Archbishop Rowan’s Pentecost letter shows him to be continuing on a course that is creating a different kind of Anglicanism, more like the centralized, doctrinalized polity of the Roman Catholic Church. Added to this, the exercise of control by the Archbishop lacks the straightforwardness of the Roman polity.
For example, the Lambeth Conference was explicitly advertised as a non-legislative meeting; indeed we voted on nothing. However, lo and behold, through a non-transparent “consensus building” process, the bishops present (and so, in Archbishop Rowan’s thinking, the Communion) have affirmed the three moratoria put forward by the Windsor Report.
Here it is also important to note that the Windsor Report itself has been reified and given the status of a central Anglican document of faith and order, not by the test of time and use, but by the Archbishop and those who agree with him saying so.
When an Empire and its exponents can no longer exercise control by might, an option is to feint, double-talk, and manipulate. Such tactics have been in the fore with Archbishop Rowan since the confirmation of Gene Robinson as the Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003….
Rarely have a read a letter with more deliberate misrepresentations and distortions. Nor one with the author so puffed up with self righteousness. I found it rather repulsive.
[blockquote] Archbishop Rowan’s Pentecost letter shows him to be continuing on a course that is creating a different kind of Anglicanism, more like the centralized, doctrinalized polity of the Roman Catholic Church.[/blockquote]
Had I not read the rest of this unfortunate missive I would be tempted to dismiss this as a weak attempt at humor. Would that RW actually showed the spine that even the weakest Pope or Orthodox Patriarch would in the face of this outright heresy.
ANATHEMA!
That guy is out there. “The bishops of the Communion expressed their distaste for a punitive covenant”. I must have been asleep.
[i]more like the centralized, doctrinalized polity of the Roman Catholic Church[/i]
Which is to say, more like ECUSA’s developing polity. My Eyes Roll Over.
I suggest that he believes this to be true and is representative of the EcUSA HOB. The irony is no doubt lost on such as this and these. Which goes a long way toward explaining the poor quality of thought dominating the EcUSA. As EcUSA blunders its ersatz way to what it really is, it’s own komunion, perhaps someone there will awake to the irony, but I wouldn’t bet 0.02 on it.
“feint, double-talk and and manipulate”. Who would know more about that a revisionist Episcopal bishop?
Friends, this is the mindset we are dealing with. #4 is correct. People in TEC are astonished to learn they are in a Communion and that this means having to deal with an 85% reality that is other than their progressivism. They simply cannot believe this. What we may now see is a skirmish between moderate progressives (FL, SWFL, SoVa, VA) and the virulent Andrus types. The former are going to find they are in a very odd church and one that believes it is a ‘US-based TEC Federation.’
Let’s see..
Andrus, Bruno, Schori, Chane and, in fact, all other bishops accepted the conditions of coming to Lambeth before they bought their tickets; meaning that they were expected to adhere to the Windsor protocol including the moratoria. They said they did and would, they really didn’t and wouldn’t, and now they absolutely won’t. Are we really as stupid as Andrus hopes that we are?
Heh, ‘manipulate’? I think +Rowan is about the least manipulative person, or writer, I can imagine. He tries, I think, to do justice to the complexities of the communion (even counting things as complexities that may not be out of a sense of fairness to the whole), and the mind of the historic church, even as someone with progressive hopes, all of which leads him to a fullness of description hardly equalled elsewhere, certainly not by the revisionists. If we want to find someone who manipulates in a brusque, unchecked manner, we only have to look at KJS and the use of the canons against Duncan, Scriven, and others. (KJS who was ‘Dean”, remember, of a theology school according to her resume . . .or, wait, it was . . .an adult ed program at a middling size parish. And we wonder why we are in the mess we are in.)
‘Tis a tale told by a Bishop. Lacking sound, fury, and coherent argument. Signifying nothing.
He might benefit from taking an Anglican Studies course. His letter betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of how things work in the Anglican Communion.
I hope Rowan responds to the letter. I enjoy British humor.
Is it wicked of me to find this letter rather amusing?
I wonder if the bishop of California has ever thought about the notion of projection. Wikipedia’s notes on the subject almost seem like they were written just for him:
“Psychological projection or projection bias (including Freudian Projection) is the unconscious act of denial of a person’s own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to the weather, the government, a tool, or to other people. Thus, it involves imagining or projecting that others have those feelings.
“Projection is considered one of the most profound and subtle of human psychological processes, and extremely difficult to work with, because by its nature it is hidden. It is the fundamental mechanism by which we keep ourselves uninformed about ourselves. Humor has great value in any attempt to work with projection, because humor presents a forgiving posture and thereby removes the threatening nature of any inquiry into the truth.
“Paleo-anthropologically speaking, this faculty probably had survival value as a self-defense mechanism when homo sapiens’ intellectual capacity to detect deception in others improved to the point that the only sure hope to deceive was for deceivers to be self-deceived and therefore behave as if they were being truthful.”
In any case, the bishop seems to put the [i]pro[/i] in [i]projection[/i].
Father Dean A. Einerson
Rhinelander, Wisconsin
He does hit one nail on the head:
[blockquote]”By taking offending provinces out of the conversation with ecumenical partners, the archbishop subtly implies that such conversation is dangerous and contaminating, exactly as was done with Bishop Robinson and LGBT voices in general at the Lambeth Conference.”[/blockquote]
Andrus did not use any of the names that some of us have been called when we subtly implied that certain conversations were dangerous and contaminating. Of course, he is talking about the AoC.
I find this letter simply incomprehensible. If this is the prevailing view in the HOB (I see no evidence that it is), then they are completely out of touch with reality.
The bishop says he honors the Archbishop. He then demonstrates his honor by suggesting that the archbishop uses “feint, double-talk and and manipulation” to achieve his ends as “Empire” has failed. The word “Empire” is obviously intended to stir thoughts of Lexington and Concord, but not the Philippines, Guam etc.
It was the last sentence which really got me: syntax sacrificed at the altar of indignation.
Brian from T19 wrote:
I find this letter simply incomprehensible. If this is the prevailing view in the HOB (I see no evidence that it is), then they are completely out of touch with reality.
Brian, go and read the PB’s letter. They are completely out of touch with reality. Wither in THAT HIDEOUS STRENGTH out of touch with reality, and possibly the same source, I add descriptively.
Oh, boy….do I ever agree with you! They’re ‘way out in left field.
Cross-post from the Schori Letter page.
It’s troubling that Marc Andrus’ rather gauche, double-speak (“I love the Archbishopâ€) comments on Canterbury’s Pentecost letter completely miss the point. The Archbishop is calling for UNITY, PAUSE and REASON in the face of the turbulence and immediate danger which currently threatens the Anglican Communion. By contrast, Andrus seems defensively preoccupied by the colonial past. If I didn’t know he was a bishop, I’d have thought Andrus’ response had been penned by someone running for office in a small town somewhere.
LEADERSHIP at troubled times is a very different thing from puerile, obsessive “chip-on-the-shoulder†irrelevances about former “Empires†(Andrus) and “colonial attitudes†(Schori). A despot-manque Rowan Williams emphatically is not, as anyone who knows him even vaguely will attest. Indeed, people are over him for his signal lack of it. Talk of “Empires†and “colonial attitudes†is absolute rubbish in this serious context, as indeed both Scori and Andrus surely must know. It’s merely a cynical ruse to exploit uninformed, deep-rooted populist fears ingrained into the American psyche. How unworthy, how manipulative.
As for Schori’s slightly hysterical, unholy little letter, absent of any discernable scripture: cadet corps TEC bishops at their egregious worst, and I fear their particular brand of pastoral leadership will see schism in short order. Incredible. And appalling.
#11 Fr. Einerson, I think “projection” is too-developed a concept for this. Instead I’m reminded of a 2-year-old having a tantrum in the sandbox.
Brian, go and read the PB’s letter. They are completely out of touch with reality.
I think there is a distinction between +Andrus’ and ++Katharine’s letters. +Andrus seems to be arguing that ++Rowan is claiming to be a Pope in some megalomaniacal bid for power. ++Katharine is claiming that the majority is placing pressure on the minority. It may seem a small difference, but I think that it is an important distinction. What both seem to miss in their analysis is that the Church does indeed have limits as to how far it lets dissenters go.
There is fear hidden in the defensive tones being ramped up in both the Andrus and Schori responses. And fear they should. Fear of losing relevance. In a world where organized religion is losing ground every day, they are only hastening the irrelevance of theirs.