But the fact is that there is a large group of conservatives within TEC who:
— have recognized for some years now that the Instruments of Unity have failed and will not provide relief or establish any sort of common order ever
— wish to “engage in strategic, thoughtful action within TEC,” not to “reform TEC” but to work within various local contexts for numerous possible goals and outcomes
— have no interest in “patient and enduring witness” only without massive differentiation and strategic action
— wish to be differentiated from the national structures of TEC in a more significant and apparent and compelling and communicative way than simply affirming the three Windsor moratoria
— do not believe that an “Anglican Covenant” based on the corrupt Joint Standing Committee and zero spelled-out consequences will be at all effective in reigning in future chaos and division
— do not believe that the Instruments of Communion are “the effective means of ordering the common life of the Communion” — they are not effective and they do not order anything at all, much less “common life of the Communion”
— recognize that the current Archbishop of Canterbury will not do what he needs to do in order to solve the chaos and disorder that is in the Anglican Communion — this necessarily means that action must take place within TEC and among traditional Episcopalians to differentiate and “bring about desired future states” through other arenas and channels
So how do you avoid the existing non-discrimination canons passed in 2003?
1.Canon I.17.5 – Of Regulations Respecting the Laity
Sec. 5. No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by Canons. (page 55)
2.Canon III.3.1.2 – Of the Ministry of All Baptized Persons
Sec. 2. No person shall be denied access to the discernment process for any ministry, lay or ordained, in this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise provided by these Canons. No right to licensing, ordination, or election is hereby established. (page 4)
3.Canon III.9.3(a)(3) – Of the Life and Work of Priests
(3) Written notice of the election of a Rector, signed by the Wardens, shall be forwarded to the Ecclesiastical Authority. If the Ecclesiastical Authority is satisfied that the person so elected is a duly qualified Priest and that such Priest has accepted the office to which elected, the notice shall be sent to the Secretary of the Convention, who shall record it. Race, color, ethnic origin, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities or age, except as otherwise specified by these Canons, shall not be a factor in the determination of the Ecclesiastical Authority as to whether such person is a duly qualified Priest. The recorded notice shall be sufficient evidence of the relationship between the Priest and the Parish. (page 22)
4.Canon III.9.4(d) – Of the Life and Work of Priests
(d) If a Priest has been called to a Cure in a congregation in another Diocese, the Priest shall present Letters Dimissory. The Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese shall accept Letters Dimissory within three months of their receipt unless the Bishop or Standing Committee has received credible information concerning the character or behavior of the Priest concerned which would form grounds for canonical inquiry and presentment. In such a case, the Ecclesiastical Authority shall notify the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in which the Priest is canonically resident and need not accept the Letters Dimissory unless and until the Priest shall be exculpated. The Ecclesiastical Authority shall not refuse to accept Letters Dimissory based on the applicant’s race, color, ethnic origin, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities, or age. (page 25)
5.Canon III.9.6(a) – Of the Life and Work of Priests
(a) No Priest shall preach, minister the Sacraments, or hold any public service, within the limits of any Diocese other than the Diocese in which the Priest is canonically resident for more than two months without a license from the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese in which the Priest desires to so officiate. No Priest shall be denied such a license on account of the Priest’s race, color, ethnic origin, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities, or age, except as otherwise provided in these Canons. Upon expiration or withdrawal of a license, a priest shall cease immediately to officiate.
I can’t confirm that transgender was added to this, but it might have. There were two resolutions to this effect, but I can’t determine their status.
Does this mean that General Convention is now going to monitor the placement of rectors in parishes? If that is true it will be like O’Bama deciding to close car dealerships…an terrible overreach into the private sector
I wish we could read Sarah’s entire piece, but Stand Firm seems to be out of commission for a bit.
#’s 1 and 2, the Canons leave open the distinction of what we might call “manner of life” and they explicitly term “character or behavior.”
But, look at what the ABC has written. His comments on this are unequivocal (a raity!)
-the Church is NOT free to recognize same-sex unions regardless of their legal status.
-a person in a same-sex relationship, legal or not, has the same status as a person in a sexual relationship outside the bond of marriage
-and here is the money quote for reasserters: 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.
The ABC has now officially said that manner of life or “behavior” is a serious impediment to fulfilling the duties of the ordained ministry. The Canons cited above allow for character and/or behavior to be a consideration. Status and self-identification are not an issue, but in dioceses where Bishops do not allow ordination of people sexually active outside of the bonds of marriage, their right to deny exists.
I am respectful of Sarah’s efforts in various forms to develop this Third Way. While not my way, in principle it should be available, and is certainly admirable. However, in reading through the various restrictions on action, both in the proposal at SF and external constraints, it appears to be what in mathematics is called the “Null/Empty Set.” The middle has been paired away so that there is nothing left but a theoretical point, leaving no place for a almost-Leaver, almost-Stayer, to stand.
I agree with Brian. The ABC moves the ball from the “orientation” side of the field to the “behavior” side. That surprised me (perhaps he was cleaning up Wright’s messy letter). I would imagine there are some liberals pulling their hair out over that part of his letter.
I’m sorry, but there are getting to be too many ways. Seems Jesus said something or other about ways. (See Matthew 7:13-14, Luke 13:24 and John 14:6)
I also believe that in time those who strive to be faithful to the doctrine, discipline and worship of Christ as received by his catholic Church will be first marginalized and eventually excluded. We have the example of the ordination of women to the priesthood as precedence as to where this is going.
“Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.” (Neuhaus’ Law)
Btw, the addition of “gender identidy” to the canon was killed by the House of Bishops, as was an attempt to remove the whole “anti-discrimination clause”. I believe that eventually these canons will be used to force the “third way” bishops, priests and laity to get with the program or to get out (but don’t take anything with you).
[blockquote]Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.†(Neuhaus’ Law)[/blockquote]
On further thought, there’s also Gresham’s law: “Bad money drives out good.”
Either law applies.
All right Bryan, after all these are your canons, how do they relate to non-celibate homosexual behavior? And, as you all so frequently remind us, what the ABC says, has no bearing on the operation of TEC’s canons or on TEC’s autonomy.
Ken, thanks. I couldn’t tell from the TEC web site. But I am not sure that killing it was deliberate. It may have been inadvertent.
Brian’s post in #3 is right so far as it goes. The problem is that Rowan Williams has opined thusly before and had TEC kick sand in his face in response. As far as TEC is concerned, a solemn statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury and $3.50 will get you a Venti Decaf Mocha Jave Latte with a shot of vanilla and medium foam.
If Williams isn’t prepared to act on these words, and nothing so far indicates that to be the case, then he should keep them to himself.
I am amazed by the lack of imagination and leadership among reasserters in this difficult time. Surely there is at least the possibility of coming up with a constructive third way.
Well, to my mind, you have to first state the problem to then find solutions. Currently, there are two sorts of people who are both believers and Episcopalians.
The first are those who find themselves in orthodox dioceses (Albany, Central Florida and South Carolina, for example). Their first priority in dealing with this issue, is to see to it that they remain orthodox. I can cite at least three or four examples of dioceses that have gone from staunchly orthodox to revisionist in the past twenty years. Doubtless there are others. It’s time for the orthodox bishops to step up and do their duty as defenders of the faith. It’s time for the laity to keep a close watch on the priests and bishops.
The other problem is that of the scattered orthodox who are not in believing dioceses. My solution, for I was one of those, was to leave. I’d love to hear of other ideas. I do keep hearing, deep in my soul, the word ‘evangelism’. I think that may prove to be the key for both solutions, somehow.
Does there always HAVE to be a third way for Anglicans? I mean is it genetic or something? What is the third way between orthodoxy and heresy? If we identify things truthfully as they are, and stop beating around the bush by calling heresy “revisionism” and orthodoxy “reasserting,” it might help. Just because heretics don’t think they’re heretics, doesn’t mean that they aren’t! This endless quest for a magical “third way,” may be becoming a way for people to avoid identifying things as they truly are. If you can’t identify the problem, or call it by its name, it’s unlikely that you’re going to find a magical way to resolve it. Maybe the endless hand wringing about a “third way,” IS the third way!
All right Bryan, after all these are your canons, how do they relate to non-celibate homosexual behavior? And, as you all so frequently remind us, what the ABC says, has no bearing on the operation of TEC’s canons or on TEC’s autonomy.
They don’t. They remain silent on the matter. Each Bishop may determine what constitutes problematic “character or behavior.”
The ABC himself said: 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.
#12 Chris, the 3rd way Sarah Hey outlines is not between orthodoxy and heresy. If you are familiar with her many SFIF posts, she is seeking an effective way for “stayers” in TEC who are orthodox believers to first defend their immediate vicinity (congregation, diocese, or core of believers in a revisionist congregation with no orthodox alternative place of worship) and then to form networks outside of official channels for support, evangelism, further and more effective organization, and the determined and politically savvy yet orthodoxy-driven retaking of vestries, standing committees, etc. in the same way that Integrity et al did for the GLBT agenda in the church. Some have reservations in good conscience about ACNA’s long-term future and about further fragmentation and splitting in a church whose ecclesiology is essentially catholic. I suggest you read Sarah Hey’s posts on the general subject at SFIF before you find yourself biting and devouring a stalwart Christian.
It isn’t a third way because there is any inherent virtue in their needing to be a third way. it is just that with Communion Partners on one side and ACNA on the other, Sarah sees a need for one and I hear a lot of people saying. Impossible, not feasible, etc. etc.
The third way has its best chance if ACNA and CP are not seen as opposites, but are able to find a way to work together to close in on the enemy instead of being allowed to look like opposites when in fact they share all the basics.
Maybe that is where two different sort of memberships ought to be offered, an in TEC ACNA membership and an out of TEC ACNA membership.
I’m afraid I still don’t quite understand precisely what the goals of this third way are. If they are, as no. 14 says, primarily to defend the local parish/diocese and protects orthodoxy, that is admirable but surely ultimately doomed to failure. Their next bishop is going to have to get consents from the increasingly radicalized majority of TEC. I doubt he will be a solid as the present incumbent. And the bishop who follows him will surely be even more “moderate.” Sooner or later, these “stayers” cannot endure.
To me it’s like TEC is a large, ocean-going vessel that has developed a massive breach beneath the waterline. Water is pouring in. It is becoming increasingly clear to most of those on-board that the hole cannot be repaired, though an dwindling number of hands are still furiously trying to do so (ACI/CP and those still trying to reform TEC from the inside). A significant part of the passengers and crew are convinced repair is impossible and have abandoned ship (ACNA). They are still alongside the sinking vessel and are pleading for their shipmates to jump into the lifeboat with them before it’s too late. Finally, there is group (those traditionalist “stayers” of whom Sarah speaks) who are steadfast in their determination to insure that their particular cabin stays free of the rising waters but who no longer believe repair of the ship is possible (I assume this since they are not actively working to reform TEC nationally from the inside any longer). They have barricaded themselves in an interior room and sealed the watertight doors. Due to their constant, valiant efforts at plugging leaks no water can get into their room, but as the ship as a whole passes under the waves they will surely perish along with everyone else still on-board. It is only a matter a time, unless they make a run for the deck and jump–and soon.
I truly don’t mean this to be harsh. I just don’t see a long-term survivability inside TEC for those who recognize that reform of TEC is impossible and that neither any of the Instruments of Unity nor the Covenant can retrieve the situation. No matter how orthodox their parish or diocese is today, they are at most two future bishops away from disaster as long as the majority of TEC must approve of their future episcopal elections.
13, right. As in women’s ordination?
And the ABC will shield clergy from presentments?
Milton (#14) thanks for your response. I actually have read Sarah’s posts and I do understand what she is trying to do. At some level we’re all dealing with living through a difficult, confusing and complex era of Anglican, and, more broadly, Christian history. In this sense we’re all muddling through a bad situation as best we can — and I have no quarrel with how others do that.
My concern is more with the idea that there is a magical “third way.” I don’t think there is. There is a choice we ALL face between Christianity and something that is most certainly not Christianity. You and others have concern “about about ACNA’s long-term future and about further fragmentation and splitting in a church whose ecclesiology is essentially catholic.” I, and others, have concern about a strategy that believes it is safe to remain in a jurisdiction that has, as an institution, fallen thoroughly into heresy.
As you, in good conscience, have concerns about the capacity of ACNA to avoid further fragmentation, I, also in good conscience, have concerns about orthodox Anglicans still in TEC deceiving themselves. In her piece Sarah describes these orthodox souls still in TEC as: “most certainly interested in engaging ‘in strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states’ and who do not share all of the commitments and convictions of the ACI.” As her piece points out, however, the orthodox within ACNA are not the only ones facing the threat of fragmentation — so are the orthodox who remain in TEC (who have the added burden of sorting this all out in the context of a body firmly in control of heretics)! That’s a tall order indeed. Most importantly, she does not articulate the end game. What do you think the end game is?
I would certainly not deny that ACNA embodies substantial diversity, but its a diversity that is entirely intelligible and consistent with the arc of Anglican tradition. It pales in comparison to the diversity found in TEC.
Finally, I would ask you to consider again who is “staying” and who is “leaving.” Not simply who is leaving TEC. That much is clear. But who is leaving the Anglican Communion? More importantly, who is leaving Christianity? This is a far more complex question. However, I saw NOTHING at the General Convention last week to suggest that TEC is not leaving BOTH the Communion and Christianity. More Anglicans on the global level are in Communion with ACNA than with TEC — so, once again, who is leaving the Communion? I would argue that TEC is leaving the Communion and they’ve been leaving the Communion for some time now. Nothing happened in California last week to suggest that their departure is not, in fact, picking up speed. Even more problematic, TEC leadership has also begun to articulate its position that individual dioceses will not be permitted to enjoy some special relationship with Lambeth Palace on their own (say through adoption of a covenant). They are already insisting that the decision to adopt or not adopt the covenant will be up to the General Convention, and not left to individual dioceses. So, who is staying and who is leaving?
Do you honestly think that there’s anyone who doesn’t really have a choice? I don’t believe that. We worship a Lord who famously said: “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is no worthy of me; and whoever does no take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me.” (Mt. 10:37-39). He clearly indicated that there would indeed be choices that had to be made, and they would not be easy choices. So, there is ALWAYS a choice and there are times when we cannot avoid it. Remember: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” I do not live in an orthodox diocese, and I have found this to be true.
Rev. Harmon has asked above: “Surely there is at least the possibility of coming up with a constructive third way.” My question in response is: What if there is, in fact, NOT a third choice? Despite what Bob Barker used to ask on “Let’s Make a Deal” the Gospel suggests that there are not always three doors to choose from. Are you prepared for that and for the difficult choice that comes with that realization? Will it be Door #1 or Door #2?
In response to Rev. Harmon in #15, I would first have to be convinced that there is indeed a coherent body of bishops who could be described as “Communion Partners.” I see this group as so fluid and heterogeneous, so unable to act in a coordinated manner that they do not, in fact, constitute a meaningful force in the life of either TEC or the Anglican Communion. At the core of this exceedingly diverse and fluid group there are indeed a core of seven or eight orthodox bishops, but even at the level of that small core there seems little indication of consensus.
Br Michael,
There is and will be no safe harbour or protection within TEC.
Even good bishops won’t call into question the atttacks and persecution wrought on conservatives by their fellow bishops.
This has been the problem for 40 years, no discipline of the bishops among themselves and thus no protection from Schori and her minions.
22, that’s my take on it too. Bryan seems to think otherwise.
[blockquote]It isn’t a third way because there is any inherent virtue in their needing to be a third way. it is just that with Communion Partners on one side and ACNA on the other, Sarah sees a need for one and I hear a lot of people saying. Impossible, not feasible, etc. etc. [/blockquote]
Catacombs?
Just being physically present in TEC does not mean that some have not also “moved on”. The CP Bishops are really focused at the level of the Anglican Communion. Sarah Hey and conservatives of like mind are really the only ones still physically and mentally in TEC. What puzzles me is that most conservatives inside TEC say that the institution is dying and or is irredeemable yet somehow feel that is the best alternative for them. I appreciate the tenacity of folks like Dcn Phil Snyder but he, like Dr. Radner are there to die. Only they know if the sanctification process continues for them. Maybe it is the understanding of the way of the cross that some find solace and consolation in the suffering within TEC. For me, it would have not just been spiritual suicide, I was going from prophetic voice to simply a critical spirit. This critical spirit still emerges on my posts. Coming to these blogs is for me, participating in the reunion of a dysfunctional family. If you listened to my homilies or read my DSJ blog articles you would not recognize me as the same person.
Chris, (and others) I read Sarah’s broad idea as being a kind of underground resistance in hostile, enemy-occupied territory, as brought out by her medieval fiefdom metaphor. The purpose of such actions in the actual Middle Ages and now in TEC is not to execute some master plan of which the details have been carefully laid out in advance by a formal organization. Rather, it seems to be to provide survival and safe haven for individuals (such a heretic I am per -KJS 🙂 ) and small groups of conservative guerillas, as it were. Saving individual souls right under KJS’s nose surely must be faithful to God’s will, no? Guerilla-type resistance in small cells can be very hard to stamp out and eventually can attract and convert many to its cause if the cause be truly worthy or compelling.
For myself, even in the DioTN in a mostly orthodox congregation with 2 orthodox priests, emerging family issues have made it necessary for me to leave and go to a Nazarene church whose pastor guided and formed me over 10 yrs. of faithful teaching on radio and internet, and whose congregation and my Sunday school class have taken me in most warmly to their part of the body of Christ. How long will I be out of DioTN? After a year totally away and a year before that of Sunday evening service at the Nazarene church after morning TEC service, and more so after GC09, I grow increasingly pessimistic of there being anything vital and growing to return to, especially in contrast to my current refuge. This after trying for 5 years to make people aware of the national church’s slide toward total spiritual disaster and meeting mostly nervous laughs followed by a quick change of subject, or being avoided by some including the previous rector, who preferred not to read about the growing madness of TEC leadership, to being told by a pillar of the congregation that I might be (read: he wished for me to go and be) more at home in a (Episcopal bete-noir) Baptist church. Perhaps I saw his offer and raised it one better!
[Ad hominem comment deleted by Elf]
[Ad hominem comment deleted by Elf]
Texanglican, to employ your metaphor, I would say to you that I see my position not as locked in my room, but as standing on the highest point on the stern. So far, all of your lifeboats (ACNA, Southern Cone, etc…), look leaky to me (in other words, they are not an option for me at this time, for reasons numerous and sundry). Some solid rescue ships (Rome, Orthodoxy) aren’t stopping, or are going in the wrong direction (in other words, they too are not an option for me at this time, for reasons numerous and sundry). So I’m staying aboard until it sinks or someone pushes me off. There the analogy fails, in that I don’t think this necessarily means death. Hopefully there will be sturdier lifeboats about (perhaps ACNA will by then have fixed some of its leaks, or Rome made a turn or two our way). Sarah seems to be holding out hope that just perhaps a future ABC will come, like a strong rescue ship that is heading our way. Right now, +Rowan is like the Californian, which was close enough to save the Titanic, but had turned its radio off. That might not be generous. I think he truly believes he does not have the authority to act…and on that he may be partly right.
I suppose the question I am asking myself, and would ask Sarah, is will the time come when TEC makes it impossible for us to stay as we are (or, to use her metaphor, lays seige to the castle). Orthodox clergy being presented on the grounds of “bigotry”. A BCP revision with no orthodox rite, and a mandate that we must use it or face the consequences. So far our bishop is not persecuting us, but may the time come? I’d ask Sarah if she has at least admitted this possibility. That question being asked, I would say many of her previously published suggestions bear looking at. Regional organization and fellowship, attention to spiritual development in our parishes, perhaps some loose national committee to help facilitate those efforts and support their development. Kendall’s right, maybe we need to stir our imagination a bit.
#17. texanglican, and #29. Alta Californian,
I like your metaphors and would offer one from mountain climbing. The “Third Way” could be thought of as a group of mountain climbers. When a group of climbers are on a glacier, they are generally roped together. There are two possible outcomes. Everyone is equally protected if one falls into a crevasse or they have unwittingly made a mutual suicide pact. Is Sarah De Gaulle or Joan of Arc? I could see either scenario as possible. IF I were still in TEC I would follow her into battle.
Unfortunately, my last sentence sounds a lot like Harvey Pell in “High Noon”. Regrets.
RE: “The stated goals and actions of the ACI and Communion Partners are indeed not patient and enduring witness†without engaging “in strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states.â€
Oh dear.
January 09 — http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/01/patient-endurance-on-living-faithfully-in-a-time-of-troubles/
[blockquote]”However, they do hold certain convictions, and they do have certain commitments that give shape to their present actions—actions that hardly qualify as passive. These convictions and commitments are reflected in patient and enduring witness rather than in strategies and tactics designed to bring about desired future states.”[/blockquote]
The article goes on to outline what the ACI believes to be good actions for “differentiation” — which actions in large part I do not see as differentiating at all and go into at length in this article:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/19243
That article by the ACI has some nice supplements in several repeated statements by the Communion Partners about its own goals and visions, and both groups repeat over and over their very clear visions.
Those visions and goals are certainly fine — indeed wonderful — for those who agree with them and are inspired by them. Just as the visions and goals of ACNA are certainly fine — indeed wonderful — for those who have departed from ACNA.
But there is a large group of people who accept neither. We don’t have any reliance whatsoever on the Instruments of Communion — which after all is a linchpin of the ACI and Communion Partners vision — and we don’t have any interest in leaving TEC.
There needs to be a third way for that group, of which I am a part.
Finally, I note that Brian uses the word “dissembling” twice. If I believed that he [i]really[/i] believed that I was “dissembling” in my comments, rather than that he is merely responding in anger to my pointing out elsewhere that he deliberately and malevolently misrepresented something that I said about the “Anglican Communion” as a quote about the definition of “Anglican” . . . it still would bother me none at all. If “dissembling” were used by another person about my words, it might sting and I would cry out to the elves or defend myself. But since it is Brian, I smile.
TexAnglican, there is no question that the choice of one’s metaphor reveals the choice of one’s action. I prefer many other metaphors to describe our situation within TEC that allow for actions within dangerous situations other than departure.
But regardless, Fort Worth made its choice and clearly could see no other options for action.
To those still within TEC, the comments in the article are a great source for ideas. I also posted three links to articles in one of the comments that describes some concrete examples of what I mean by possible goals of third wayers [I’ll have to think of an acronym soon]. ; > )
Finally, Kendall thank you for posting this here and for your comment. It *looked* like a somewhat encouraging comment — maybe your brain is percolating on something even now. One can only hope.
RE: ” I’d ask Sarah if she has at least admitted this possibility.”
Alta Californian — absolutely! In fact, I’m also not saying that I won’t eventually leave TEC. I’ve always said that that could well happen.
But I’ve also seen the game change in a blink of an eye, too. I love sports, in part because one simply never knows what will happen even though sometimes all the stats and records and skills are on one team or player rather than the other.
“It’s why we play the game.”
But at any rate, my policy is that while I’m still in TEC, I will do what I can. Should I leave for another Protestant entity someday, that’s fine — I’ll leave hopefully with a clear conscience that I have done what I can in the time I was given.
But for now . . . we need a third way.
Brian from T19, you have stated yourself in #27 what the goals of the third way are:
[blockquote]3. The ‘leaderless group’ that Sarah describes, in need of a ‘third way’ is a strategy used by organizations that choose resistance to the stated authority. It is a common tactic known as “cell groups†so that individual cells work on the strategy that works best for them. Once a leader is appointed and a structure set up, the entire group becomes vulnerable to the authorities actions. Think of the Maquis in France during WWII (or the Bajorans in Deep Space Nine).[/blockquote]
Which is a shorter restatement of my #26:
[blockquote]I read Sarah’s broad idea as being a kind of underground resistance in hostile, enemy-occupied territory, as brought out by her medieval fiefdom metaphor. The purpose of such actions in the actual Middle Ages and now in TEC is not to execute some master plan of which the details have been carefully laid out in advance by a formal organization. Rather, it seems to be to provide survival and safe haven for individuals (such a heretic I am per -KJS 🙂 ) and small groups of conservative guerillas, as it were. Saving individual souls right under KJS’s nose surely must be faithful to God’s will, no? Guerilla-type resistance in small cells can be very hard to stamp out and eventually can attract and convert many to its cause if the cause be truly worthy or compelling.[/blockquote]
As usual though, your snide tone and terms such as “dissembling” and “PAC” are applied to the wrong target and are, as the British might say, “most unhelpful”. 😉
There is a third way, the only sensible one, I may say, and that is the complete dismissal of TEC from all Anglicanism. This is, of course, the way that will not be chosen because those with the power and authority will be too cautious – or too frightened, may be better – to make the hard decision. Such a dismissal is not schism in the customary sense, but excommunication, the thrust into the outer darkness.
But why? Do I need to list the crimes that TEC has committed? Clear, obvious, incontrovertible ones – not the gray, subtle ones whichI am not counting.
But how does one do this? First, the ABC says so clearly. Second the Anglican world turns its back on TEC; they become non-persons. TEC has chosen this course; no one has thrust it on them. Can the Prodigal Son return? Of course, but not on ITS own terms.
There is no other effective solution. T he alternative is dithering, vacillating, meeting-in-committee, toothless threatening, endliless duplication of alternative courses, and the slow erosion of the discipline that keeps any denomination together. Real orthodoxy will hang together, ladies and gentlemen, or it will hang separately.
Larry
[blockquote]Sarah has spent a good deal of time in her last few features dissembling about her appreciation for those who do not share her views.[/blockquote]
dis·sem·ble transitive verb 1 : to hide under a false appearance 2 : to put on the appearance of : simulate intransitive verb : to put on a false appearance : conceal facts, intentions, or feelings under some pretense
As one who has come to know Sarah (at least her online persona) over the last several years, I often find myself agreeing with her about some things, and disagreeing about others. Sarah does not “dissemble.” She is a straight-shooter, who says what she believes, and believes what she says. Sarah clearly does not appreciate the views of some who do not share her views, and she is always clear about thisl. Perhaps Brian assumes that because Sarah does not appreciate those who disagree and offer poor reasons and arguments for their positions, that she must not be sincere in her claims to appreciate those who disagree with her, and yet offer thoughtful arguments, even if she is not convinced by them.
I have found that one of the characteristics of those who engage in and appreciate good argument is that they truly respect worthy opponents in debate. Steel sharpens steel. Of course, appreciation for good argument tends to lessen one’s respect for sophistry.
I have responded to the curious charge that ACI and CP are really not doing anything on the SF post where a January statement–from an entirely different episode of this struggle, pre-ACNA–is brought out and used as an occasion to speak of a ‘third way.’ I have nothing more to add. May a ‘third way’ prove useful! But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that it covers really essential ground not covered by CP or ACNA. On this score, Brian is very right (though I see the work of the last months as simply the response to a graver set of affairs, and not any major transformation of ACI/CP). I’d say that the good witness at GenConv; the large commitment of Rectors across the US; the defense of our polity as based in the Bishop, not the province; the legal counsel; the work with Bishops in the CoE; and so forth is just as threatening to the ‘national church’ logic, if not moreso, than what ACNA has done (may God bless them; they have chosen a different way forward). Certainly Mark Harris thinks so. Sarah, why not focus on the positive and underscore what the third way has to offer, rather than seeking to give it an identity by means of contrast. That will surely give the project a better chance for contributing something.
Rev Harmon (#10 & #15), I must respectfully ask: do you include yourself and your diocese in this group? (and I don’t mean for this to be as pointed as it sounds)
As a former member of TEC Dio of FL, I’ve seen the tide change seemingly overnight. Surely the reasserters within TEC are complicit in the sins of the entire body. This is has how it has always played out. It began as something happening somewhere far away — say California or New Jersey or a seminary in the northeast. Then it spreads closer to home. But it’s okay; we live, minister in a “good” diocese and we have strong leaders. Now there’s only a few “good” diocese left.
Unfortunately, the time for new, imaginative ideas was 5-10-20 years ago, IMHO.
Meanwhile, while we are aguing and meeting and writing strategy papers, there are BILLIONS of people (who speak Arabic, Farsi, Malay, Hindi, Mandarin, etc) who are living and dying who have never heard or seen the Good News. But few are taking the time and energy to learn their heart language and share with them the Good News.
BTW, it is instructive to look at Episcopal Cafe and Thinking Anglican if one does not believe +RDW’s letter accomplishes anything, in its defense of Christian teaching on marriage and its view of Communion, consistent that ACI and CP.
#37. Seitz-ACI
I just returned from my morning run where I also came to this conclusion. IF I were building a third way, I would craft a positive vision and mission statement first and develop strategies in line with that.
Hey elves. Yoikes.
I am just now back in from a trip to the iron-pumping place. You might should delete the portion of my comment that was my response to Brian’s assertions. I do not want to fight an unarmed — or rather unelfed — man.
RE: “it is instructive to look at Episcopal Cafe and Thinking Anglican if one does not believe +RDW’s letter accomplishes anything . . . ”
I am sorry but I have never ever taken my lead on what to think by the caterwauls of the outraged progressives who haven’t felt affirmed in their theology. I have never believed that the screams of the easily offended are a good way to guage whether someone’s actions are effective or of import.
RE: “I have responded to the curious charge that ACI and CP are really not doing anything . . . ”
I said no such thing. In fact, one of my “themes” in another recent “themes to observe” article recently was the good work that ACI and CP has done, in numerous instances. I have been very clear in my delineation of the specific things that I appreciate about those two bodies in [i]multiple[/i] articles recently. I merely said that the above clearly and oft-stated premises of ACI and CP I did not believe in. I could not sign a membership with those premises [were one to ever exist] since I could not in conscience state that I believe them.
As to a positive view of third way, the purpose of my article was to point out quite clearly the crying need for it. I believe that I have done that, if solely by listing the portions of the ACI/CP vision — and the ACNA vision in entirety — with which I and others cannot agree.
But if people want more concrete ideas they are welcome to read these — and many other — articles:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/15164/
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/sf/page/19243/
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/24332/
Finally, I note that Brian uses the word “dissembling†twice. If I believed that he really believed that I was “dissembling†in my comments, rather than that he is merely responding in anger to my pointing out elsewhere that he deliberately and malevolently misrepresented something that I said about the “Anglican Communion†as a quote about the definition of “Anglican†. . . it still would bother me none at all. If “dissembling†were used by another person about my words, it might sting and I would cry out to the elves or defend myself. But since it is Brian, I smile.
and
Hey elves. Yoikes.
I am just now back in from a trip to the iron-pumping place. You might should delete the portion of my comment that was my response to Brian’s assertions. I do not want to fight an unarmed—or rather unelfed—man.
If I believed that she really believed that I was “unarmed†in my comments, rather than that she is merely responding in anger to my pointing out what Dr. Seitz of the ACI has confirmed and she has gotten wrong. . . it still would bother me none at all. More dissembling. But since it is Sarah, I smile 😉
Huh?
Have you no original responses at all, Brian, other than attempting to imitate my own?
How would I be angry over your not being aware that I was quoting — very meticulously — from an ACI piece that clearly stated precisely what it stated and what I quoted? You were ignorant. And I provided solid evidence of that ignorance.
The only way that you were “unarmed” was that the elves deleted your original comments, which since mine were left in, seemed unfair to me. How would that be “responding in anger”?
But oh I forgot — you just needed to somehow do some sort of rough crude imitation and you have done so. But flattery from someone of your character is no flattery at all.
#41 Sarah
Since I know you are simply angry about Dr. Seitz of the ACI confirming the truth of what I said and the fact that you were incorrect, I won’t be hurt by what you said 😉
[Please note decisions by elves are solely related to breaches of comment policy – we would be grateful if commenters will please try to keep to the blog guidelines – Elf]
Elves
It is interesting to note that inaccuracies in Sarah’s article are considered ad hominem attacks, yet Sarah’s personal jabs (I don’t view them as attacks because my position is correct and she’s simply being defensive) rise to the level of protected speech
I do not want to fight an unarmed—or rather unelfed—man.
Sarah, then we are in complete and entire agreement, sign me up – metaphorically speaking, that is unless you’re actually keeping a list. 🙂
For some very perceptive ‘caterwauling’ from a progressive, see the two contributions of Mark Harris, recently posted. We will try to give some response by showing how difficult the language of hierarchy is (be it Methodist, RC, Harris’s US denominational, judicial US, or Anglican). He seeks to scare with a papal model, but one is hard-pressed to see how his Anglo-Methodist alternative is any better or more accurate a picture of what our real polity is. The statement of the ABC is seen for what it is, even as his analysis is tilted in the direction of sixties-justice-anglo-methodism.