(Please take the time to read it thoroughly before any response–KSH).
Renewal in the Spirit
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s Pentecost letter to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful of the Anglican Communion
1.
”˜They were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to talk in other languages as the Spirit enabled them to speak’ (Acts 2.4). At Pentecost, we celebrate the gift God gives us of being able to communicate the Good News of Jesus Christ in the various languages of the whole human world. The Gospel is not the property of any one group, any one culture or history, but is what God intends for the salvation of all who will listen and respond.
St Paul tells us that the Holy Spirit is also what God gives us so that we can call God ”˜Abba, Father’ (Rom. 8.15, Gal. 4.6). The Spirit is given not only so that we can speak to the world about God but so that we can speak to God in the words of his own beloved Son. The Good News we share is not just a story about Jesus but the possibility of living in and through the life of Jesus and praying his prayer to the Father.
And so the Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of ”˜communion’ or fellowship (II Cor. 13.13). The Spirit allows us to recognise each other as part of the Body of Christ because we can hear in each other the voice of Jesus praying to the Father. We know, in the Spirit, that we who are baptised into Jesus Christ share one life; so that all the diversity of gifting and service in the Church can be seen as the work of one Spirit (I Cor. 12.4). In the Holy Eucharist, this unity in and through the self-offering of Jesus is reaffirmed and renewed as we pray for the Spirit to transform both the bread and wine and ”˜ourselves, our souls and bodies’.
When the Church is living by the Spirit, what the world will see is a community of people who joyfully and gratefully hear the prayer of Jesus being offered in each other’s words and lives, and are able to recognise the one Christ working through human diversity. And if the world sees this, the Church is a true sign of hope in a world of bitter conflict and rivalry.
2.
From the very first, as the New Testament makes plain, the Church has experienced division and internal hostilities. From the very first, the Church has had to repent of its failure to live fully in the light and truth of the Spirit. Jesus tells us in St John’s gospel that the Spirit of truth will ”˜prove the world wrong’ in respect of sin and righteousness and judgement (Jn 16.8). But if the Spirit is leading us all further into the truth, the Spirit will convict the Church too of its wrongness and lead it into repentance. And if the Church is a community where we serve each other in the name of Christ, it is a community where we can and should call each other to repentance in the name of Christ and his Spirit ”“ not to make the other feel inferior (because we all need to be called to repentance) but to remind them of the glory of Christ’s gift and the promise that we lose sight of when we fail in our common life as a Church.
Our Anglican fellowship continues to experience painful division, and the events of recent months have not brought us nearer to full reconciliation. There are still things being done that the representative bodies of the Communion have repeatedly pleaded should not be done; and this leads to recrimination, confusion and bitterness all round. It is clear that the official bodies of The Episcopal Church have felt in conscience that they cannot go along with what has been asked of them by others, and the consecration of Canon Mary Glasspool on May 15 has been a clear sign of this. And despite attempts to clarify the situation, activity across provincial boundaries still continues ”“ equally dictated by what people have felt they must in conscience do. Some provinces have within them dioceses that are committed to policies that neither the province as a whole nor the Communion has sanctioned. In several places, not only in North America, Anglicans have not hesitated to involve the law courts in settling disputes, often at great expense and at the cost of the Church’s good name.
All are agreed that the disputes arising around these matters threaten to distract us from our main calling as Christ’s Church. The recent Global South encounter in Singapore articulated a strong and welcome plea for the priority of mission in the Communion; and in my own message to that meeting I prayed for a ”˜new Pentecost’ for all of us. This is a good season of the year to pray earnestly for renewal in the Spirit, so that we may indeed do what God asks of us and let all people know that new and forgiven life in Christ is possible and that created men and women may by the Spirit’s power be given the amazing liberty to call God ”˜Abba, Father!’
It is my own passionate hope that our discussion of the Anglican Covenant in its entirety will help us focus on that priority; the Covenant is nothing if not a tool for mission. I want to stress yet again that the Covenant is not envisaged as an instrument of control. And this is perhaps a good place to clarify that the place given in the final text to the Standing Committee of the Communion introduces no novelty: the Committee is identical to the former Joint Standing Committee, fully answerable in all matters to the ACC and the Primates; nor is there any intention to prevent the Primates in the group from meeting separately. The reference to the Standing Committee reflected widespread unease about leaving certain processes only to the ACC or only to the Primates.
But we are constantly reminded that the priorities of mission are experienced differently in different places, and that trying to communicate the Gospel in the diverse tongues of human beings can itself lead to misunderstandings and failures of communication between Christians. The sobering truth is that often our attempts to share the Gospel effectively in our own setting can create problems for those in other settings.
3.
We are at a point in our common life where broken communications and fragile relationships have created a very mistrustful climate. This is not news. But many have a sense that the current risks are greater than ever. Although attitudes to human sexuality have been the presenting cause, I want to underline the fact that what has precipitated the current problem is not simply this issue but the widespread bewilderment and often hurt in different quarters that we have no way of making decisions together so that we are not compromised or undermined by what others are doing. We have not, in other words, found a way of shaping our consciences and convictions as a worldwide body. We have not fully received the Pentecostal gift of mutual understanding for common mission.
It may be said ”“ quite understandably, in one way ”“ that our societies and their assumptions are so diverse that we shall never be able to do this. Yet we are called to seek for mutual harmony and common purpose, and not to lose heart. If the truth of Christ is indeed ultimately one as we all believe, there should be a path of mutual respect and thankfulness that will hold us in union and help us grow in that truth.
Yet at the moment we face a dilemma. To maintain outward unity at a formal level while we are convinced that the divisions are not only deep but damaging to our local mission is not a good thing. Neither is it a good thing to break away from each other so dramatically that we no longer see Christ in each other and risk trying to create a church of the ”˜perfect’ ”“ people like us. It is significant that there are still very many in The Episcopal Church, bishops, clergy and faithful, who want to be aligned with the Communion’s general commitments and directions, such as those who identify as ”˜Communion Partners’, who disagree strongly with recent decisions, yet want to remain in visible fellowship within TEC so far as they can. And, as has often been pointed out, there are things that Anglicans across the world need and want to do together for the care of God’s poor and vulnerable that can and do go on even when division over doctrine or discipline is sharp.
4.
More and more, Anglicans are aware of living through a time of substantial transition, a time when the structures that have served us need reviewing and refreshing, perhaps radical changing, when the voice and witness in the Communion of Christians from the developing world is more articulate and creative than ever, and when the rapidity of social change in ”˜developed’ nations leaves even some of the most faithful and traditional Christian communities uncertain where to draw the boundaries in controversial matters ”“ not only sexuality but issues of bioethics, for example, or the complexities of morality in the financial world.
A time of transition, by definition, does not allow quick solutions to such questions, and it is a time when, ideally, we need more than ever to stay in conversation. As I have said many times before, whatever happens to our structures, we still need to preserve both working relationships and places for exchange and discussion. New vehicles for conversations across these boundaries are being developed with much energy.
But some decisions cannot be avoided. We began by thinking about Pentecost and the diverse peoples of the earth finding a common voice, recognising that each was speaking a truth recognised by all. However, when some part of that fellowship speaks in ways that others find hard to recognise, and that point in a significantly different direction from what others are saying, we cannot pretend there is no problem.
And when a province through its formal decision-making bodies or its House of Bishops as a body declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard (as noted in my letter to the Communion last year after the General Convention of TEC) to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole. This affects both our ecumenical dialogues, where our partners (as they often say to us) need to know who it is they are talking to, and our internal faith-and-order related groups.
I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces ”“ provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) ”“ should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members. This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice. It does not alter what has been said earlier by the Primates’ Meeting about the nature of the moratoria: the request for restraint does not necessarily imply that the issues involved are of equal weight but recognises that they are ”˜central factors placing strains on our common life’, in the words of the Primates in 2007. Particular provinces will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future.
I am aware that other bodies have responsibilities in questions concerned with faith and order, notably the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. The latter two are governed by constitutional provisions which cannot be overturned by any one person’s decision alone, and there will have to be further consultation as to how they are affected. I shall be inviting the views of all members of the Primates’ Meeting on the handling of these matters with a view to the agenda of the next scheduled meeting in January 2011.
5.
In our dealings with other Christian communions, we do not seek to deny our diversity; but there is an obvious problem in putting forward representatives of the Communion who are consciously at odds with what the Communion has formally requested or stipulated. This does not seem fair to them or to our partners. In our dealings with each other, we need to be clear that conscientious decisions may be taken in good faith, even for what are held to be good theological or missional reasons, and yet have a cost when they move away from what is recognisable and acceptable within the Communion. Thus ”“ to take a very different kind of example ”“ there have been and there are Anglicans who have a strong conscientious objection to infant baptism. Their views deserve attention, respect and careful study, they should be engaged in serious dialogue ”“ but it would be eccentric to place such people in a position where their view was implicitly acknowledged as one of a range of equally acceptable convictions, all of which could be taken as representatively Anglican.
Yet no-one should be celebrating such public recognition of divisions and everyone should be reflecting on how to rebuild relations and to move towards a more coherent Anglican identity (which does not mean an Anglican identity with no diversity, a point once again well made by the statement from the Singapore meeting). Some complain that we are condemned to endless meetings that achieve nothing. I believe that in fact we have too few meetings that allow proper mutual exploration. It may well be that such encounters need to take place in a completely different atmosphere from the official meetings of the Communion’s representative bodies, and this needs some imaginative thought and planning. Much work is already going into making this more possible.
But if we do conclude that some public marks of ”˜distance’, as the Windsor Continuation Group put it, are unavoidable if our Communion bodies are not to be stripped of credibility and effectiveness, the least Christian thing we can do is to think that this absolves us from prayer and care for each other, or continuing efforts to make sense of each other.
We are praying for a new Pentecost for our Communion. That means above all a vast deepening of our capacity to receive the gift of being adopted sons and daughters of the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It means a deepened capacity to speak of Jesus Christ in the language of our context so that we are heard and the Gospel is made compelling and credible. And it also means a deepened capacity to love and nourish each other within Christ’s Body ”“ especially to love and nourish, as well as to challenge, those whom Christ has given us as neighbours with whom we are in deep and painful dispute.
One remarkable symbol of promise for our Communion is the generous gift received by the Diocese of Jerusalem from His Majesty the King of Jordan, who has provided a site on the banks of the Jordan River, at the traditional site of Our Lord’s Baptism, for the construction of an Anglican church. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of blessing the foundation stone of this church and viewing the plans for its design. It will be a worthy witness at this historic site to the Anglican tradition, a sign of real hope for the long-suffering Christians of the region, and something around which the Communion should gather as a focus of common commitment in Christ and his Spirit. I hope that many in the Communion will give generous support to the project.
”˜We have the mind of Christ’ says St Paul (I Cor. 2.16); and, as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has recently written, this means that we must have a ”˜kenotic’, a self-emptying approach to each other in the Church. May the Spirit create this in us daily and lead us into that wholeness of truth which is only to be found in the crucified and risen Lord Jesus.
I wish you all God’s richest blessing at this season.
+Rowan Cantuar:
Lambeth Palace
Pentecost 2010
The most alarming thing is his embracement of modern revelatism
my thoughts are here http://www.sbarnabas.com/blog
Can I sincerely plead with people to interact with the actual words and arguments that Archbishop Rowan Williams is making.
Comments which veer off track or speak overly much of the people involved will not be looked upon kindly.
Thank you.
I don’t read relativism here at all, esp. section 5 in which he says that some positions might be tolerated in Communion life but cannot be said to represent the whole Communion.
There’s a very pointed message: As a church, we are resisting the Holy Spirit. That ought to give any of us pause. But I am noticing that most blog commentary now is going back to what Jill Woodliff calls our Anglican DNA, esp. Henry VIII – we want to know the politics, who is on and off what committee.
That agenda seems paltry when we are being called out for ignoring the Biblical description of the church and for resisting the Holy Spirit.
Linus told Charlie Brown: “On Halloween night, the Great Pumpkin rises up from the most sincere pumpkin patch of all. How could there be a more sincere pumpkin patch than ours? I am waiting for the Great Pumpkin to rise up from this pumpkin patch.”
[b]How can we be wrong, when we’re so sincere?[/b]
So Rowan is, in fact, making a huge effort to hold things together. You can hear the strain this is causing him in his words. Honor to your great effort, your dedication and you patience, Rowan.
But there is a great and deep fallacy at the root of it all which has caused and is maintaining the problem. Unless that fallacy is addressed, there can and will be no solution.
To underline: Sincerely held beliefs can be genuinely wrong. Rowan is pointing out the cultural differences which somehow seem to necessitate the “doctrinal” differences. The commonality we share is merely a mutual respect for relativistic — but Sincere — points of view.
This whole debacle is not about doctrine, however sincerely held. It is about Truth. Can Truth be located, embraced, upheld and proclaimed? Or are we merely to be witnesses to the happiness of being a loose community of limitless Diversity in which we show the world how we can be somehow “together” with no Center?
If the Anglican Communion cannot bring itself to make a clear articulation of the Truth: that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are [in fact] the Word of God and [do, in fact] contain all things necessary to salvation — then we have ceased to be a genuine part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and have become merely another culture bound organization that will die with its culture ( which, BTW, is looking ever more ready to expire).
Points of view within a clearly understand and firmly held Truth are a completely different matter from “diverse and multiform truths.” Not everything can be true at the same time when such ideas are mutually exclusive. The effort to stay together only because we value unity is doomed to failure if there is no mutual recognition of Truth.
This letter, while the intention is laudable, is based upon Relativism in regard to Truth. If Relativism is our center, then “the center cannot hold.”
And, oh, yeah — — no Great Pumpkin ever showed up.
So, Timothy — when does tolerance turn into relativism.
Fish may not be aware they are swimming in water. Anglicans seem to be no longer able to discern the relativism they have so long embraced.
This seems like a very practical, temporary solution. He rightfully implies that there are new issues (bioethics, for example) that require consideration and thought.
The consecrations may have challenged our ability to have ecumenical dialogue on more central theological issues. Perhaps The Episcopal church can handle its ecumenical work separately. It makes some sense, without ceding the notion that TEC is still Anglican.
I don’t think anything he is saying is properly “relativistic.” (This word has several uses. Philosophically it’s one thing. IN common parlance it merely means everyone thinks they are right). But he is describing a reality – people have different opinions.
Some can be wrong, some can be right, and sometimes its hard to to tell.
It’s a subtle, careful, reasonable and charitable letter. Charity is an underrated virtue, perhaps.
[blockquote]”…the events of recent months have not brought us nearer to full reconciliation.”[/blockquote]
:-/
[blockquote]”…the place given in the final text to the Standing Committee of the Communion introduces no novelty: the Committee is identical to the former Joint Standing Committee…”[/blockquote]
Then why did it not even use the name “Joint Standing Committee?” In the context of the recent resignations, I find this weak, unsubstantiated protest somewhat sad.
[blockquote]” New vehicles for conversations across these boundaries are being developed with much energy.”[/blockquote]
Is this another request for delay…?
[blockquote]”I shall be inviting the views of all members of the Primates’ Meeting on the handling of these matters with a view to the agenda of the next scheduled meeting in January 2011.[/blockquote]
…res ipsa loquitur!
[blockquote]”But if we do conclude that some public marks of ‘distance’, as the Windsor Continuation Group put it, are unavoidable if our Communion bodies are not to be stripped of credibility and effectiveness…”[/blockquote]
IMHO, this is the saddest comment of all. I suppose he must deny (perhaps even to himself) his role in stripping the communion bodies of credibility and effectiveness. But why bring it up before the primates he has treated so poorly? Does he really believe that they will accept his characterization and ignore his role in making this the current reality? Is it helpful to make such proposals as if it were still 2003?
🙄
“I am aware that other bodies have responsibilities in questions concerned with faith and order, notably the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. The latter two are governed by constitutional provisions which cannot be overturned by any one person’s decision alone, and there will have to be further consultation as to how they are affected. I shall be inviting the views of all members of the Primates’ Meeting on the handling of these matters with a view to the agenda of the next scheduled meeting in January 2011.”
Good.
And border crossing, strictly speaking, does not implicate ACNA because the primatial sponsors handed the project over to them. It is too ‘in limbo’ to be classified as ‘border crossing’ in light of its present relationship to the AC and the Primates once more directly involved. Less sure about Rwanda.
It is a bit unclear whether the letter intimates that, via a consultation with the Primates, the PB’s place in their midst is now in serious jeopardy. But that is the kind of thing we are likely to hear more about, especially given the strong suggestions from people like Naughton and Harris that TEC would be asked to stand aside. Again, we shall see.
I find the biometric point odd. Homosexuality is hardly new and is clearly dealt with in scripture
Kendall,
I apologize that my comment came across at the people, it was intended more for the lack of compliance with the calls from the instruments of communion for restraint. I also apologize that I let my frustration come out over my writting, and I ask your forgiveness. I will try to be better. I will write later tonight in a more clear and hopefully less offensive way that conveys what I was trying to get across. Having to go do real world things.
For those unfamilar with “posh” English English, the word “propose” should be read as in “I propose to spend my day off working in the garden:, i.e “I’m gonna work in the yard today.” (grin)
These were the key passages for me with my own glosses after each:
. . . From the very first, as the New Testament makes plain, the Church has experienced division and internal hostilities. . . . (Division and conflict an inherent part of X-ianity)
. . . There are still things being done that the representative bodies of the Communion have repeatedly pleaded should not be done; and this leads to recrimination, confusion and bitterness all round. . . . (Violations of the Windsor Process continue)
. . . official bodies of The Episcopal Church have felt in conscience that they cannot go along with what has been asked of them by others, . . . (TEC violates in conscience)
. . . activity across provincial boundaries still continues – equally dictated by what people have felt they must in conscience do. . . . (Global South also violates in conscience – i.e., moral equivalence)
. . . All are agreed that the disputes arising around these matters threaten to distract us from our main calling as Christ’s Church. . . . (All agree that violations distract from mission)
. . . It is my own passionate hope that our discussion of the Anglican Covenant in its entirety will help us focus on that priority; the Covenant is nothing if not a tool for mission. . . . (Covenant will solve all our problems – core problem is structural, not theological)
. . . I want to stress yet again that the Covenant is not envisaged as an instrument of control. . . . (I assure you Covenant will have no teeth)
. . . We are at a point in our common life where broken communications and fragile relationships have created a very mistrustful climate. This is not news. But many have a sense that the current risks are greater than ever. . . . (Situation in the Communion now really IS serious – this time I mean it!)
. . . I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members. This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice. It does not alter what has been said earlier by the Primates’ Meeting about the nature of the moratoria: the request for restraint does not necessarily imply that the issues involved are of equal weight but recognises that they are ‘central factors placing strains on our common life’, in the words of the Primates in 2007. Particular provinces will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future. . . . (More minor wrist slapping, applied to both sides equally)
. . . there have been and there are Anglicans who have a strong conscientious objection to infant baptism. Their views deserve attention, respect and careful study, they should be engaged in serious dialogue – but it would be eccentric to place such people in a position where their view was implicitly acknowledged as one of a range of equally acceptable convictions, all of which could be taken as representatively Anglican. . . . (Current disputes in the Communion compared to a golden oldie – conflict over infant baptism! Gotta love it!)
. . . I believe that in fact we have too few meetings that allow proper mutual exploration. It may well be that such encounters need to take place in a completely different atmosphere from the official meetings of the Communion’s representative bodies, and this needs some imaginative thought and planning. Much work is already going into making this more possible. . . . (What we really need is more meeting and more indaba! blah, blah, blah)
. . . One remarkable symbol of promise for our Communion is the generous gift received by the Diocese of Jerusalem from His Majesty the King of Jordan, who has provided a site on the banks of the Jordan River, at the traditional site of Our Lord’s Baptism, for the construction of an Anglican church. Earlier this year, I had the privilege of blessing the foundation stone of this church and viewing the plans for its design. It will be a worthy witness at this historic site to the Anglican tradition, a sign of real hope for the long-suffering Christians of the region, and something around which the Communion should gather as a focus of common commitment in Christ and his Spirit. I hope that many in the Communion will give generous support to the project. . . . (Please send your checks to help build this church on the banks of the Jordan so we can rally around a common purpose and forget all this nasty business – tea anyone?)
Did I miss anything?
This looks like too little too late. He has chosen the minimum restrictions which he thinks will keep all parties at the table.
This kind of leadership in unlikely to resolve the problem but rather make it drag on for decades.
http://www.churchoftheword.net
All of which is designed to work to the advantage of TEC which will continue on its path and to the disadvantage of the biblicaly faithful orthodox within TEC (and in Canada). The orthodox cannot look to the ABC or the AC for aid because there is none to be had. This latest by the ABC confirms that.
I think the bottom line is that +Rowan has acted in areas in which he has patronage and now shames those who share the responsibility of appointing/electing participants in the ACC, Primates Meeting etc to follow his lead. In this manner he can’t be accused of double standards, i.e accusing others over overstepping their authority while doing the same himself. It’s the best that can be done absent a Covenant. http://afmclavier.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/pentecost-letter/
The ABC always seem to be doing little to nothing. But what if history ends up proving that by simply doing his best to keep people at the table, whatever table that might be, he has given us opportunity to weather a serious storm, and await a fresh move of God. I am not saying this is his motive. I am suggesting it may be the Lord’s. Frankly, time will rid our church of many of it’s warts in leadership soon enough. The question is what the faithful will do then. After 40 years, a new generation was raised up to enter the promised land, and there was really only one question for them on that day: Who will you serve? I suspect this sort of day is coming, a day when Jesus name will once again be glorified in Anglican places where it is not know. And when it does, we will have seen God’s providential hand even in the politics of +Rowan Cantuar.
For purposes of clarity, it might be useful to revisit the wording of the subject moratorium:
Compare and contrast.
I must admit that this is more than I was expecting of ++RW. I’m pleassantly surprised. But the bottom line is that it’s still hopelessly inadequate. I fundamentally agree with #13, this is still a case of “too little, too late.” It utterly fails to deal with such an in-your-face provocation as Glasspool’s consecration with a proportionate response. Even if the nefarious PB is in fact eventually disinvited from the Primates Meeting in January, that’s still far too little.
As for the ACSCUFO, it should be noted that Mark Harris’ list on Preludium is clearly wrong. By his count, those demoted or bounced from the international study group would be just one from TEC, namely VTS prof Katherine Grieb, and three GS reps (from Nigeria, Uganda, and Chile/S. Cone). However, he overlooks two facts.
First, the fact that Uganda has already completely releassed its former parishes to the ACNA (while Nigeria/CANA and Southern Cone haven’t yet done so, prefering to maintain dual affiliation for now). More importantly, he’s ignoring the fact that the ACoC is just as much failing to comply with the 3 moratoria of the Windsor Report affirmed by Lambeth (etc.) as TEC is, even if in a quieter way. After all, three Canadian dioceses have approved SSM’s, which is a clear violation. And thus the ACoC should also lose its rep, who is actually the group’s director (!), Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan, a notorious liberal. (I doubt that the WCC rep would be voted off the island, since Dr. Gibaut represents the WCC, not the ACoC, even though he is a Canadian priest).
So, if I’m reckoning rightly, the result is a tie, 2-2. The liberal GN provinces lose two reps, and the conservative GS lose two. However, the GS losses would likely be temporary (until CANA and S. Cone release their churches fully to ACNA), while the GN losses could easily be permanent. And of course, for Canada’s Canon Barnett-Cowan to be forced out of her key position as director of this AC group would be highly significant.
But in the end, who really cares about the ACSCUFO anyway?? It sounds like a UFO convention, and should probabely be taken with equal seriousness.
Much, much sterner measures are called for. This is NOT what the GS called for in Singapore. But then, who ever expected Cantaur to comply with their appeal? Certainly, I didn’t.
Still, I’m grateful for even the least sign of movement toward some kind of discipline on ++RW’s part, however grudging and minimal it might be. That’s always welcome. But alas, it’s still a case of “too little, too late.”
David Handy+
I beg to differ with Dr. William’s characteriztion. The Archbishop writes: “But we are constantly reminded that the priorities of mission are experienced differently in different places, and that trying to communicate the Gospel in the diverse tongues of human beings can itself lead to misunderstandings and failures of communication between Christians. †In Acts 2 however, although the disciples were speaking in various tongues,all the God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven heard the [b]same message [/b] – THERE WERE NO MISUNDERSTANDINGS NOR WERE THERE FAILUERS OF COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE DISCIPLES. When the words are those of the Spirit the unity for which Jesus prayed is evidenced.
Quite frankly its like trying the stop the Battle of the Little Big Horn by suggesting that Custer stop shooting. That will end the Battle certainly. And the ABC is comfortable in exceeding his authority when he wants to. Remember him pulling out the rug from under the Primates after Dar es Salaam?
I hope it won’t seem like scholarly, exegetical nitpicking to complain about the way ++RW starts off this letter by alluding to Acts 2:4. However, I think it’s quite unfortunate, like starting off a dance on the wrong foot.
The mistake he makes is admittedly a rather common one. Namely, he interprets the miracle of speaking in tongues as if it were a form of evangelism, proclaiming the gospel to the crowd in many languages, rather than as prayer or as Luke puts it, magnifying the mighty deeds of God (Acts 2:11). BTW, this is not a matter of harmonizing Acts 2 and 1 Cor. 14 (I recognize some tension between them), but rather of interpreting the phenomena of tongues-speaking within the context of Acts itself, where it’s a form of supernaturally inspired prayer, not preaching. After all, the apostles (or all the 120) were speaking in tongues BEFORE the crowd gathered, and it was Peter’s sermon that was the proclamation of the gospel, not the spectacle of people speaking in languages they’d never learned.
But much more important and problematic is the fact that ++RW is (again) implicitly treating the pro-gay, moral relativist position as one that is at least open for discussion. When that’s simply not the case. As usual, he refuses to rule out the “progressive” position and to dismiss it completely asnd abruptly as the utterly unbiblical, totally unjustified matter that it is. Everything else is secondary.
Archbishop Williams’ fundamental mistake is that he implicitly treats homosexual behavior as a Rom. 14 issue rather than as a Gal. 1 issue. That too is a very common and understandable mistake, but it’s a fatal and disastrous one nonetheless. All else flows from it.
That’s why I welcome +NT Wright’s recent fine speech about the desperate need to clarify the criteria for what’s adiaphora and what’s not. But that’s a subject that Cantaur is avoiding like the plague, not wanting to touch it with a ten foot pole. Probably because of where his own sympathies lie, namely on the wrong side of the issue.
And having invoked +Wright’s name, I’m happy to see that he was proved right this time in claiming that Cantaur was about to release a major public letter addressing the Anglican crisis. Unlike the infamous earlier letter that never appeared, this time he hadn’t been misled or doublecrossed.
David Handy+
One more comment and then I’ll shut up and let others have a chance. Sadly, I think it was disingenuous of ++RW to suggest that there is nothing novel or problematic about putting (or leaving) the enforcement of the Covenant into the hands of the notorious (Joint) Standing Committee, which is dominated by colonialist liberals. That part is misleading spin at best, and downright devious deception at worst. It certainly fails to take seriously the protest of the GS leaders in Singapore (not to mention the ACI gang).
David Handy+
A few thoughts. This letter, absent anything more, is very much “too little, too lateâ€, an abdication of Rowan’s responsibilities, the probable end of any meaningful Anglican Communion, etc., etc. But (as has been said by the very learned Sarah over at StandFirm) this letter is very intriguing in that it suggests that this is just the beginning of the REAL conversation. Again, as the equally learned Matt over at StandFirm has written, if Rowan actually does what he hints at (i.e., disinviting the affected Provincial representatives from the Primate’s Meetings, and demonstrating the moral leadership necessary to have them suspended from the ACC and JSC) then this letter could be the first sign of the watershed event in the Anglican Communion. So in other words, we need to repeat the time worn words “we shall see.†Many people (myself included) have our severe doubts as to Rowan’s capability or will to do what needs doing, but, on the other hand, it can also be argued that it isn’t until now that Rowan’s back is against the wall. TEC has brazenly declared its intent to violate the moratoria and the Global South has similarly indicated that the Instruments of Unity are hanging by the merest thread of credibility.
I don’t have the same problem with Rowan’s “equating†of the border-crossing (i.e. reactive) violations with the two sexuality (i.e. primary) violations. However, I certainly DO have a problem with the fact that there is no addressing at all about what to do in North America. It’s one thing to say consistently “all must be done in order†in response to an emergency situation (and Rowan must realize that SOMETHING must be done in North America) but then not offer any assistance whatsoever. What I think Rowan needed to have done is make some reference to the need for an extra-Provincial holding structure for the ACNA/AMiA types which is “in order†pending final resolution of this mess. Border-crossing always was a reaction against Communion-breaking innovations in North American, and these innovations have continued and TEC and ACoC have indicated that these innovations are seen as permanent. So the “need†which led to the border-crossings is stronger then ever. If Rowan takes border-crossings off the table, he needs to replace it with something.
I also wonder at some of the finer definitions of some things…
For example, what does it mean when he writes
Does this mean that permissive as well as active policies are culpable (e.g. we will let dioceses violate the moratoria, but don’t command them to do so)? What about policies which were adopted which logically translate to action which later no longer technically violates the moratoria (e.g. GAFCON provinces which initially engaged in border crossing but then released their bishops to the ACNA, thus no longer technically border-crossing, but fully recognizing the ACNA bishops)? What about diocesan decisions that violate the moratoria, but which are neither officially approved of nor officially disapproved of by the Province (e.g. a diocese which openly permits same-sex marriages but is not disciplined by the Province, OR if say a GAFCON province turns over its North American operations to a single diocesan bishop, officially washing their hands of it, but allowing it to go on anyway)?
In short, this letter puts the pieces in place for what needs to be done, but I am yet to be convinced that Rowan will yet actually make the necessary moves. However, this is, nevertheless, a lot more from Rowan then I was expecting.
…and the winner is? The RCC.
I wish I could share the guarded optimism some people feel when they read this. I can’t. I see nothing definite and more undefined dithering. To say this is more than expected from the Archbishop is, to my mind, a sad commentary on expectations, because this letter does practically nothing, presumably by design.
We are still attempting to read Canterbury’s tea leaves, all the while mistaking hemlock for earl grey.
And border crossing, strictly speaking, does not implicate ACNA because the primatial sponsors handed the project over to them. It is too ‘in limbo’ to be classified as ‘border crossing’ in light of its present relationship to the AC and the Primates once more directly involved. Less sure about Rwanda.
I imagine that Nigeria and Uganda will need to withdraw representation. Most certainly Rwanda.
It is a bit unclear whether the letter intimates that, via a consultation with the Primates, the PB’s place in their midst is now in serious jeopardy. But that is the kind of thing we are likely to hear more about, especially given the strong suggestions from people like Naughton and Harris that TEC would be asked to stand aside. Again, we shall see.
Actually the letter is quite clear on this. As are the editors notes from the ACNS. All violators remain full members of the AC. Only two groups are affected: the ecumenical group and the unity and order group. This would remove 3 people from TEC, plus anyone from Canada, Nigeria, Uganda, the South American province, etc.
My opinion, from the other side of the aisle:
Oh noes! Not the IASCUFO!
Now that I’ve looked up what the heck the IASCUFO is, I gotta say — speaking here as a rampant reappraiser — this is not exactly the kind of stinging censure that will cause me to reconsider my numerous heretical stances. I do wonder how much of this symbolic gesture is aimed internally and how much is aimed at ecumenical partners, since the IASCUFO seems to be involved in both arenas.
As for who gets bumped, obviously TEC will be one of them. I would expect that at least one GS province is likely to get bumped too on the grounds of border-crossing, if for no other reason than to give the appearance of even-handedness.
This:
(emphasis added) has the potential to sting a great deal more, depending on what it turns out to actually mean. I suspect, based on what he “proposes” in regard to the IASCUFO (that doesn’t get any easier to type with repitition) that the ABC will probably push for a similar “consultant” status for the same provinces in the Primates’ Meeting and the ACC… but I doubt the main opposing GS provinces would be satisfied with ++KJS being present even in reduced status, nor would they be likely to tolerate any GS Primate being similarly reduced. So that’s likely to be a very interesting “further consultation.”
I wonder what the odds are of TEC being relegated to consultant status in the Primates’ Meeting and the main opposing GS Provinces also boycotting the meeting. That would make nobody happy, but I can see it happening.
#27
1. The general principle is established in the letter that the ABC can disinvite; he does so with the ecumenical officers, etc;
2. How does this affect so-called/ertswhile ‘border crossing’ Provinces? Well much turns on the status of ACNA as an independent entity (so it is for Uganda which has handed things over to ACNA; so it could be for Southern Cone, Kenya, Nigeria; unclear Rwanda and AMiA); many have conjectured that discussions are likely already underway;
3. As for the PB and Ian Douglas: the latter is receiving some serious scrutiny in the general area of fairplay and transparency, re: TEC; the former may have already been asked to step back, if Naughton and Harris blog reports are correct, confirming other rumors on this matter; and the ABC writes:
“I am aware that other bodies have responsibilities in questions concerned with faith and order, notably the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. The latter two are governed by constitutional provisions which cannot be overturned by any one person’s decision alone, and there will have to be further consultation as to how they are affected. I shall be inviting the views of all members of the Primates’ Meeting on the handling of these matters with a view to the agenda of the next scheduled meeting in January 2011.”
In general it must be remembered, ACNA and GS are in one place, TEC another, because the latter is proactively committing itself to SSBs, litigation, +LA and +NH. The former can adjust what it is doing in the light of what happens with TEC. But it doesn’t go the other direction because it is TEC that has stuck its neck out and wants also to remain in the Communion all the same.
Ross #28…I think you are on to something and I agree …I feel that TEc will be allowed to attend as consultants which would most certainly get the dander up of the Global South. But I think ht GS is already thinking this a head of time. hey av been duped before in the past and they are not likely to play ball blindly anymore.
Gaseous discharge, again. I recollect THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH and Wither upon reading this. Or should that be Horace Jules?
How much has really happened since the 2004 Windsor Report? Weren’t many eagerly awaiting a response from RW to the Consecration of Mary Glasspool? Aren’t we talking about the future once again? Now everyone will wait until the Primates meeting in 2011…..and then…..and then. I think (and hope) Christ will return first.
Amen to that Fr. Dale. Every time TEc does something we begin the waiting game and every time we are disappointed and they know it and we keep doing it.
Anglicans are looking for “Leadership” . . . not the mere opinion of their Leader.
Yes, once again, just wait til 2011, all will be well. Another well-kicked can humpf…..
Grandmother
The “border crossing” question has never been a question of inter-communion, but rather one of formal structure. Which is to say, the ABoC himself has participated in various ways in “impaired communion” and virtually every other church in the Communion does as well. As has been pointed out, while the ABoC recognizes that there is an Anglican see in New Hampshire, he did not invite the TEC holder of the see to Lambeth. Likewise, he continues to recognized the “renounced” Bishop Henry Scriven even though +Henry has been stripped of his ordinations by KJS. So, clearly, the ABoC does not include the breaking of communion with certain bishops in the US, or the recognition of non-TEC approved bishops as border crossing, per se. It is rather the matter of direct oversight by the Primate of Province X that he is objecting to.
This would mean that Uganda and Kenya, undoubtedly, have withdrawn from border crossing by turning their jurisdictions over without qualification to a domestic entity. The other Primates could do the same, or, it seems to me, they have a second option. The second option would be to pledge to turn over their oversight to the Primates Council overseeing congregations in the US as called for in the Dar agreement. This is an “official” Communion decision on the way to handle congregations or dioceses that were unable to accept oversight from the Episcopal Church. The ACC has met since Dar, and took no decision to set Dar aside, and therefore, Dar remains the Communion policy regarding dioceses or parishes that have left TEC, and potentially also those who remain in TEC but are not in communion with KJS, VGR and Glasspool (who, to her credit, is not yet an acronym).
Rwanda probably remains a special case. Nigeria and S Cone did not take action (at an episcopal level) until the Dar agreement had been abrogated- that is to say, the installation of +Martin Minns and the oversight of dioceses by S Cone, occurred as a response to the abrogation of Dar. Rwanda’s degree of involvement predated Dar, and indeed predated the consecration of VGR.
However we may interpret all this, the problem that remains is that, to date, no action whatsoever has been taken, and none will be taken in the immediate future. We will only know what the ABoC actually means when invitations are actually issued to these various meetings, and we find out who is invited, and what their status is. If the GS loses 3 reps on the Theology commission while the West loses 1, it will mean something completely different than if all reps are required to publicly adhere to Lambeth 1.10 in order to have a seat. And I imagine the reality will fall somewhere in between. In any case, no one is likely to be removed, as such, but only not allowed to vote. But having seen what “voting” looks like in the Anglican Communion, it is difficult to see how losing one’s vote matters, so long as one’s reflections are included in the compilation of reflections by the meeting moderators.
Likewise, we will have no idea whether +Rowan is serious about invitations to the Primates meeting until such time as there is a Primates meeting. He apparently intends to maintain KJS and Douglas on the Standing Committee- he could have called for their resignations, but did not. There is no point to moral authority if one does not take a moral stand once in a while. I think it is highly probable that one of the recent consultations was a request to KJS that she resign voluntarily, and she refused. Douglas, of course, has actually already disqualified himself, by accepting a see. However, he appears to now be adamant that he will not relinquish his seat on the JSC (unless something happened in the last couple days I haven’t heard about). Kearon apparently is backing him up. Quite a number of scholarly essays have been written pointing up the obvious- that Douglas continuation on the JSC violates the ACC constitution and bylaws, but to date, the power structure, including here the ABoC, seem intent on keeping him there.
Until such time as Schori and Douglas are removed, it is clear that there is no Covenant. The ABoC, of course, implies, fairly clearly, that those who have trampled all over the Communion cannot be the arbiters of its common life. This would in turn imply that TEC representation would be removed from a body responsible for arbitrating disputes under the Covenant. On the other hand, we have had 7 years now of statements “implying” exactly this, and find ourselves in a situation where the only communion entity apparently capable of action on anything (standing committee) is run by the people who have the most to gain by scuttling the Covenant and dismembering the Communion. So, perhaps the best course is to watch the progress of events and reserve any commitment on the Covenant until there is evidence of action, and not on the basis of implications.
In light of the ABC’s statement, “…not to make the other feel inferior (because we all need to be called to repentance)..”, I think that any action taken by Rowan would need be random and unfocused. All are equal. All are wrong.
And the goal is that in the midst of being wrong we must not, above all else, make someone feel inferior. We have a group inferiority complex; we are all sick, and poor Rowan needs to lay us all on the couch and make us better.
I have such pity for the man. I pray that his associate Primates have the God-given words and attitudes that can help him. I pray that the Holy Spirit of Pentecost free him.
Don
DonGander,
I appreciate the candor, clarity and accuracy of both of your posts on this thread. Pax,
1. The general principle is established in the letter that the ABC can disinvite; he does so with the ecumenical officers, etc;
His ability to invite/disinvite was well-established prior to the letter. He can choose whom he invites to the Primates’ Meeting. Also, he did not invite +Gene and disinvited +Schofield to Lambeth.
2. How does this affect so-called/ertswhile ‘border crossing’ Provinces? Well much turns on the status of ACNA as an independent entity (so it is for Uganda which has handed things over to ACNA; so it could be for Southern Cone, Kenya, Nigeria; unclear Rwanda and AMiA); many have conjectured that discussions are likely already underway;
Since ‘border crossing’ is specifically mentioned as a violated moratoria, it is safe to assume that the ABC has some Provinces in mind. I am not sure about AMiA either since it was created prior to Windsor. However, I do know that AMiA has added TEC parishes since Windsor.
3. As for the PB and Ian Douglas: the latter is receiving some serious scrutiny in the general area of fairplay and transparency, re: TEC; the former may have already been asked to step back, if Naughton and Harris blog reports are correct, confirming other rumors on this matter;
+Douglas is receiving “serious” scrutiny from the conservative elements in TEC. While this means virtually no internal scrutiny, +Douglas was not the reason for the letter and his actions don’t really relate to the issue. As for ++Katharine, nothing in the letter, nor anything I have read on The Lead or Preludium suggest that she has been asked to “step back” to any degree.
Likewise, he continues to recognized the “renounced†Bishop Henry Scriven even though +Henry has been stripped of his ordinations by KJS
+Scriven resigned his orders as related to TEC only. There is nothing unusual about him being recognized in England where he was ordained and remains a bishop
It may be a simplistic analogy, but I’m sticking with it.
The leadership of TEC are arsonists who have set fire to a building (arguably, TEC itself as the “official” expression of ecclesial Anglicanism in the United States). That fire was set, ostensibly, some time ago (even before the 2003 consecration of Robinson).
Since that fire was set, various faithful Anglican groups have acted as first responders to rescue people, parishes, dioceses, from the burning building. This was always seen as temporary, in the (apparently vain) hopes that the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Primates would step in and fight the fire. All for the sake of the life of the Communion.
Now, we get this – what I term “grade school playground” solution to the problem. Let’s put both the arsonists and the first responders in “time out”. Makes little sense to me – the fire continues to burn (and it’s not the fire of Pentecost).
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. John’s Anglican
Park City, Utah
#38 One mark of full communion is the interchangeability of orders. Thus, when one ecclesial body formally declares that so and so has renounced his orders, and another says, no he hasn”t, it’s a mark of impaired communion.
What happened to Bishop Scriven was IMO highly unusual – though if you can find another such case, in say the last one hundred years, please do let me know.
David Handy writes: “As usual, he refuses to rule out the “progressive†position and to dismiss it completely and abruptly as the utterly unbiblical, totally unjustified matter that it is. Everything else is secondary. Archbishop Williams’ fundamental mistake is that he implicitly treats homosexual behavior as a Rom. 14 issue rather than as a Gal. 1 issue. That too is a very common and understandable mistake, but it’s a fatal and disastrous one nonetheless. All else flows from it.”
It’s because he thinks there are some meritous aspects to the a progressive position. And I’m not sure how it is disastrous. Disastrous for whom? Why?
Is sexuality so far more important than building a church in the Jordan in an attempt to reach Muslims? Why? Doesn’t it seem that one things that distinguishes us from Muslims is magnanimity towards gay people? Or must we, on the issue of homosexuality, share the same faith.
#40
I can’t comment on Scriven, but TEC has never had full interchangeability of orders with any province of the Anglican Communion. Member of other provinces have always had to demonstrate competence in order to be licensed in the US. How that relates to a Bishop and the transfer of his or her allegiance, I’m not sure, but interchangeability has always had some caveats.
The current governing canons are Title III.10.1-2ff. A priest transferring in from another church, whether inside or outside the Anglican Communion, has to go through several hoops. The difference is that an A/C priest is recieved rather than ordained, and some of those hoops are easier to negotiate.
Section 1 lists most of the requirements
[blockquote]Sec. 1. Prior to reception or ordination, the following must be provided (a) a background check, according to criteria established by the
Bishop and Standing Committee, and (b) medical and psychological evaluation by professionals approved
by the Bishop, using forms prepared for the purpose by The Church Pension Fund, and if desired or necessary, psychiatric referral. If the medical examination, psychological examination, or background check have taken place more than thirty-six months prior to reception or ordination they must be updated.
(c) evidence of training regarding (1) prevention of sexual misconduct. (2) civilrequirementsforreportingandpastoralopportunities
for responding to evidence of abuse. (3) the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church,
particularly Title IV thereof. (4) training regarding the Church’s teaching on racism.
(d) Reports of all investigations and examinations shall be kept permanently on file by the Bishop and remain a part of the permanent diocesan record.
(e) Prior to reception or ordination each clergy person shall be assigned a mentor Priest by the Bishop in consultation with the Commission on Ministry. The mentor and clergy person shall meet regularly to provide the clergy person an opportunity for guidance,[/blockquote]
Canon III.10.2.(3).(i) lists dioceses and provinces in communion with Canterbury as falling under these requirements.
With regard to Scriven, once a person is received, then there is presumably some sort of recognition for ending that reception should they want to go back, which means we no longer recognize them as a priest or bishop of this church (TEC).
While I’m sure these canons have been enhanced since the start of the Recent Unpleasantness, they were in force at least in the early ’90s if not earlier.
Dirk Reinken
Just to add, since I didn’t quote the entire body of canons, other canons do require evidence of theological training, etc., so it’s not all about administration and structure (just trying to forestall any wag-ish comments).
John Wilkins asks: “Doesn’t it seem that one things that distinguishes us from Muslims is magnanimity towards gay people? Or must we, on the issue of homosexuality, share the same faith.[?]”
John, the universal rejection of homosexuality by the major world religions is something that has received little attention in these discussions. Many reappraisers are keen to find expressions of tolerance for homosexuality in a variety of faiths, but the examples they come up with are usually twisted, ambiguous, or totally marginal. The fact is that none of the major world religions embrace homosexuality as normative or something to be encouraged. The Delai Lama, for example, has come under heavy fire from American supporters who want him to lighten up and “reinterpret” traditional Buddhist teaching on homosexuality. While one does find expressions of tolerance of homosexuals as people, one does not find the idea that homosexual unions should be blessed. This is not only an innovation in historic X-ianity, it’s a TOTAL aberration among ALL the great world religions in existence today. Procreation is an issue of concern to the historic religions, as is their own survival and, in most cases, expansion. It’s not hard to figure out why they don’t celebrate homosexuality.
There are, of course, individual Buddhists, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc. who are “magnanimous” in the sense that they embrace the humanity of gay people and think there are other issues that are more important than what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but that doesn’t translate into embracing the public celebration and blessing of same-sex unions. I think it might be instructive for reappraisers like yourself to ask why this is the case. Why do all the great world religions today pretty much come to the same position on this matter?
Sorry, in the second sentence of my second paragraph in #44 above, that should obviously read: “Many REAPPRAISERS are keen to find expressions of tolerance for homosexuality . . .”
Fixed it–ed..
42, not much of a communion then is it.
I think it’s an interesting topic, Chris, but to merely say that all the religions are against something doesn’t mean that they all can’t be wrong. What seems to be more evident is that all “religions” are much more varied than we, from the outside, think they are.
That said, I agree that homosexuality is not normative for most cultures (why would it be? Most people aren’t). Muslims in Holland have their own gay clubs. Muslim women, upon landing in Heathrow, tear off their burkas and slip into stillettos and miniskirts.
What is missing from the discussion is a more accurate description of what is at stake. What gets confusing is that we have these simple words (homosexuality / heterosexuality) which seem to clarify, but actually seem to obscure what happens in human relationships.
There are overarching issues that make the issues even more complicated: the pornogrification of culture; the ability of women to dictate when they have children; the commercialization of the human family. Perhaps our discussion about homosexuality becomes a way of NOT talking about the major shifts in the heterosexual family over the last 50 years.
Of course that’s right – within TEC (as within the COE) mental illness or criminal convictions of certain sorts might make one ineligible to take up a post – but it would not lead to the church declaring that one had renounced one’s orders. Thus competence is a separate issue from the recognition of orders. Bishop Scriven was not declared incompetent but rather the judgment was taken that he had renounced his orders. The COE declined to accept this judgment. This is a serious sign of impaired communion.
This policy is entirely novel not only within the Communion but within the history of TEC itself. Prior to the current PB clergy transferred all the time from TEC to other Provinces without “being renounced”. They were issued with Letters Dimissory and simply moved to the other Province. They were no more seen as having renounced their orders than if they had changed dioceses within TEC.
See http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com/2009/01/is-the-renunciation-of-orders-routine/
Referencing 2006 canon III.IX.6.c.2.(iv), the rector or priest in charge of a parish may permit a minister in good standing in a Church in Communion with this Church to officiate on an “occasional” basis. Happens all the time. A license from the bishop is required if service is to be more than “occasional.”
Bruce Robison
“As for ++Katharine, nothing in the letter, nor anything I have read on The Lead or Preludium suggest that she has been asked to “step back†to any degree.” — that is exactly what they have suggested: that she has been asked to withdraw (and oughtn’t to, ought to storm the meetings, etc). I think we may hear more about this in due course.
As I read this letter for about the third of fourth time, I (for a moment) considered sharing it with my parish membership; but then I wondered to myself “why?”. I don’t know what to think about this. I could pick at the words; I could huff and puff. I could write a blog. What does this have to do with my people and their daily lives?
If you don’t know me, don’t think I don’t care or grasp the issues, I do. I’ve been involved in church politics since 1976. I’ve earned my living working for lost causes in the Episcopal Church. I helped form organizations that most readers of this blog have forgotten or never known.
I’m just so weary of waiting for significant and clear leadership that reading this letter (even though it is remarkably better than I ever would have expected) is such a tedious chore. Marantatha.
An important thing to remember: If TEC is reduced to “consult status,” and if Mrs Schori or her stand-ins attend any meeting or other function, you can be dead sure that they’ll have something to say, and they’ll keep their TEC checkbooks handy. Guaranteed.
Who are the ecumenical partners that are to forgo the attendance (of anyone)?
See how that worked to reverse Frank Grizwald’s agenda! Let’s try it again!
There’s a definition for mental illness or foolish lurking in this behaviour. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
[blockquote] When the Church is living by the Spirit, what the world will see is a community of people who joyfully and gratefully hear the prayer of Jesus being offered in each other’s words and lives, and are able to recognise the one Christ working through human diversity. [/blockquote]
When I meet Christians of other nationalities and cultures I recognize them as brothers and sisters because we all acknowledge the divinity of Christ, our need for redemption and the [b]unique[/b] power of Jesus to save us from our sin.
[blockquote] But if the Spirit is leading us all further into the truth, the Spirit will convict the Church too of its wrongness and lead it into repentance. And if the Church is a community where we serve each other in the name of Christ, it is a community where we can and should call each other to repentance in the name of Christ and his Spirit – not to make the other feel inferior (because we all need to be called to repentance) [i]but to remind them of the glory of Christ’s gift and the promise that we lose sight of when we fail in our common life as a Church.[/i][/blockquote]
Rubbish. Yes we need to “call each other to repentance” but not to “remind” but to have a good, honest argument about what we believe God wants from us based on scripture. The trouble we now have is we don’t agree on the authority on which to base our arguments. The primary texts we should be arguing about are Acts 15 and Galatians (all of it). The TEC takes the parts about the Holy Spirit and strenuously ignores the parts about “you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.” (Gal 5.16) for example.
John Wilkins, you miss the point. Sexuality is the presenting issue but not the foundational divide. Unless we agree on the foundation to resolve our differences we are no longer a single religion. It is not even a matter of Anglican versus some other kind of protestant. If the TEC cannot clearly affirm the exclusive claim of divinity and the [i]unique and essential[/i] role of Christ in our salvation then the TEC is no longer Christian.
[blockquote] But we are constantly reminded that the priorities of mission are experienced differently in different places, and that trying to communicate the Gospel in the diverse tongues of human beings can itself lead to misunderstandings and failures of communication between Christians. The sobering truth is that often our attempts to share the Gospel effectively in our own setting can create problems for those in other settings.[/blockquote]
It is delusional to think that the current crisis is merely a translation problem. The problem is not due to the [i]how[/i] we are sharing but [i]what[/i] we are sharing. I do not know of a single case where the genuine sharing of the Gospel in one place has made it more difficult to share the Gospel somewhere else. This is actually a very interesting litmus test. If we are essentially sharing the same message, is it really possible for the effective communication of that message in one context to inhibit the communication of the same message somewhere else!?
John Wilkins (#41),
Sorry to be slow in responding to your questions directed to me. I was on vacation this weekend. After quoting my assertion above that ++RW’s failute to distinguish between what’s adiaphora and what’s not is “disastrous,” i.e., that overturning the clear, consistent and emphatic condemnation of homosexual behavior in Scripture and Tradition (and the relativist, antinomian ideology behind that reversal) is not a Romans 14 issue but a Gal. 1 issue, you ask me to clarify for whom it’s disastrous and why. Those are perfectly appropriate and reasonable questions, and many people might wonder the same things. I welcome the chance to clarify my stand.
Briefly put, I’d answer this way. The utter theological confusion reflected in the failure to see that we’re dealing here with a Gal. 1 issue, in the sense of a false gospel being promoted that’s simply intolerable, is disastrous for Anglicans in general, and most especially it’s extremely harmful for those unfortunate people trapped in bondage to same sex attractions and above all it’s disastrous for those who actually give in to those temptations and engage in that self-destructive behavior.
You see, John, it’s no act of kindness to condone or validate a dangerous behavior that’s not only disobedient to God’s will and clearly contrary to his call to holiness, but also inherently unhealthy (and not just in RC language, intrinsically disordered). That is, it’s an undeniable scientific fact that engaging in homsexual behavior, at least for men, poses HUGE medical risks, quite apart from the risk of AIDS, due to the much greater risk of serious infections that inevitably arise from the frequent practice of anal intercourse by gay men. And that’s quite apart from the psychological dangers also involved, for both men and women, since homosexual relationships are statistically far less stable than heterosexual ones among married couples and that even when stable and enduring, homosexual relationships are inherently unhealthy because they fail to exemplify the gender complementarity that is clearly God’s design for the most important and intimate of relationships, marriage.
Not least, there’s the ultimate reason why engaging in, or advocating the legitimacy of, homosexual behavior, or any other form of sexual immorality, is so dangerous, and that’s because of the stern warning in the NT that those who engage in such abhorrent behavior run the risk of being excluded from the kingdom of God forever. 1 Cor. 6:9-10 and Eph. 5:5 are all too clear; those who do such things will not inherit eternal life. You can’t get more catastrophic consequences than that.
But as a regular T10 reader, Mr. Wilkins, you surely know that those of us on the reasserter side contend that homosexuality is only the tip of the iceberg here. The real issue is upholding, or more accurately, recovering, the supreme authority of Holy Scripture, when it has been widely subordinated in our day to the putative (but subjective and unreliable) claims of personal experience.
Naturally I acknowledge, John, that ++RW’s published writings make it abundantly clear that he indeed believes that the absolute condemnation of homosexual behavior in the Bible doesn’t necessarily apply in our day, or isn’t as clear and absolute as has been thought. And (unfortunately) there is no evidence whatsoever that he’s changed his mind and repented of his error. That is one reason why he’s unfit to be ABoC.
In closing, I’ll repeat here a claim I’ve often made at T19 that helps explain why the approval of same sex behavior, and the antinomian, relativist outlook it represents is indeed disastrous, even catastrophic, for the Church, and most of all how terribly dangerous it is for the people misled by that false ideology. And my point is to insist on where the burden of proof lies, namely with those who would overturn the historic condemnation of homosexual behavior and would replace the biblical call to a strenuous holiness that includes strict avoidance of all sex outside marriage with a new, antinomian stance that may be culturally popular but is totally unChristian.
[b]The clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside and overturned, as it has been, on the basis of dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience.[/b]
Progressives regularly ASSERT (but seldom argue at any length or with seriousness) that the biblical condemnations are culturally conditioned, unclear, ambiguous, or simply outdated and inapplicable. But what makes the revisionist position so dangerous and disasstrous is that such radical, sweeping claims are being made without any real justification. They are totally without merit theologically. In the end, it’s the trivial and casual way that the unqualified condemnation of homosexual behavior in Scripture and Tradition is being overthrown without the slightest warrant in our day that’s so catastrophic.
David Handy+
Chris Taylor # 12
…vaguely amusing, if perhaps ultimately shallow and glib. Easy peasy to do, at some distance from those who have real responsibilities in wrestling with the seemingly intractable task of keeping the Communion together. One can analyze a glass of water and reduce it to its chemical components – BUT there will be nothing left to drink.
Or perhaps NOT! Distilling the entire corpus of Christian scripture might yield the happy result of:
“I believe”
#57. Declan,
[blockquote]Easy peasy to do, at some distance from those who have real responsibilities in wrestling with the seemingly intractable task of keeping the Communion together.[/blockquote]First, we are all a part of the body of Christ and each has something to contribute not just those with “real responsibilities”. Keeping the Communion on course is as important as keeping the Communion together.
Agreed Fr Dale – it’s just that one can barely imagine the sheer burden on ++Rowan’s shoulders, struggling to find a way through all of this turbulence. He’s a sincere, thoughtful, holy man, in an unenviable position, assailed from all quarters; a man whose natural disposition and calling doesn’t equip him well to deal with it all. I myself do not find his predicament an easy object of amusement or sarcasm. We should pray for him.
Declan,
I do pray for the ABC. It is my duty. None of us are equipped to deal with this predicament. Many of the comments including mine from time to time are a case of threadbare optimism that has been proven to be misplaced once again. I ask you to pray for those he leads too. It seems like at present, Satan is sifting us like wheat especially the clergy.
Fr. Dale,
I DO understand. I count myself among the profoundly troubled.
If I may ask, what is your manifesto? A few bullet-points will be fine. What were the optimisms that were dashed?
#61. Declan,
I’m not sure what you mean by my manifesto. I think it is a matter of closure that seems to never come. It is like an itch that never gets scratched. This lack of closure is THE distraction for me. When I am involved in priestly duties, all is well. for the most part it has not affected my Homilies. (At least I think it hasn’t) The ABC is so evenhanded that it is maddening to both sides. Maybe it is partly the generation gap (I’m 65) which seems to be a cultural gap too. I just haven’t gotten to the point that I heed Jesus when He says to me, “But what is that to you”? I met a Muslim man in the hardware store today and after a brief conversation I told him I was a priest. He followed me out of the store and said, “I want to be around you. You are like Jesus.” He asked me if I had a card so he could come to our church and I gave him one. I liked him too. It was a real kingdom moment. These distractions keep me from being my Jesus self. It is my best self but unfortunately not my only self. Pax