquote]6. However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about [b]whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.[/b][/blockquote]
In the rest of his text, Rowan answers the question I have bolded above and he says NO. (See for instance para 8: “Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole.”)
And he also says NO to further ordination of non-celibate homosexuals especially as bishops, and perhaps even as clergy (he hints at the latter, but does not state it explicitly). He denies Integrity’s slogan “all the sacraments for all the baptized” and says NO.
Read para 9 again:
[blockquote]So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion’s voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)[/blockquote]
Note that phrase “unavoidable difficulty” – Rowan seems to say between the lines that, he may not like it or want it, but if TEC is clearly seen to have violated the moratoria (and this is the critical question we shall have to come back to in a bit) he will have to exclude TEC from having a voice in representing the communion in certain circumstances.
2. Rowan also speaks out against the cultural captivity of the church and doing something just because the culture is doing it. This is a voice that is greatly needed, and not just in the debate about homosexuality and marriage, but also in other areas of ethics – abortion, euthanasia, cloning, etc. etc.
See Para 10: if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline.
3. Section 3 restates the principle of matters diaphora and adiaphora, without using the explicit words – i.e. some things are essential core doctrine and cannot be changed except at the highest levels, while other things are a matter of liberty where we can agree to differ.
It seems to me that ++Rowan comes out even more clearly here than he has in the past at saying that the issues of marriage and ordination standards touch on core doctrine and the church’s very identity (who can represent the church) and thus local option is not acceptable, and practicing local option on these matters will in some sense lead to separation from the covenanted body.
Yes, that’s reading between the lines again, but I think he implies in the strongest terms that local provinces can not change these matters and still be “recognizable” to others as part of the same Communion.
See Para 13, which I take as a strong, although typically veiled, warning to TEC:
[blockquote]13. This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days. The doctrine that ‘what affects the communion of all should be decided by all’ is a venerable principle. On some issues, there emerges a recognition that a particular new development is not of such significance that a high level of global agreement is desirable; in the language used by the Doctrinal Commission of the Communion, there is a recognition that in ‘intensity, substance and extent’ it is not of fundamental importance. [b]But such a recognition cannot be wished into being by one local church alone. It takes time and a willingness to believe that what we determine together is more likely, in a New Testament framework, to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than what any one community decides locally. [/b]
Rowan is saying these matters have NOT been decided as TEC wishes by the whole Communion, and the rest of the Communion does NOT consider them adiaphora. TEC cannot act as it chooses and expect the Communion to recognize them.
Got to go… will get back to this soon, I hope.
A few other observations:
Para. 1-3 seem to say that Tom Wright was wrong.
Also, there is no mention of border crossing; I wonder if he just decided that attempting to gloss over what TEC did whilst condemning the global south in the same piece was simply too incendiary.
And what warrants the attention to lay presidency and communion of the unbaptized (the latter quite common in TEC, by the way)? It smacks of fourth form debate tactics to argue by such bad analogies.
I understand that this letter will be a disappointment to those who wanted action. But I never expected action from the +ABC, so I’m actually fairly encouraged by several things here. Sections 2 and 3 are absolutely key in my mind and very strong and important.
1. Section 2 denies the GLBT lobby’s claim that it’s “all about human rights and human dignity and pastoral sensitivity” and that if we don’t ordain non-celibate homosexuals it is a fundamental human rights violation. ++Rowan takes a strong stand for human rights, AND a strong stand for the Church’s right to uphold Christian teaching for 2000 years in authorizing who is permitted to represent the Church to the world. He shows that respecting human rights and promoting orthodox doctrine are not mutually exclusive. He clearly challenges the LGBT lobby’s claim that all the problems and setbacks are due to bigotry and prejudice, etc.
Look again at Rowan’s para 6:
[blockquote]6. However, the issue is not simply about civil liberties or human dignity or even about pastoral sensitivity to the freedom of individual Christians to form their consciences on this matter. It is about [b]whether the Church is free to recognise same-sex unions by means of public blessings that are seen as being, at the very least, analogous to Christian marriage.[/b][/blockquote]
In the rest of his text, Rowan answers the question I have bolded above and he says NO. (See for instance para 8: “Thus a blessing for a same-sex union cannot have the authority of the Church Catholic, or even of the Communion as a whole.”)
And he also says NO to further ordination of non-celibate homosexuals especially as bishops, and perhaps even as clergy (he hints at the latter, but does not state it explicitly). He denies Integrity’s slogan “all the sacraments for all the baptized” and says NO.
Read para 9 again:
[blockquote]So long as the Church Catholic, or even the Communion as a whole does not bless same-sex unions, a person living in such a union cannot without serious incongruity have a representative function in a Church whose public teaching is at odds with their lifestyle. (There is also an unavoidable difficulty over whether someone belonging to a local church in which practice has been changed in respect of same-sex unions is able to represent the Communion’s voice and perspective in, for example, international ecumenical encounters.)[/blockquote]
Note that phrase “unavoidable difficulty” – Rowan seems to say between the lines that, he may not like it or want it, but if TEC is clearly seen to have violated the moratoria (and this is the critical question we shall have to come back to in a bit) he will have to exclude TEC from having a voice in representing the communion in certain circumstances.
2. Rowan also speaks out against the cultural captivity of the church and doing something just because the culture is doing it. This is a voice that is greatly needed, and not just in the debate about homosexuality and marriage, but also in other areas of ethics – abortion, euthanasia, cloning, etc. etc.
See Para 10: if society changes its attitudes, that change does not of itself count as a reason for the Church to change its discipline.
3. Section 3 restates the principle of matters diaphora and adiaphora, without using the explicit words – i.e. some things are essential core doctrine and cannot be changed except at the highest levels, while other things are a matter of liberty where we can agree to differ.
It seems to me that ++Rowan comes out even more clearly here than he has in the past at saying that the issues of marriage and ordination standards touch on core doctrine and the church’s very identity (who can represent the church) and thus local option is not acceptable, and practicing local option on these matters will in some sense lead to separation from the covenanted body.
Yes, that’s reading between the lines again, but I think he implies in the strongest terms that local provinces can not change these matters and still be “recognizable” to others as part of the same Communion.
See Para 13, which I take as a strong, although typically veiled, warning to TEC:
[blockquote]13. This is not some piece of modern bureaucratic absolutism, but the conviction of the Church from its very early days. The doctrine that ‘what affects the communion of all should be decided by all’ is a venerable principle. On some issues, there emerges a recognition that a particular new development is not of such significance that a high level of global agreement is desirable; in the language used by the Doctrinal Commission of the Communion, there is a recognition that in ‘intensity, substance and extent’ it is not of fundamental importance. [b]But such a recognition cannot be wished into being by one local church alone. It takes time and a willingness to believe that what we determine together is more likely, in a New Testament framework, to be in tune with the Holy Spirit than what any one community decides locally. [/b][/blockquote]
Rowan is saying these matters have NOT been decided as TEC wishes by the whole Communion, and the rest of the Communion does NOT consider them adiaphora. TEC cannot act as it chooses and expect the Communion to recognize them.
Got to go… will get back to this soon, I hope.
Item #7 speaks very clearly (one must understand his dialect). What is needed is some painstaking gymnastics to make the Bible and 2000 years of belief fit this new idea. They have been misunderstood for all those years. We will make them fit the new idea, but it’ll take a few weeks, so slow down. Give us time; 1976 was just a few years ago and that all came out OK, didn’t it?
All in all, a disappointing letter. True, there are some rumblings of distant thunder in it, but we’ve seen that before and somehow the rain never comes.
Rowan Williams is determined to make his firm move tomorrow, and always will.
Ruth Gledhill has a good analysis [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6729180.ece ]here[/url].
[blockquote]24. It helps to be clear about these possible futures, however much we think them less than ideal, and to speak about them not in apocalyptic terms of schism and excommunication but plainly as what they are – [b]two styles of being Anglican[/b] ABC 07-27-09[/blockquote]
“Peace in our time” Neville Chamberlain (1938)
I read the ABC’s two track comment to mean that certain parts of TEC can protect their status as Anglicans by signing on to the covenant, even in its unfinished form, while other parts will have to be downgraded or sidelined. So along with orthodox diocese in TEC I expect he will offer the same recognition to ACNA partners at the same time.
#22. Karen B.
[blockquote]I understand that this letter will be a disappointment to those who wanted action. But I never expected action from the +ABC, so I’m actually fairly encouraged by several things here.[/blockquote]
So Karen, the trick is to expect nothing from the leader of the WWAC and it will save us from being disappointed? What kind of thinking is this? It sounds like a codependent that has learned how to live with an alcoholic.
#25, robroy, that’s Ruth Gledhill at the Times, and thanks for the link.
It’s been clear from the start that this +Cantuar would never be the one to proclaim the schism in effect, so the fact that he won’t now should be no surprise. The power to do that resides in the various Provinces and their leadership. In his own CofE, the issue of recognizing the ACNA will come up in Synod in February, and many CofE bishops have declared continued support for remaining TEC conservatives, as have several Provinces. This isn’t going to be clean process. We are seeing a slow-moving excommunication process which is going to take time. The Anglican Communion itself will very likely not be structured as it currently is (in particular, the ACC may not survive) when this is complete.
I dug up the link to ++Rowan’s response following GC06, three years ago, where I believe he first proposed the two-tier Communion idea.
It’s striking how similar that statement from 2006 is to the current statement in 2009.
Here’s the link to the 2006 statement / letter:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2006/6/27/ACNS4161
From 2006:
[blockquote] It is saying that, whatever the presenting issue, no member Church can make significant decisions unilaterally and still expect this to make no difference to how it is regarded in the fellowship; this would be uncomfortably like saying that every member could redefine the terms of belonging as and when it suited them. Some actions – and sacramental actions in particular – just do have the effect of putting a Church outside or even across the central stream of the life they have shared with other Churches. It isn’t a question of throwing people into outer darkness, but of recognising that actions have consequences – and that actions believed in good faith to be ‘prophetic’ in their radicalism are likely to have costly consequences.[/blockquote]
and also from 2006:
[blockquote] The idea of a ‘covenant’ between local Churches (developing alongside the existing work being done on harmonising the church law of different local Churches) is one method that has been suggested, and it seems to me the best way forward. It is necessarily an ‘opt-in’ matter. Those Churches that were prepared to take this on as an expression of their responsibility to each other would limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness; and some might not be willing to do this. We could arrive at a situation where there were ‘constituent’ Churches in covenant in the Anglican Communion and other ‘churches in association’, which were still bound by historic and perhaps personal links, fed from many of the same sources, but not bound in a single and unrestricted sacramental communion, and not sharing the same constitutional structures.[/blockquote]
++Rowan keeps talking about actions having consequences in 2006 and again in 2009. The problem is he has NOT enforced the consequences the Primates agreed on. (Sept. 20th “deadlineâ€, Lambeth invitations, etc.) So at some point these words, while nice, become empty threats.
And of course there is still the unresolved question in many of our minds just what ++Rowan’s role was in the debacle at the ACC meeting in Jamaica with the Covenant and it’s most important section with teeth (section 4) being punted away….
I like his words, but his “actions,” such as they have been, seem to undermine his words time and time again.
Read the NY Times article from 3 years ago. I think that just about word for word the same article could be written tomorrow.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/28/us/28episcopal.html?_r=2&hp;&ex;=1151467200&en=e87fe6deee57bc52&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=slogin
Except, of course, that dioceses like Fort Worth are no longer “considering action,” but they have already acted and have left TEC. But that is the only real thing that’s changed in 3 years.
Both more and less than I hoped for – more clear about the Church’s teachings on marriage, less clear about the future of those who have gone off the path and fallen into the ditch.
I may be very off base – but I thought the response was much harder hitting than I expected. He seems to be advocating for an Anglican Family – with outliers ie TEC and a more lockstep Communion. I think this letter may have greenlighted the COE’s recoginition and/or communion with the ACNA which I believe is the subject of debate at the next Synod. I also think that he just floated the idea that Dioceses within TEC can sign onto the convenant even if TEC rejects it – that would mean two tiers within TEC and another Anglcian Church in North America. If he means anything by what he says – it seems like there will be a convenant and some will not be a party to it. He is not willing to kick TEC out of the family – but by their own decisions TEC may find themselves outside of the inner circle of the communion, with some of its own Bishops part of the inner circle, and with anther Anglican “family member” as a competitor. I think he has put forth several options on the table but nobody expected him to act unilaterally.
I found this “summation” in a comment on Ruth Gledhill’s blog on the subject:
“I am trying to find the chapter in the Bible to say that Christ was crucified in a two-track manner. Maybe the Anglican Church has found it. Surely they should let the World know of this wonderful new revelation of God’s goodness.”
Exactly !
Grandmother
Dcn Dale, re: your #28.
I was just being honest. I actually expected worse from the statement. So as far as the WORDS go, there’s much of it I can applaud.
But please carefully read all my comments on this thread, and a couple I haven’t posted here from the thread at Stand Firm.
++Rowan’s words are fine enough. But they are NOT enough, especially when his actions consistently undermine the words.
Also, the fact that he is for all intents and purposes merely recycling his 2006 statement, a fact I hadn’t quite fully appreciated when I left my earlier comment, is very damning.
I’m not praising Williams. I was just being honest about my reaction. I like the words here. But I don’t expect them to help anything at all.
This was a well written and thoughtful response by our ABC and shows that he is indeed on top of things. I understand why the ACNA folk are unhappy: they wanted blood. Its not gonna happen folks! This response displays the dignity of his office and does not fall into name calling (Jerusalem and Babylon etc.) that other less thoughtful responses have.
While I admire ++Rowan attempt to maintain the stability of the Anglican Communion, I fear he has lost that battle. Maybe he should focus on the Church of England, because ultimately it, the COE, will have to decide which side of this debate its on – the historic and traditional, represented by FCA/ANCA or the brave new church of the Episcopal Communion. Then we will see the Anglican Communion re-emerge
By the way, I believe its idolatrous for humans to behave as though choosing sides is always a bad thing – only God transcends evil and good and truth and error. Often, choosing sides is a way of acknowleding our own limitations.
Boniface, the CofE is being asked to consider recognition of the ACNA at its February Synod. Since +Cantuar declines to act, recognition and statements of communion are going be province by province, much more like the Orthodox model than the Roman one. Since I prefer that model, as messy as this is going to be, it may work out into a good thing in the end.
Ok, I got a few work things done… let me now go back to something I mentioned in passing in my comment #22:
[blockquote]Note that phrase “unavoidable difficulty†– Rowan seems to say between the lines that, he may not like it or want it, but if TEC is clearly seen to have violated the moratoria (and this is the critical question we shall have to come back to in a bit) he will have to exclude TEC from having a voice in representing the communion in certain circumstances.[/blockquote]
That comment I made above begins to get at ultimately what I think is the greatest weakness of this statement. It is couched purely in theoretical terms. ++Rowan is up in the clouds and restating sort of a high-level doctrinal position, but it is not in any way clear how this concretely relates to what TEC has done.
++Rowan never actually states what he believes TEC has done, what resolutions D025 or C056 signify. His language is all focused on IF statements…
IF a local province were to take unilateral actions, there would be consequences.
IF a province were to do such and such, others in the Communion might not be able to recognize them as faithful to Christian teaching and practice, etc., etc.
So, while the idea of a two-track Communion might be well and good, as might the idea of excluding TEC from having a voice in representing the Communion might be well and good, there is NO indication that I can find here of ++Rowan’s drawing or acknowledging any line. He is merely repeating broad principles.
Some will say (and indeed HAVE said) that TEC has already crossed the line and renounced the moratoria and taken unilateral actions that necessitate such consequences. But ++Rowan says no such thing, gives no hint of at what point TEC may be considered to have crossed such a theoretical line. By not signing the Covenant? Well, that takes us to at least 2012 if not 2015 or beyond.
++Rowan seems to leave open the question, in fact, that TEC has not renounced or breached the moratoria until / unless a non-celibate homosexual is ordained bishop or until there are authorized SSB rites. He doesn’t say one way or the other how he interprets TEC’s actions and the two resolutions. So the question is utterly open.
WHO is to say when TEC has crossed the line?
WHO is to say whether D025 and C056 constitute an overturning of the moratoria?
In fact, while decrying individual action on the local level, ++Rowan’s silence on these matters, or at the very least his failure to name any kind of structure or entity that will in fact speak on such matters, means that he has in fact blessed local option: it will be up to each province & primate to decide for himself what TEC’s actions mean.
Ugh.
Katherine you are correct and I believe that is why the leaders of FCA recognize Rowan for what he is. He has completely ignored them and their recommendations for 6 years. They made a request 6 years ago TEC should repent. If not, communion with them is broken. What has changed?
I thought I would go back in the archives of a chat I had a week ago today about what Rowan might say, just out of curiosity:
Kendall, I’d say you about nailed it!
Katherine (#40.) wrote,
“Since +Cantuar declines to act, recognition and statements of communion are going be province by province, much more like the Orthodox model than the Roman one.”
The “province by province” recognition is already occurring.
Suppose, recognition of ACNA starts occurring diocese by diocese? That is suppose a diocese within ECUSA that by ‘all measures of the Faith’ determines that it is in communion with ACNA and declares this fact publically and officially.
After all, the episcopal structure of ECUSA does stop at the diocesan level. Its ludicrous to declare that ECUSA is an episcopally run organization at the national level.
And the call to adhere to the “pre-nascent” Covenant is pretty hollow in that he delivered the Covenant up to a medical team consisting of three late term abortionists and one ob-gyn.
AnglicanFirst, there are some hurt feelings, etc., in the USA which may impede developments for a while, in my opinion. I hope that time and Christian charity on both sides will heal those wounds. Meanwhile, people still in TEC are in for tough times and need prayer.
What did you expect folks…..a call to the PB to resign from the ACC? Yes, it’s similar to his ’06 Statement. Yes, it’s fraught with conjecture. But, when considered as a whole, it’s at least honest and certainly won’t (isn’t) sit well with those at the helm of TEC and their minions. Is it a springboard to action? Probably not but it could have been much more ambiguous so let’s give some credit when credit is due. It would certainly seem to validate and vindicate the Windsor Continuation Group and the genuine Communion Partners bishops and rectors. For those who hoped he’d do more, wishful thinking at best.
I think 22 & 30, KarenB and Katherine, sum things up rather well, but the dilemma is that both sides (sorry to use that term, but we’re surely at that point) are trying mightily to not be the one to declare schism.
Which pastorally reminds me of working with couples, both of whom have, to my perception, clearly decided to divorce, but are adamantly refusing to say or act in that style, stating only (over and over) “if that’s what they want, i can’t stop them.” Which is frustrating, as i often want to say “i’d almost feel better, BLANK, if you just went ahead and honestly filed for separation, because you have no hope or intention to reconcile and are actually acting to push the other to precipitate the break — trying to make them do it really doesn’t make your situation anymore morally defensible than if you were to be the initiating party.”
I don’t say that, but it is often quite perverse what factors it takes for one or the other party to actually do what they’ve long ago set their hearts to do long before. The main thing is that if something happens that allows them to say “well, i didn’t want to, but i had to, you know, to fix the mortgage, or to secure the children’s financial aid for college, or [fill in the usually fiscally oriented factor HERE].”
Which is what i see coming between ABC/ACC and TEC. It will be some unexpected legal twist that will fiscally force one party, likely TEC, to make a declaration, while saying they were “entirely desirous of any other option than the course they have been forced to adopt.” But that’s the private consultation we’ll not know about for long years, if ever — the PB et alia discussing in camera the various trusts and holdings, asking about each one “how will our ownership/control be effected by an official separation from the Anglican Communion?” And what little i know tells me that TEC has little legally at stake, other than invitations to romantic old market towns and quaint old castles and manor houses (mistake me not, that has a value that’s kept many TEC bishops in the game long past their point of wanting out), while the ABC/ACC know that a major separation from the coffers of Trinity/Wall Street and else of the TEC foundations and funds will hit them very hard indeed.
So i think TEC will wait to declare their own communion-ness only when a legal cause gives them sufficient grounds to say “we had to do it, didn’t want to, had no choice.”
Does anyone know what the ABC is referring to when he cites fallible discernment of the church at large with respect to Chinese missions in the 17th century?
With reference to the learned archbishop and what he has done and failed to do, what is “unnnecesary” sarcasm?
Robroy, I think, points to the fatal flaw in whatever steel one might read into Rowan’s missive:
[blockquote]And the call to adhere to the “pre-nascent†Covenant is pretty hollow in that he delivered the Covenant up to a medical team consisting of three late term abortionists and one ob-gyn. [/blockquote]
If you’re inclined to wait on the Covenant as a definitive line in the sand for TEC, keep in mind that A – there is no such thing in existence and B – if one does come into existence, it may have holes big enough that you can drive Marc Andrus’ Gay Pride Parade Convertible through them. It’s yet another pig in a poke, deftly marketed by Rowan Williams.
#50, I second your question. That too struck me as odd. I would love to know what ++Rowan may have been referring to.
Spot on, Canon Harmon!!!!
I might add that he did a lot less of the “back-and-forth” than I expected and he actually presented and affirmed the Church’s teachings on marriage and such a lot stronger than he has in the past. I was VERY pleased that he mentioned our relationship with our ecumenical partners quite often and affirmed the catholicity of the Church. That’s something TEC refuses to acknowledge.
#53, I am not near my library to double check, but I think this is in reference to the “rites controversy” whereby Matteo Ricci and other Jesuit missionaries sought to indiginize the Catholic liturgy within the Chinese-Confucius way of life. The Vatican ruled against them, but a few centuries later admitted that Ricci was actually correct in his missionary strategy. So +Rowan is saying that an innovation that initially appeared to be heterodox was later admitted to be faithful to the gospel.
I think his letter overall would have been effective in 2003. I am not suspicious of him as many are, but I think this missive is inadequate because Anaheim was a response to +Rowan’s previous generosity, and the rest of the Communion’s six year forbearance, of them. Regardless of the issue – 17th century sacramental rites, 21st century anthropology – one normally does not expect Christians to treat people as TEC characteristically treats those who are not ideologically pure.
They expect grace; they extend none.
+Rowan writes to TEC as errant children, as Paul did in 1 Corinthians. We are now in 4 Corinthians.
#51, Dan– LOL.
#47, Katherine, God bless you, but… “I hope that time and Christian charity on both sides will heal those wounds….” that would be a wish not a hope.
#51, a grateful cetacean’s “goodbye” with a common expression of appreciation for all the piscatorial delights a la Douglas Adams capable of multiple interpretations depending on the reader’s input (to limit it to sarcasm is to betray a certain insecurity, I suppose, but there you are).
Here is the quote that may ruffle a lot of feathers…
[blockquote]their chosen lifestyle is not one that the Church’s teaching sanctions[/blockquote]
Many people don’t see homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle, but rather something you are born as.
Umbridge, #58, the liberals are already taking umbrage in a big way at the word “lifestyle.”
Reply to # 58. I believe ABC’s wording “chosen lifestyle” is appropriate. It distinguishes between orientation and a way of life. In this context orientation means “a person’s self-identification as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual†(MWCD). Lifestyle is “a way of life” (MWCD; AHDEL), which is “a course of conduct” (WordNet).
Conduct, or behavior, is a choice, not a predetermined matter. If you do not agree with this statement, then you must believe you have no choice as to your actions. But since you have chosen to use a keyboard to type and post a particular comment, it seems clear that you have such a choice. The same goes for sexual behavior or misbehavior or abstinence. It is a matter of discipline, or, if you will, discipleship.
I hope you don’t take offense at my pointing this out. But, of course, perhaps it was predetermined that you would assume the handle “Umbrage,” although you seem to have misspelled it. Perhaps your misspelling was predetermined as well.
Dick Wire
[blockquote] The Rev. Susan Russell, president of the pro-gay Episcopal group Integrity USA, said it is clear the steps her church took in Anaheim “were contrary to what the archbishop said he hoped would happen.”
But Russell said she does not expect Episcopalians to back off on consecrating gay bishops or blessing same-sex unions. In fact, she said, the Diocese of Los Angeles, where Russell is a priest, is expected to consider electing a gay or lesbian candidate as suffragan (assistant) bishop later this year.
“I expect this church to move dramatically forward in the rest of the year,” Russell said, “and our deepest hope is that the rest of the communion, or at least large portions of it, continue to be at the table with us.”[/blockquote]
From [url=http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2009/07/williams-suggests-secondary-ro.php]here[/url]. The moratorium on more homosexual bishops is in effect until it isn’t, and it looks like that will be soon. (Again, folks, you heard it here first: Tracey Lind, the lesbian priestess from Cleveland, will be elected bishop before a year is out.)
[blockquote]I hope you don’t take offense at my pointing this out. But, of course, perhaps it was predetermined that you would assume the handle “Umbrage,†although you seem to have misspelled it. Perhaps your misspelling was predetermined as well.[/blockquote]
No, I did not misspell it. I enjoy the Harry Potter books and I am also a teacher. Professor Umbridge is one of my favorite characters in the series.
A possible “two-tier” Communion structure has yet to be worked out, as does what defines constituent membership.
The question is, can people still call themselves “Anglican” if they espouse a theology that states that sodomy is the moral and theological equivalent of a procreative act between a husband and a wife?
For the record, I also disagree with heterosexual sodomy, both theologically and medically. From a scientific perspective, and speaking as a health care professional, it is biologically true that humans are not built that way, despite any issues people try to force.
Seems to me we’re not truly speaking of a double-tiered church, although I grant that those sorts of terms have yet to be defined. It’s two different churches, folks.
I’m aware of all the technological hairs I could split, but I truly believe my friend, who is Armenian clergy, has it right–“when two men can make a baby, then I’ll call it ‘marriage'”. That also follows for two women.
robroy wrote:
[blockquote]the liberals are already taking umbrage in a big way at the word “lifestyle.”[/blockquote]
It is the technique of The Party. By forcing words to mean what The Party wants them to mean, it prevents one from thinking thoughts (much less voicing them) which run counter to The Party. It’s part of Newspeak.
Recommended Reading:
Nineteen Eighty-four by George Orwell
Animal Farm by George Orwell.
Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell.
Abolition of Man by C. S. Lewis
That Hideous Strength by C. S. Lewis
The Last Battle by C. S. Lewis
Farenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
Coming soon to an Episcopal Church new you: The New Order
If the new and improved Covenant is the determining factor on membership to one of the “tracks”, I predict that all will be able to be part of the first “track” because all will be able to sign on the worth-less-than-the-paper-it-is-printed-on. The result? We will have kicked the can down the road, three or more years longer (the time that will be given to sign on to the edentulous Covenant). We will be in exactly the same place and Rowan will be so pleased that all are still at the table!
robroy re: your #61,
I’ve seen you make this prediction on a couple of threads. But what liberal dioceses have election processes in the works?
Certainly Lind is not going to be elected in a place like Georgia or DUSC.
I’ve not been tracking dioceses that are in bishop search very closely
“Robert Duncan Writes an Open Letter to Anglican Communion”
Eight Paragraphs of Clarity
“Archbishop Rowan Williams Responds to General Convention”
Twenty six paragraphs of scholarly equivocation
It is a professorial essay, good at that. I looked in vain for the conclusion, the recommendations and perhaps even the action plan.
If you did not know the author, there was little within it to suggest that the writer is the Archbishop of Canterbury. Someone noted the Archbishop does not respond, he “reflects”. Although reflections and visions are set out there is no attempt to connect them with any plan for action or with the actual structures of the Communion or what will be happening within the next year.
I fear without leadership, there will be more drift, more disintegration.
Pageantmaster, you hit the nail on the head at #68. The primary function of a bishop, to say nothing of the Archbishop of Canterbury, is to preach and maintain the Gospel following in the footsteps of the apostles in whose shoes he stands. All of the blathering about strategies and two tiers and so on is not doing this. How very sad.
Although Kendall hasn’t yet posted his own commentary on ++Rowan’s statement here, he is quoted in an AP article today:
[blockquote]Canon Kendall Harmon, a traditionalist leader in the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, said while there are positives in Williams’ latest attempt to hold the Communion together, the Anglican leader left unanswered key questions about how a two-tiered system would function.
“It’s going to increase the chaos in the province of the American church, and in the Anglican Communion,” Harmon said.[/blockquote]
[url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRCTxJ1FtxUjTWwYAj8MqEPhTQwAD99N3NKG1]link here[/url]
#35 Grandmother (and Ruth Gledhill):
The original two-tier system at the Crucifixion- There were two men called quite literally called to be “crucified with Christ”. I think their example will be most telling here.
I like A.S. Haley’s analysis best of all. Certainly better than mine.