Q: In Dar es Salaam there was a call for a fourth moratorium for a cessation of litigation. We now have only three moratoria but both TEC and the ACoC claim to be missional churches; how does the spectacle of lawsuits look to the unchurched?
KJS: the reality is that sometimes the church does need to resort to civil courts to assert its rights. It’s not just TEC and the ACoC, the church in Jerusalem is in court with a former bishop who absconded with assets belonging to the Diocese of Jerusalem. Similar things have happened in Sudan, in Mexico, in Columbia, Ecuador, it’s not unique to North America….
Q: Has the ABC responded adequately to cross border interventions?
KJS: I don’t think he understands how difficult, painful and destructive it’s been, both in the ACoC and TEC. When bishops come from overseas and say, well, we’ll take care of you, you don’t have to pay attention to your bishop, it destroys pastoral relationships. It’s like an affair in a marriage: it destroys trust and I believe it does spiritual violence to vowed relationships. It is a very ancient teaching of the church that a bishop is supposed to stay home and tend to the flock to which he was originally assigned.
Q: you mentioned in your Pentecost letter ”“ from the duelling Pentecost letters ”“ “we note the troubling push towards centralised authority “ in response to Rowan Williams. Is not the resistance to cross-border interventions a similar push towards central authority on a smaller scale?
KJS: The resistance to cross-border interventions is for the reasons I’ve pointed out: it destroys pastoral relationships. It prevents any possibility of reconciliation; it prevents growth in understanding among people who disagree. The idea that one person in one location in the world can adequately understand contexts across the globe and decide policy across the globe, I think contravenes traditional Anglican understanding of local worship in a language understood by the people. This is what we were arguing about 500 years ago.
Delusional.
[blockquote]The reality is that sometimes the church does need to resort to civil courts to assert its rights.
The resistance to cross-border interventions is for the reasons I’ve pointed out: it destroys pastoral relationships. It prevents any possibility of reconciliation; it prevents growth in understanding among people who disagree.[/blockquote]
The juxtaposition of these two quotes is just breathtaking. I would imagine that by the time lawsuits are instigated, pastoral relationships have already been long ago destroyed–and not by those border crossing bishops who are offering refuge.
The idea of great support from Canada (as reported by ENS) seems overstated. Hiltz/Synod hardly rallied around TEC/PB. Even the concern of Hiltz with the adverb ‘formally’ in respect of SSBs was difficult to evaluate. Was he concerned that AcoC could be so charged, or was he disputing the category and defending the loose manner in which Synod has avoided what Vancouver has asserted?
I agree with Tim Harris that what we have here is a whistle stop campaign to gather support, with Canada, Scotland and New Zealand (?) on the junket. Not sure what progress she can make in the SEC (having lived there for ten years). Conservative clergy have the big churches and will probably boycott proceedings (David McCarthy in Glasgow intimated this). The clerical order is probably capable of being wooed by the PB on the victim scenario. But what about the TEC-Communion originating in Aberdeen idea, as a substitute for the Anglican Communion? That Myth is fairly fragile and awkward, when pressed too far (what is the Scottish Episcopal contribution to the Episcopal Church as it took route between 1607 and the Revolution? How many Scottish Episcopalians went forth as SPG clergy/missionaries, etc; can the expediency regarding Seabury be transformed into a TEC based Communion?). The danger here is that the PB is perceived as commandeering the SEC so as to produce a Charter Myth of origins which most Scots know is over-cooking it. Will the small HOB in Scotland really want to throw their lot in with an America-centered TEC Communion? The Scottish Episcopal Church in St Andrews is composed more of English background than of Scottish, and I’d be puzzled to know how many even know who Seabury is…though maybe the whistle stop will change that…).
It is also unclear whether the TEC Communion idea is delusion/vanity/defensive; a challenge regarded as competent by those behind it, vis-à -vis the ABC and the present Communion; or whether it is seen as necessary given legal/courtroom realities inside the US (‘yes, yes, others say we are second-tier, but they are, not us: we have our own Communion and the PB is the Archbishop and leader of it…).
Things are moving at a brisk pace so perhaps we will see a clearer picture in sooner rather than later terms.
This is playing out much like a Greek tragedy: the story is pretty clearly outlined for us, and we are just waiting for the specific way the writer(s) will handle the script. The new “Progrezzive Komunyen (TM)” or whatever they will eventually call it is being formed as quickly as possible. It will be a shoddy affair, the distillation of years of weak scholarship, delusional isogesis, and historical flim-flammery. This interview is instructive as to the degree KJS and her ilk have “drunk the Kool Aid” and are determined on their own (and sadly, others’) spiritual degradation. It has truly become the blind leading the blind in TEC’s leadership. The oily pelicans are coming home to roost after all these years of a “spiritual toxic spill” in this part of the vineyard.
Oh, brother….where do I start? That woman is [b]unbelievable![/b] Doesn’t she believe in Christian charity? Doesn’t she believe in Christians helping each other? Doesn’t she believe in bishops “banning all error” and “defending the Faith?”
I guess not!
I wonder if we aren’t seeing the beginnings of a split here, and not the one that might have been expected. There is certainly liberal ire at the beginning of formal marginalisation of the Episcopal Church.
But whereas the Presiding Bishop is frenetically running round touring Scotland and other places like a wailing banshee extolling her empire in 16 countries [most of which are an odd chapel here or there] and looking increasingly as if she wants to be Pope of her own church, the real liberal revisionists are appalled. They are not interested in Mrs Schori’s plans for her Matriarchate. They want to be in the Communion, and pushing it to accept their agenda and ideas. After all, they have two gay partnered bishops, but they are not going to be happy just as part of a pretty tiny sect even by American standards, when what they really want is to use the 78 million strong Anglican Communion as their power platform.
So – something well worth watching, I expect.
I would largely agree with #6. The moderate liberal bishops, or most of them, and the center will resist any plan to leave the Communion and Canada is trying desperately to come up with something which avoids sanctions. There remain emotional ties between the churches of the old Dominions which reflect their constitution links to the crown. TEC may find itself internally divided and way out front of other liberal Provinces.
Moderate liberals in VA, FL, SWFL, SoVA, et al — yes, these may well say: ‘who gave you this charge to globe around selling your communion idea.’ Revisionist liberals? They’ll embrace this idea of ‘we are the world’ and america knows best. So the battle lines may shift: moderate liberals who believe in Communion vs. bona fide liberals in the Bruno-Schori-Andrus mode.
Dr. Seitz,
As always, thanks for chiming in and adding your thoughts here. Much is in flux now and how it all will play out is anyone’s guess, but the pace at which developments are taking place has really picked up lately.
Hmmm. For a long time, it seemed that ++RW was seeking to drive a wedge between AC conservatives, pitting the more hardline GAFCON/FCA group against the so-called moderates in the GS (++Chew, ++Anis, ++Ernest, ++Ntahoturi, etc.), in order to block and thwart any real discipline of the “progressives.” Now, his Pentecost letter could have the ironic effect, whether intended or not, of isolating TEC and thus driving a wedge between it and its liberal allies (or would-be, former allies).
To me, the most astounding and offensive part of this interview was when the nefarious PB had the gall to compare the intervening GS Anglican leaders to the “third party” in a marital affair. What an insufferable and inexcusable perversion of the truth! Among all her other failings and sins, this brazen bearing of false witness is a gross violation of the 9th commandment. It looks like she’s become so accustomed to lying that it’s now become habitual. Or else, if the misrepresentation is truly unintentional, she’s living in her own fantasy world, with almost no connection to reality. Either way, it’s sickening.
David Handy+
Actually the Global South have been very quiet, don’t you think? Both the moderates and GAFCON, but of course they have better things to do with their time, but are no doubt watching how this all pans out.
I expect they are watching the behavior of Lambeth Palace, Kearon and the Canadians closely, and of course the Presiding Bishop flapping around on her latest shopping trip.
The GS (those connected to ACNA and AMiA and CAN) is likely to have tipped off all along by virtue of the emerging Pentecost Letter’s reference to moratoria. +Uganda seemed to refer to this some time back when ACNA was on the verge of forming: it was time to ask the “refugees” to return and soldier on — I believe this was the exact language of Orombi in reference to the formation of ACNA. Others in the GS are doubtless aware that this was going to happen and like us are watching to see how TEC’s PB conducts herself, including whether she is making things easier for everyone by simply going too far in her insistent american role. I doubt also that Archbishop Rowan is only now consulting with the Primates re: TEC and the next meeting. He was silent for a long time and that was ample time to anticipate these developments and plan to defeat them. Will the PB succeed in getting Canada, SEC, NZ and others as allies? Well, clearly she is on a whistle stop to try. But will there be more than soothing words when push comes to shove? Do people really want to side with the global american agenda now in the form of the PB’s ‘US-based TEC’ (the language is now appearing) Communion? We also must not assume that the PB is angry because of ecumenical committee representation only. Doubtless more has been said, and that also would explain the silence of major GS leaders (apart from the more excellent reasons given above) as they watch this play out on the global scene. Yesterday Canada (not big successes there) today England and Friday Edinburgh. I suspect they are watching carefully all that she proceeds to say and do.
cseitz inquired at 3, “what is the Scottish Episcopal contribution to the Episcopal Church as it took route between 1607 and the Revolution? How many Scottish Episcopalians went forth as SPG clergy/missionaries, etc”
I’ve been working on a biographical directory of the Church of England clergy who served in British America before 1785. I shared some information about Samuel Seabury father and son here some days ago. I think Seabury Jr. may have come to know the Scottish Episcopalians when he was a medical student in Aberdeen.
A number of Scots came as Church of England clergy to America, and a number of American born men with Scotland born parents went for ordination after about 1760. The Scottish Episcopalians were, at least formally, Jacobites and their ordinations were not recognized in England or the English colonies, so men seeking orders went to England. Jonathan Boucher is a good example of a Irish / North of England poor bright young man who came to America and did well. There are other Lowland Scot examples.
Tom–I lived in St Andrews for a decade. I recommend the nice history by Gavin White. It might be hard to find. He has a very good section on Seabury. It is fairly well established that Seabury studied medicine in Scotland. My point is very simple. The PB speaks of an expedient consecration by Loyalist Seabury in Aberdeen as the birth of TEC and Communion. She has frozen one moment in time and imbued it with everything she believes bespeaks today’s TEC. Talking points speak of White as first Presiding Bishop, which is confusing because of the lack of direct analogy with TEC and the incremental way Episcopal Church became independent over the years, including of course later consultations and approval from the C of E on any number of matters. But also, what is one left to make of the 175 years prior to a consecration in Aberdeen, when SPG and others were establishing BCP worship. I was not seeking to put down Scottish Episcopalians; as you say, as non-jurors they had troubles of their own. I was simply indicating how anachronistic and/or false was the portrayal/implications of the New TEC Communion being advertised by the PB (has she had a basic course in American Church History? I actually doubt it). Of course Scots came to the US and some were episcopalians. But to write out the Ch of England from our history is just silly — before and after the good Bishop Seabury.
All is in flux now. Indeed. And Schori will keep it there by endless qualifications, divigations, reexaminations, re-definitions, contradictory iterations… you know the lot, the practice. And yet the church leaders of all sorts allow her to babble on and interfere, the only babbling brook in the world that runs on a bone dry bed. Larry
KJS has had pilot project Potemkin villages as reconstituted “dioceses”. Why not take the franchise world wide? When a hand full of parishioners is a parish and a hand full of parishes are a Diocese. Why couldn’t a hand full of Dioceses become a Communion? This is ambitious arrogance. What if the ABC was a woman? do you think there would be this much hue and cry from TEC?
Others have previously pointed out that it appears TEC has been preparing for this as an exigency since the name was changed to TEC – from TECUSA.
Anglican Communion Secretary General Kenneth Kearon said:
[blockquote] Given that the development in Los Angeles [the consecration of a non-celibate lesbian] meant that gracious restraint was not being exercised, I think the Archbishop did have to act. What I think he’s done is say, “Look, the consecration of Mary Glasspool is a full, well-thought out decision of the Episcopal Church. There are implications to that decision. In that action, [b]it is clear that The Episcopal Church does not share the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion as expressed through the Instruments of Communion time and time again.[/b] [/blockquote]
Now that’s all well and good, but this brings us back to the problem of orthodox Anglicans under TEC jurisdiction who want to remain faithful to “the faith and order of the vast majority of the Anglican Communion as expressed through the Instruments of Communion time and time again.” The AC has done nothing to help them.
Indeed the watch word seems to be, “Sorry about that. It’s your duty to go down with the ship. Don’t want to be schismatic you know.” At this point the only life ring in the water is that thrown by the Global South. Pardon us if we grasp what is available.