It is very interesting to see Ephraim’s comment this morning as I came across it after I wrote the entry below which came from some praying and thinking and bandying about ideas with some friends last might–KSH.
I cannot say with much certainty what Abp. Williams “really” wants in the midst of this mess. Perhaps he himself doesn’t really know. But one thing I am certain of: if the American bishops of all stripes””and their dioceses and clergy””could agree to some response to this situation that would get the larger Communion out from under this fight, he would think this the proper and acceptable course. EVEN IF IT MEANT THAT A LARGE PORTION OF TEC DISTANCED ITSELF FROM THE COMMUNION. He would not be happy with this, but he would find it acceptable, because it would be a way of dealing with a conflict that engaged the mature agreement of responsible Christian leaders, however difficult and costly. The current way of dealing with it””spreading it around the Communion like vomit with a rag””has proven not only costly, but scandalous.
My own hope, in light of this limited sense of the Archbishop’s desires, would be this: that the “Windsor Bishops” resolution be voted upon, and that, following that vote, there be an agreement worked out by which those who cannot, in good conscience (and here Abp. Anis’ plea provides a concrete possibility of direction), abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion, by which they will temporarily withdraw from the Communion’s formal councils for an undetermined time (5 to 10 years was the suggestion of Prof. Grieb at the last House of Bishops’ meeting, a suggestion greeted with much appreciation); and during this time, those dioceses committed to the Communion’s teaching and discipline will move forward with the Communion’s life, and those congregations and clergy in dissenting TEC dioceses will be put under the oversight of Communion dioceses. When this is done, a formal request will be made to the Primates that those providing extra-geogrpahical oversight give up that role, and fold their congregations back into the Communion-linked dioceses and oversight of American bishops. TEC will not cease to exist (though, as with the Communion, not all will participate in its formal life); it will, rather, exist in a state of partition.
This will not eliminate “diversity” from the Communion, or even dissenting voices from the councils of the Communion. We are well aware that there are many, outside of TEC, who are sympathetic with elements of her general drift. But these diverse voices will have agreed to abide by the common teaching and discipline of the Communion until such time as it is consensually altered (unlike many TEC bishops). They may indeed have an influence on any future Covenant proposal, but it will be an influence exercised within the constraints of common Communion submission. I would think that, once a Covenent is adopted””and I still believe it can and should be””and adopted in a form that is agreeable to those who are able, in good conscience, to live within this Communion as it now stands (and may yet stand), TEC, in its partitioned state, may be able to make a more final determination as to its desired role within the Communion.
As I said, a way forward like this would, in fact, be congruent in certain significant ways with commitments of Canterbury, Egypt (and probably other GS jurisdictions), and liberal TEC bishops (up to a point). If there is indeed “room” in the present moment to “maneuver”, I cannot see that I can be anywhere but in this kind of arena of possibility. To be sure, I believe such an arena is too constricting for many to accept.
A fine proposal. I hope that the HOB can find the courage to face the truth of the crisis they helped to create and do the right thing.
With all respect to Fr. Radner this won’t happen. TEC will not agrree to this voluntarily and Williams has no stomach to take the sort of action needed if they refuse. TEC is in full “Make me!” mode. And the ABC is in full “I can’t do anything” mode. So in the absence of any action (other than dithering) by the ABC, the “boundry crossings” by provences that no longer consider themselves in communion with TEC will continue and the AC itself will split.
Thank you, Ephraim – your scenario certainly would be the best way forward for there to be a remnant of Christian witness within The Episcopal Church and for wholesome relationships here in the Diocese of Tennessee. Anything less than this will set in motion a much messier solution for many. I will try to hold on to some hope – but it becomes more and more difficult.
This would be the only way for me to remain “in” TEC for much longer. Sadly, it’s apartheid. It’s distressing that TEC leadership – Bishops especially – let the situation devolve to the point where “separate but equal” looks attractive.
TEC right now only wants one thing, to dither,qualify, dispute, postpone, redither, demand another meeting, complain of ill use – anything that will keep the ax from falling. They believe, and perhaps correctly, that if they can force the AC to wait and see, to talk and listen, then the force of cultural change will allow that they really want to fall into their laps and th AC will be brought to TEC’s heel.
TEC is dangerous and subversive. They want radical change because they are in love with change itself, believing that this inconstancy is avant garde, and they wish to be the leaders in a Culture of Change wherein inconstancy is the only identity worth having. Inclusivity is fine until you include that which wants your destruction. Then it is indistinguishable from suicide. LM
I am really sorry to be so blunt about this, but…
Fat Chance.
from the Briar Patch,
I think it providential that a man of Archbishop Williams’ learning, wisdom and patience is the Archbishop of Canterbury at this most difficult time. He is a truly liberal and generous theologian who represents the best of one part of Anglicanism. His past and his personal views give (or gave) him a credibility with the more liberal parts of the Communion which an Archbishop with “conservative” credentials would not have.
I am tired of the nasty bitterness that comes out of us, orthodox/traditionalists/conservative/reasserters, and how that is directed against the Abp. Pray for him and thank God for him and just because he is humble, don’t attack his personality. Some of us will not be satisfied unless he steps down in favour of +Atwood or +Duncan, but the rest of us need to be patient and to support him. I was horrified by the press conference yesterday. It sounded like people trying to “catch him in his speech”. Not a lot of interest in what he thought, or in the truth, but a lot of interest in how they could spin his words against him. The volleys from both Integrity and Anglican TV seemed to be designed to produce an excuse for their constituency to declare the Abp. the enemy of their position.
He is a Christian. He is not lost. Pray for him.
Not bloody likely.
It is both fascinating and tragic to hear the level of despair. It still catches me off guard. My hunch is that what Dr Radner writes is at least 90% what is likely to happen.
BUT THERE is another question that I keep wondering about, and why there is not more clarity. How many people who despair of a Communion solution such as he describes, actually are committed to the negative view because it endorses a vision of anglicanism they really and truly want anyway?
I wish someone would devote an entire blog to this topic.
Chris,
I will speak for myself – my struggle to maintain hope for an outcome such as Ephraim’s vision is based both on past history and the resolutions we have seen for this meeting from +Parsley, +Whalon, and +Lee, for example. The House of Bishops of TEC has given us nothing, at least that I can see, over the last decades to indicate a willingness to provide such a clear and workable solution and compromise. The responses to the loving, compassionate, yet honest and forthright offering by ++Mouneer Anis to the HOB, at least that we are hearing, range from apathy to distaste to anger.
I would love to hear why you believe there is a 90% chance of Ephraim’s vision coming to fruition. What in the proceedings to date, or on the agenda coming up, provides a foundation for such hope?
Ephraim’s proposal is essentially the same one that ACI has been offering since 2003, and there have been no takers in all those years…although clearly people, including myself, think it would have been lovely if that had been the case.
Obviously I supported this concept in every way, and am now being mightily persecuted for having done so.
I think that the real problem is not with the proposal, but rather that there is no willingness among the revisionist members of the HOB to sit in such a diminished capacity, and no leadership among the reasserter members of the HOB to make it happen.
Also, at this point, for those on the ground in parishes, there is something of a need for radical separation in order not to have total and devastating departure…and the calling to remain in a body so disordered spiritually and organizationally, with such mean-spirited attacks as generated against those who stand against their diocese and 815–simply has rendered relationships beyond repair, and consciences unable to remain in any way connected to these people.
I know this old vet whose response to most everything is: “I’ve seen things man”. Well, I have seen things that are common practice among TEC bishops that are in fact modern day versions of what happened in the Tower of London…my wife and I, who come from generations of Episcopalians, want to having nothing to do with what we believe to be the worst of the medieval church resurrected for modern day purposes.
Hi Freddy–In a word. The Primates. +RDW will decide in conjunction with them. If he does not, the communion will collapse. He does not desire that. Also, he/most suspect that 60% of TEC bishops have set their face on a different vision (so +Mouneer’s nice appraisal). At issue, then, is the process by means of which they are enabled to make the decision on their own. He wishes the covenant to be that means. In the meantime, it is crucial to stablise the ‘CA Bishops’ and those deferring to Windsor and the process of Communion adjudication. Best to you.
It seems to me that the most radical of the liberals have the upper hand in the HoB. To label Anis’s forthright and honest assessment of the situation as it has been labeled on the reappraising side by both the radicals and the moderates strongly suggests that the HoB cannot do what Radner asks.
I agree with Radner and Seitz. A reason for hope is not naive optimism but hard-nosed realism. Given a choice between losing 50% of an entity and losing 3%, any prudent manager would cut losses and take the latter option. It’s also fairest to all concerned. Moreover, it’s not even a flat-out “loss.” Dialogue would certainly continue. TEC bishops could have observer status at Lambeth conferences. Of course, we don’t have anything like a “manager,” but Cantuar and the other primates will have to find a way. Such a move would be based on the TEC bishops’ own final statement from New Orleans, which I assume will not be one that clearly embraces the policies requested by the Anglican primates. And a partition could help with the lawsuit problem as well. In some of these cases, courts need to know that a division has indeed occurred. This solution is not quite win-win, but it’s the best stop-gap measure for the foreseeable future, given, as Kendall says (as well as Bp Anis), the problems caused by TEC’s precipitous actions.
‘The HoB cannot do what is asked’ — that is exactly the point at issue. That is why it is crucial for the Communion (Primates) to learn which elements of TEC CAN indeed be in compliance. One offers resolutions to determine the character of the HoB as a totality and in its specific parts. The realism being implied seeks not to pull some rabbit out of the hat (TEC HoB is surely 60% in favour of revision and has set its face) but to give clearer indication which Bishops and elements of TEC are prepared to ‘walk together’ and become what they are ‘constituent members’ (so the Preamble of the C and Cs).
And wouldn’t that, Chris, be what Common Cause would do. Bring together those who clearly indicate through resolution voting their heart–and combine them in a reordered Anglican presence in America with those who have risked much to turn up the heat and help bring this whole situation to a head.
Ten years ago, prior to the 1997 General Convention, Ephraim Radner and George Sumner published “An Appeal for a Moratorium on Altering the Church’s Teaching Regarding Homosexuality and for the Protection of Private Conscience.
I cannot now find the full text, but I summarized their points and discussed the proposal in my [url=http://www.stephenswitness.com/2007/08/marriage-politics-and-future-of.html] Two Sexes, One Flesh: Why the Church Cannot Bless Same-Sex Marriage[/url] (1997).
Although I thought the proposal not the best solution, I did conclude:
[blockquote]If there emerged a consensus around this proposal, Church leaders should be open to hear it as the Spirit speaking to the Church. Let it not be said that we refused a less-than-perfect compromise that held up the fundamental teaching of the Church with regard to marriage and sexuality.[/blockquote]
It seems to me that this idea is less likely to be the Spirit speaking to the Church after ten years of stubborn disobedience, but once again many conservatives would, I think, consider it seriously.
However, the proposal fell flat at the General Convention then, and I see no reason to think it will fly better before today’s House of Bishops.
“…and then everyone went to live in a land filled with flowers and bunnies and never, ever had to work again. The End”
In the spirit of Kendall’s request for “radical solutions,” one post down, here’s what I think:
Practically, I think schism is far and away the most likely outcome. A significant (but minority) piece of TEC will formally break away, perhaps as a unit, perhaps into various pieces of the present “alphabet soup” of non-TEC North American Anglican organizations. The group of Primates represented by ++Akinola will, sooner or later, break off from the remainder of the Anglican Communion. Whether they can persuade Canterbury to come with them could, to my eye, go either way; my guess is “not” but I could be wrong.
So that’s what I think is likely. But, if my overriding goal were to preserve the Communion without schism, here would be my “radical proposal”:
The Primates announce two things: first, TEC is in Coventry for a period — say, until Lambeth ’18. TEC remains a member of the Anglican Communion, but a member under stricture. TEC will have neither seat, nor voice, nor vote, nor Eucharistic fellowship, in any meeting of the Instruments. TEC may, if the particular meeting grants permission, send observers — but if permission is not granted, not even that. The terms of this exile will be reviewed at Lambeth ’18.
And second, the Primates will announce, the Anglican Communion presence in the United States is TEC, period, at least for the period of the Coventry arrangement. The overseas-sponsored organizations such as CANA and AMiA will cease. Reasserters in the U.S. will have to decide whether to struggle to “reform” TEC from within, or to leave and join a non-Anglican church. This will also be reviewed at Lambeth ’18.
The point of this is to emphasize the requirements of Communion. Decisions are to be made by consensus, and if one member of the communion moves without that consensus then there are consequences. But at the same time, you do not get to pick and choose which members of the communion you will be in fellowship with.
I don’t think this is likely, of course, since many of the Primates have already shown they will deal with those pieces of TEC they agree with and reject those pieces they don’t. But I think this is what it would take to avoid schism.
I hope and pray that Dr+ Radner’s scenario comes to fruition. [b]But[/b] I’m very much afraid that Prof+ Seitz’ missing 10% will be the cessation of 815’s campaign of canonical and legal threats against separating parishes and dioceses, despite the fact that 815’s case would be substantially weakened by this intramural partition.
The handwriting is on the wall for 815. If such congregations as [url=http://aacblog.classicalanglican.net/archives/000471.html]Christ Church (Overland Park)[/url], The Falls Church, Truro, and Christ Church (Plano) — paradigmatic of the PB’s own almost stereotypical characterization of Episcopalians as highly educated, prosperous suburbanites — vote overwhelmingly to separate, despite legal uncertainties, financial sacrifices, and shaky Communion credentials, how will the more typical small parish react when given an up-or-down vote between traditional Christian doctrine, Communion affiliation, and the ability to hold their head high among their Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Catholic friends on the one hand, and the secular political gospel of Integrity on the other — with essentially no organizational downside? How loudly will the Bruno/Beers regime praise ECUSA’s precious polity under these circumstances?
And of course the result will be that many entire dioceses reaffiliate on the Network side rather than lose so many parishes. We speak of “moderate” bishops, but that’s really a misnomer; the majority are basically well-intentioned administrators, bureaucrats skilled at God-talk, whose commitment to the Gospel, “inclusion”, or 815 is substantially weaker than their commitment to keeping the diocese running smoothly and peacefully on a fiscally-sound basis. They will be carried along by their parish majorities and ignore the indignant noises coming from Integrity, Via Media, and the Executive Council.
So without unremitting threats and pressure, the Bruno/Beers group will shortly find itself commanding a small rump of coastal dioceses (plus perhaps Chicago, Utah, Nevada, and a couple of others), financed almost entirely by Trinity Wall Street. They know this, which is why I strongly doubt that they will peacefully concede jurisdiction as forseen in the Dar communique (and Dr+ R’s vision).
Again, I hope and pray that my analysis is excessively cynical. But at this point the conclusion seems to me inescapable.
Ross,
How do you tell all those thousands of Anglicans who have been drummed out of TEC and found safe haven in CANA and AMiA that they must cease? How do they cease? What do you mean by ceasing? Do they not pass go and move straight to hell…I dont get it.
Reasserters in the U.S. will have to decide whether to struggle to “reform†TEC from within, or to leave and join a non-Anglican church.
Ross, why should reasserters be forced to make a “non-Anglican” choice while TEC, in Coventry, gets to be the “Anglican presence in America”??? Thanks, but no thanks. And those who chose to stay would remain unarmed in the struggle with TEC? Since it’s the leadership that is most thoroughgoingly revisionist? Would you make this same proposal if the TEC leadership were reasserting?
Sorry, Craig, I am busy with Sunday preparation and can not respond in detail.
1. Resolutions help sharpen the will of the TEC Bishops wishing to walk apart;
2. It allows the Communion better to determine who is prepared to be compliant, as they did at DES with ‘CA Principles’
3. If the covenant process eventuates in a TEC bishop collective which opts to be associate, out of necessity, not desire;
4. it destabilises the arena within which even legal decisions will be forthcoming
5. moreover, if 30 bishops begin to function reasonably effectively vis-a-vis the Communion, the ground begins to shift inside the TEC HOB;
6. we have yet really to understand the full implications of 20 dioceses with full Communion status simply functioning well (best revenge is living well) and getting on with it, without need of ‘taxation or representation’ from 815;
7. as for individual parishes in other dioceses, that is precisely what DES was meant to address, and God willing will address.
Do I think Beers will say, ‘have a happy day’? No. Do I think he can constrain individual dioceses? Not overmuch. Do I think this will have an enormous PR ripple effect? Yes indeed.
Now, back to my friend Amos 8 and the Unjust Steward…yrs warmly in Christ. CRS
PS–I am tempted to add: If you want a federal communion and believe it is an improvement on +RDW/Canterbury and Instruments, please put an asterisk beside your name! That helps one understand whether one views +RDW and Instruments as defeated ahead of time, because another system is preferred; or one views these matters as urgent but as yet unclearly prosecuted, given the Providence of God and a need to watch what he does inside the Communion to preserve it, etc. I mean that with utmost seriousness. Grace and peace.
I would have to say that change from within–that thirty bishops will make a difference is a plan already proven to be a failure…the number of reasserter bishops continues to shrink, new reasserter bishops can’t get confirmed, and the pressures of 815 have literally silenced everyone but Jeffery Steenson.
And then if there is a leadership failure of nerve so that these misbehaviors and rebellions can’t be addressed, and terrorism within the church goes unchallenged–is it really something in the end, as compromised and neutered as it is, of which one would want to be a part?
Or do we, in the tradition of our fore bearers, need to risk the stake and fire–continuing to fight boldly, and not compromising with the devil–who himself continues with the help of dysfunctional pathogens within the HOB to attack and undermine God’s will and disrupt God’s transformation of creation.
Could not the days of which Amos speaks already be here in TEC:
“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the Lord GOD, “when I will send a famine on the land— not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORDâ€.
“They shall wander from sea to sea, and from north to east; they shall run to and fro, to seek the word of the LORD, but they shall not find it.â€
I agree with Fr. Richardson’s analysis in #3 and #11. (He
always has been a smart and faithful priest!) There is not likely going to be any kind of meaningful resolution according to our preent categories, so the church must find another way, other than schism or an unacceptable accomodation. Otherwise, we are all poised for a very unpleasant descent into chaos. Perhaps we have already begun the descent.
The answer may lie in faithful parishes and faithful people
simply taking focused and specific care of the local parish until such time as this firestorm burns itself out. Lacking any kind of
meaninful broad authority in the Communion, that may be the
best that we can do. After the storm passes, and all the
implosions have occured, then perhaps we can rebuilt over
the long term. But then I think of the final sentence of
Voltaire’s Candide. “Il faut cultiver notre jardin.”
Meanwhile, I move that we adjourn!
Exorcizing TEC: There is little or nothing to do. Schism is not only inevitable but necessary. The one thing the AC does not want to do is act in such a manner that TEC becomes martyred. They would like nothing better than this. The worst that should be done by the AC is refuse invitations to TEC to the endless conferences that seem to characterize the AC. Once univited, there is no more to do.
Leave them alone. There will be no chaos because the cause for chaos will arY outside the doors where it now already is. We have more important things to do. Cana and its compatriots will not withdraw from anything since they have no cause. We can get along with them. The parishes and bishops now in these African churches can stay or not, as they choose. There are Anglican organizations in America, like the ACA, they can join if they desire.
The fact is that TEC is withering and dying. This is their choice. Let it be.
Robert–also from Candid–“what a day, what a day for act of faith”–a little beheading here and there in that context–and that is what would happen if people decide to sit in their bunkers afraid of schism or accomodation and awaiting their pension dispersements…TEC HOB will then pick folks off orthodox leaders one by one until there is no orthodox witness left to rise from the ashes–and all would be well for them…not a good plan…you have not such learned Christ.
#22 Don Armstrong and #23 Sherri:
Well, I said that would be my proposal “if my overriding goal were to preserve the Communion without schism.” That includes both schism within the Communion and schism within TEC.
If your overriding goal is something else — say, preserving traditional teachings of the church as immutable — then of course you’re going to make different decisions. And it’s abundantly clear that ++Akinola and the Common Cause people are in this latter camp.
#29 Don
We are certainly not sitting in a bunker. I am recommending a
doctrine of graceful disengagement from the chaos and the
vemim which seems to characterize all sides of this fight.
Ross, my question was an indication of my doubt that your proposal *would* preserve the communion. Something a bit more even-handed will be required, I think.
So, Radner+ and Seitz+ are 90% sure that my Archbishop and Don Armstrongs+ will just hand us and our congregations over to a TEC Bishop of acceptable orthodox credentials? Whatever.
Chris,
a) After some preparatory comments, I think we will do during the sermon time what Paul tells Timothy, armed further with note cards and silent time for God to reveal His specific desire for our intercessions.
b) Over the last couple of days I have actually been thinking of doing what you were longing to see, but the focus and time…..I don’t know.
c) Tell me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Don’s reference to “Common Cause” incorrect here because you are suggesting as IN-house scenario.
RGEaton