Received by e-mail, posted with the kind permission of Bishop John Howe of Central Florida.
To My Fellow Bishops:
We are deeply, tragically, horribly “stuck,” not only in The Episcopal Church, but in the Anglican Communion as a whole. In the past three days we have heard again what we already knew, that we have damaged our relationships with many parts of the Communion by failing to give sufficient attention to “common discernment,” and by moving ahead with decisions in the area of human sexuality before the rest of the Anglican family is able to accept those decisions. It is clear that the great majority of our Bishops cannot retreat from what they believe to be not only a matter of justice, but a “Gospel imperative.” But, in the light of that, we are squandering members, finances, and energy in our deadlock.
What we need is a comprehensive solution that will end the international interventions, end the defections, end the property disputes, end the litigation, and end the ravaging of our witness and mission to the outside world simultaneously. I believe there is such a solution, but it will require great sacrifice on all sides.
I propose that we:
1) Put the Resolution of the “Windsor Bishops” to a vote. It calls for full compliance with the requests of the Primates in their Communique from Tanzania last February.
2) Those who cannot, for conscience’ sake, abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion (Lambeth I:10) will then voluntarily withdraw (at least temporarily) from the official councils of the Communion (as per Professor Katherine Grieb’s much appreciated proposal to us in March at Camp Allen).
3) Those committed to the Communion’s teaching and discipline will continue their participation in the councils of the Communion.
4) Perhaps we will then adopt the Archbishop of Canterbury’s terminology of “constituent” and “associate” membership for our dioceses. “Constituent” = fully Windsor-compliant. “Associate” = committed to remaining Anglican, but unable to accept the Windsor proposals.
5) Those congregations and clergy which are in “associate” dioceses, who wish to continue in “constituent” membership will be transferred to the oversight and care of “constituent” dioceses and Bishops – and vice-versa.
6) We will then request the Primates who have established extra-geographical oversight in this country to give that up, and fold any congregations under their care back into “constituent” dioceses.
7) We will endeavor to fold any American clergy who have been consecrated by international jurisdictions into Suffragan and Assistant Episcopal positions in “constituent” dioceses.
8) Without relinquishing their membership in The Episcopal Church, the “constituent” dioceses will elect their own Coordinator, and function as a parallel provincial entity for a period of 5 years (or perhaps 6 = two General Conventions, or 10 = the next Lambeth Conference).
9) After 5, 6, or 10 years we determine whether or not a “new consensus” has emerged within the Anglican Communion, and in the light of that determination –
10) We either recombine as a single jurisdiction, or we fully separate.
Warmest regards in our Lord,
The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida
Bishop Howe’s plan could work, if we let it.
This is another example of the kind of radical idea that we need at this late stage. Good for Bishop Howe.
Why on earth would the majority of bishops give up their power over the church as a whole to remain in a communion with foreign bishops they neither understand nor respect? They have the last of the orthodox on the run, and in 5, 6, or 10 years, they will have died or departed.
I wish it were otherwise, because Bp. Howe’s proposal makes sense.
“Why on earth would the majority of bishops give up their power over the church as a whole to remain in a communion with foreign bishops they neither understand nor respect?” —Murbles
Because they were not infatuated with power.
Hard to say what to think of this because I am not sure the ABC himself is committed to “the communion’s councils and teachings.” Can any one on the ground in New Orleans fill us in on Rowan++’s latest leanings? TEC bishops remind me of teenagers sometimes in their blind committment to the spell of their own mantras, making them oblivious to others. I don’t give Howe’s proposal a chance of passing but it will be a bellwether. It also seems to hint at possi ble diocesan D-I-V-O-R-C-E if the status quo is maintained.
My only qualm with this is minor-that I am not sure we need to introduce the “constituent” and “associate” terminology at this point. Withdrawing from the councils of the AC-note that includes the PB from the Primates’ Standing Cmte, will be enough.
Bishop Howe’s proposal is excellent, and I hope it passes. A number of aspects should make it highly attractive to all sides. One attractive feature is, of course, its voluntary aspect. Another is that, for the next few years, TEC remains intact, though with the obvious distinctions made manifest. As for what the abp of Canterbury thinks, I’d guess that this is the kind of compromise that he’d not only approve of but also smile at and breathe a sigh of relief over.
Thanks +John, and for your good work at CA meetings. This is very much what we have worked for, for many years now, and we can pray this at least focuses the issue. It has been hard slogging at last to get to this point of definition. Grace and peace.
The political problems with its passage are obvious and may end up–if TEC bishops refuse both TWR and voluntary withdrawal–putting the AC in the position of forcing sanctions on TEC or of doing nothing after all in response to TEC. So I hope the bishops see that the entailments of both these possibilities would be worse than TEC’s taking the bit in its teeth and settling this problem the right way on its own.
Great idea, and one that incorporates elements of other proposals for peaceful cooling-off and sober evaluation of whether to separate or reconcile. But the reappraisers’ rhetoric militates against accepting “associate” status, as this at least insinuates refusal of “full inclusion of all the baptized”, even if they are only unrepentant sinners who have rinsed off a little dust.
Given the following exchange:
[blockquote] NYT: Archbishop. The address that +Anis gave the HOB today states in clear terms what some primates expect. I wanted to ask how reflective that message is of what came out of DES. Do you sense any room for compromise on the Communion side?
ABC: The primates said the DES is the place to start. Some would give a more robust interpretation some less. That is the nature of a communiqué with common language. It has been represented sadly as a set of demands and deadlines. It was not that way. We are inevitably in a position of compromise. It would be a mistake to see DES as questions that must be answered without room for maneuver.
Mary Ailes: one thing we have heard often is that we are free to go but we have to leave the buildings behind. Some hear that as: We have no need of you but we need your buildings What would you say to those who want to be Anglican but cannot in good conscience remain Episcopalian?
ABC: Start by looking for arrangements and situations within what is there because grace is given through even hopeless places. Isn’t God’s grace still given sacramentally in the Episcopal Church? I would be slow to look for solutions elsewhere.[/blockquote]
The ABC is saying that he will not discipline TEC and wants all reasserters to work out their problems within TEC. This is a clear win for TEC with the ABC. Why on earth should they do anything differently from what they are diong now?
#3 & 11 have the calculus right: ++Rowan has made clear that it’s all carrot, no stick as far as TEC is concerned. +Howe’s solution only works if the revisionist grandees in TEC were confronted with consequences more dire than those he is asking them to impose on themselves. Since there are no such consequences spelled out, they’d be fools to send themselves to a “time out” at the very moment their victory is imminent.
I guess one of the main problems I have with this otherwise sober proposal is that it too strongly tends toward validating faulty assumptions, i.e. that the Intstruments of Communion have some kind of disciplinary authority (e.g. Lambeth 1.10 cannot legitimately be considered “Communion teaching” when Lambeth, by its own self-description, does not fill that function.) It would set a precedent that, in the long-run, would be counterproductive, even for those who propose it. By the same token #11, the AbC says “he will not discipline TEC” because he knows that he has no legitimate authority to do so. I’m truly concerned that so many are so willing to cede authority to those who do not legitimately have it, but will stop at nothing to exercise it. This particular proposal may budge the current log-jam, but that could create a flood, the consequences of which could be devastating for all concerned.
But, Makersmarc, can we not discipline ourselves? Take a time out from the communion, where our turmoil is doing harm, take a time out from each other without severing ties to either each other or the communion, and simply go forward, seeing what time itself will bring us to?
While I agree with Canon Harmon that this is just the sort of radical proposal that is needed at this juncture, since something radical is going to happen regardless, “Makersmarc” in #13 above makes a legitimate point about ceding authority to those to whom it does not legitimately belong. The problem from the standpoint of TEC as part of a world-wide Church is that in the eyes of the vast majority of the leadership of that world-wide Church, TEC’s leadership have acted in such a way as to undercut the legitimacy of their own authority. They have in fact made themselves a little, localized Protestant sect cut off from the vast majority of their Anglican brethren whether they like it or not (and evidently they don’t like it, but aren’t willing to do what they must to amend what they have willingly broken). One of the more interesting ironies in the current fire is that the soi disant progressives of TEC are the ones most unwilling to accept that the winds of change are blowing – only what is being moved about is the Anglican Communion’s structure rather than her theology – and make appropriate preparation for the changes that are coming and over which they have at best extremely legitimate control. This proposal carves out a place for the progressive dinosaurs while letting the rest of us get on with the direction God is moving His Anglican Church. Good for Bishop Howe.
Dang. I meant “limited” control vice legitimate control on the penultimate line in #16 above. Sorry. – DWM
Bishops Howe’s proposal is about five years too late and credulous for the following reasons: First, any resolution coming from the House of Bishops will be filled with loop holes, double talk and will be meaningless. Second, at this point in time there is no way in this side of Hell that the Cana and AMiA churches will place all their hard work and property in the hands the hands of PB Shori who clearly stated that she supports Gay marriages and Bishops. [b]Bishop Howe; get real, it’s over. This do not look like lawyers behaving like Christians to me! [/b]
I’m afraid Jeffersonian #12 is probably right. I do not believe the HoB has the integrity to accept this. The only way they would accept this is if the ABC made it clear that there would be consequences that TEC would like to avoid. It seems to me that the ABC clearly has sided with the revisionists–no discipline expected, no safe haven for the orthodox. The HoB has all it needs to go full steam ahead and to heck with the orthodox.
We do seem to have some difficulty disciplining ourselves, Sherri, from Spong to Duncan. If what happened when we, in good faith, took a time out from the ACC is any indication, no, we most definitely should *not* absent ourselves from Communion matters because we would have no voice in what would affect us (all). We would not want to do that any more than any other Province would.
—
Thing is, Daniel (#15), you’re kind of helping make my point RE faulty assumptions, i.e. your reference to the Communion as a “world-wide church.” It isn’t; it’s a Communion of independent Provinces with certain historical commonalities, in communion with one another because we want to be, not because there is some formal covenant or confessional document or disciplinary procedures that bind us. I, and many thousands of others, would not like to see us jettison what has been such a valuable Anglican witness within Christendom over the centuries and morph the Communion into something it has never been nor intended to be.
“Why on earth would the majority of bishops give up their power over the church as a whole to remain in a communion with foreign bishops they neither understand nor respect? They have the last of the orthodox on the run, and in 5, 6, or 10 years, they will have died or departed.” (#3)
That is probably an accurate assessment of the view from the HoB and TEC’s other authorities.
But I would go further and suggest that, from their view, at least at this moment, the above conclusion — i.e., that “They have the last of the orthodox on the run, and in 5, 6, or 10 years, they will have died or departed” — applies as well within the AC.
From the news reports, it appears that the ABC may have finally declared in NOLA for the reappraisers, and if one adds up the AC’s reappraising, moderate, and reasserting-but-not-willing-to-leave-the-Communion provinces, only the provinces of Nigeria, Uganda, Southern Cone, Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda (any more? Middle East? West Indies?) appear solidly prepared to depart the AC, to set forth on “a road to Christ that does not lead through Canterbury.”
The Province of Central Africa seems already in disarray and split, with some bishops (including the unsavory +Kunonga of Harare; not company who should be welcomed by reasserters) likely to lead their flocks away from Canterbury and the reappraisers, while +Mwamba of Botswana and others hew the Canterbury-friendly line being followed by ++Ndungane and Southern Africa. Stephen Bates is even asserting that a majority of the Nigerian bishops do wish to go to Lambeth, even without Abp. Akinola’s preconditions having been satisfied.
In other words, why in the world would the USA’s reappraising bishops wish to absent their voice and vote from the various councils of the AC, when their current trajectory appears to lead not just to control of the TEC, but to swinging the entire institutional apparatus of the AC their way, and only more so over coming years, as reasserters realign outside the “Canterbury Communion”???
Mind you, I’m not addressing what biblical or other motivation they might appropriately find to lead them to absent themselves — just the raw “political” calculus of it all.
The (inevitable?) split seems now at hand. Father, forgive us *all*, that we could not prevent it. Pray for the Church.
#18 It’s a two-way street, not incumbent only on one side. As #17 pointed out, neither will the CANA and AMiA churches have the integrity to accept it, including relinquishing property that some of them do not legitimately currently occupy.
The specter of a never-ending series of meeting without any discipline ever being exercised brings up a lot of questions. I appreciate Bishop Howe’s proposal and I pray that it is accepted by the House of Bishops. If it is not, I will truly believe their hearts have been hardened like Pharaoh’s.
I’ve been musing about the necessity of discipline–perhaps not in the most disciplined manner–but I’ve been struggling with the question of how those of us in TEC–and even in the Anglican Communion can truly claim to be part of the Church without the ability to exercise discipline of any sort in our common life. Here’s a bit of what I wrote (it’s quite long, but I would like to engage in some discussion about it on [url=http://adamantius.net/?p=674]my own site[/url]), and the primary question I have about how this affects the Anglican Communion:
[blockquote]Where there is no discipline, there is no Church.
That may be a shocking statement to some, but it is a true one nonetheless.[/blockquote]
And this:
[blockquote]In an ironic twist, by departing the Episcopal Church for greener pastures in which they seek to remain part of the larger Communion, folks may simply be bearing witness to the fact that the Anglican Communion itself is unable to function fully as the Church.[/blockquote]
So here’s the question: if the HOB refuses to accept this proposal, and the Communion is unable or unwilling to exert any sort of discipline (over the lawsuits if nothing else!), then is it tantamount to pulling the kill switch on any claim to truly be a full member of the Church? One can say that we’ve already done this through false teaching, but I wonder if this is a theological bomb that necessarily leads to institutional dissolution whether one wants it to or not…
Nadine, we certainly can’t prevent a split if we don’t sincerely *try* – which would call for some humility and some standing down from self-righteousness of *all* concerned.
#17,
If this proposal is agreed to, and the primates providing alternative oversight agree to it, then one would think CANA and AMiA would have to be willing to participate if they truly want to be part of the Anglican Communion. To not participate at that point would mean that they are making a judgment not only about the state of the faith in TEC, but in the whole Anglican Communion and are finding it wanting–they would in effect be determining that the AC isn’t faithful enough as a body, and determine that they should remain part of “extra-mural” anglicanism.
That, or course, is assuming that this proposal sees the light of day. I think we should be redoubling our prayers that it does, and that it passes.
“Makersmarc” #19 – Precisely what is changing is that we are going from being a communion of independent provinces to a world-wide Church. That’s what’s happening with the Covenant. A large chumk of TEC’s leadership may need some time to decide is that is a change they can live with and this proposal is a reasonable way to give them time to make the decision. It is the intransigence of those opposed to inevitable change (ecclesiastical vice theological, in this case) that is causing a good deal of the pain you rightly express concern about.
[blockquote] So here’s the question: if the HOB refuses to accept this proposal, and the Communion is unable or unwilling to exert any sort of discipline (over the lawsuits if nothing else!), then is it tantamount to pulling the kill switch on any claim to truly be a full member of the Church? One can say that we’ve already done this through false teaching, but I wonder if this is a theological bomb that necessarily leads to institutional dissolution whether one wants it to or not… [/blockquote]
It either leads to a de jure Communion crack-up with provinces, diocese, parishes and individuals fleeing or a de facto theological collapse with virtually any belief (as TEC already has clergy and bishops who deny every salient doctrine of Christianity) being held under the banner of Anglicanism. Lambeth will turn into either an empty junket for folks in pointy hats or an acrimonious finger-pointing session where mutually hostile and irreconcilable ideas clash.
Well, at least we’ll still get the tax write-off.
This is an excellent proposal from Bishop Howe
I’m not particularly concerned about change, Daniel, because you are correct, it is inevitable. My concern is what *kind* of change. I don’t see these proposed changes (from Howe and others) as constructive *in the long run*, as I mentioned. It would fundamentally change what Anglicanism is, meaning all it has been, all what has made it such a valuable and unique witness within Christendom, will be relegated to historical commentary. What a loss that would be! Too great a loss, imo. These proposals represent the desire to devolve into some of the very things that we rejected at the Reformation. Denying, rejecting or eliminating who we are is not the *kind* of change that many thousands of us want to see.
It would fundamentally change what Anglicanism is, meaning all it has been, all what has made it such a valuable and unique witness within Christendom,
If Anglicanism falls apart into splinters and factions, as it is on the brink of doing, will that be the better solution?
“Nadine, we certainly can’t prevent a split if we don’t sincerely *try* – which would call for some humility and some standing down from self-righteousness of *all* concerned.” (#23)
Sherri, I agree, but in looking at +Howe’s proposal, I’m viewing it through the prism of a former existence of mine as a business lawyer. In trying to reach a workable settlement between two parties, each has to give, and each has to get. Not rocket science.
The problem I see with proposals such as +Howe’s, or the distinct radical proposal offered by Canon Harmon, is that each of them are (a) offered by a reasserter and (b) require, on net, all (as with +Howe’s plan) or most (as with Kendall+’s) of the “give” to come from the reappraisers.
Realistically, such a radical proposal might be adopted if put forward by the side that gives up the most. Failing that, the number of reappraising bloggers (Jake+, Mark+) and their commentators who welcomed Kendall+’s proposal might suffice instead. But in my experience, it’s rare.
More crucially, what do reasserters “give up” for the sake of compromise in either proposal? Reasserters are being asked to absent themselves or turn over control just as it seems they may be on the verge of decisive “victory” not just within TEC but even within the AC (at least, the institutional organs thereof). I don’t see *any* quid-pro-quo being offered to reappraisers under +Howe’s proposal, and under Kendall+’s, sure, the Network and Windsor Bishops would be agreeing to absent themselves from Lambeth, but even if their total numbers are now around 12-20, that’s far outweighed by the reappraising and moderate bishops in TEC who are being asked to absent themselves, plus giving up using The Official Voice of TEC, which they now control, in AC councils.
Or do I misunderstand these proposals? Purely in terms of bargaining between two sides, what does Party B (reappraisers) get from Party A (reasserters) in return for giving up what they do, and doing so just as they appear on the verge of consolidating their power in TEC and also in the AC, even getting what they might love, i.e., a Lambeth boycotted by Nigeria, Uganda, etc., and the derailing of the Covenant process? It’s not as though the ABC’s going to kick them out, or disinvite them from Lambeth, or call another emergency meeting of the Primates, etc.; that much seems clear from his words and actions in NOLA.
Nadine,
I appreciate your comments, and believe you are correct. However, I suppose the only hope for the proposal comes from the possibility that Bishops might understand that the survival of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a viable entity worthy of any sort of ecumenical respect rests upon a proposal like this. In that sense then, might they not see their benefit as being the survival of TEC and the Communion? Of course, that presupposes that anyone who was so convinced would even be a reappraiser…
Makersmarc, The ABC has the power not to invite and he has the power to decide who is or is not in communion with him. That is a form of discipline. He exercised it in the case of AMiA and CANA and chooses not to exercise it in the case of TEC. So be it. Just as I am content to walk away from TEC, I am now content to walk away from the AC.
Sherrie: That would not be preferrable, but then I think we’re dealing with faulty assumptions again, i.e. that the Communion is on the brink of “falling apart.” The reality is that it is only a handful bishops of other Provinces (meaning not necessarily even the majority of the Province itself, and certianly not the majority of all Provinces) who are threatening to spinter into some new faction if they don’t get their way after HoB or Lambeth or whenever. I would rather them go and be happy with the new entity-of-the-pure that they will form than continue to do as Bsp Howe acknowledged and expend time, energy, and resources on spintering instead of mission and eliminating the classical Anglican tradition that the rest of us want to continue.
I do wish you Godspeed, if that ultimately is your decision, Bro. Michael.
I simply do not believe the realities before the Anglican Communion can hang in the suspension of thin air and achieve the desired effect in another 5,6 or 10 years. I do not see this proposal as a real option. The left-leaning side of TEC is moving forward with their “prophetic” actions and each time it does, it drives a deeper and deeper wedge within the Communion – constituent / associate or not. Without TEC’s acknowledgement of the gravity and force of its demure from catholic faith and order, it cannot change its stripes. It is helpless to change what has not been acknowledged and an enabling solution to the furthering of sin and broken fellowship is not the proper cure to sin and broken fellowship.
Jody+, the problem I see with +Howe’s proposal — and this is in essence what I understand Nadine to be saying — is that it requires TEC to voluntarily divide itself into “good dioceses” and “bad dioceses,” and the bad dioceses gain nothing but the promise of being relegated to second-class-citizen status now and expelled a few years down the road.
This proposal does not offer “the survival of the Episcopal Church,” unless by that you mean “the survival of that portion of the Episcopal Church made up of reasserters.” It is, in fact, everything the reasserters want, tied up in a red bow: they get to form their own province which will soon be the recognized Anglican presence in the U.S., while the reappraisers get kicked to the curb.
Ross, that is my reading of this proposal as well.
I am thankful that at least one of the “Network” Bishops is still in there and did not leave the scene.
Off topic but something I find very offensive and I take umbrage to it.
Makersmarc (or Marc as you are known on Jake’s blog) wrote:
[blockquote][b]FWIW, this is what I posted at tightassonenine:[/b] I guess one of the main problems I have with this proposal is that it too strongly tends toward validating faulty assumptions, i.e. that the Intstruments of Communion have some kind of disciplinary authority (e.g. Lambeth 1.10 cannot legitimately be considered “Communion teaching†when Lambeth, by its own self-description, does not fill that function.) It would set a precedent that, in the long-run, would be counterproductive, even for those who propose it. I’m truly concerned that so many are so willing to cede authority to those who do not legitimately have it, but will stop at nothing to exercise it. This particular proposal may budge the current log-jam, but that could create a flood, the consequences of which could be devastating for all concerned.
Marc | 09.23.07 – 5:10 pm | [/blockquote]
In light of this comment, Marc, which ties you to #13 above, why would you bother wasting your time with the “tightasses” here (and why isn’t Howe’s proposal sober at Jake’s place?)? Your comments elsewhere are very disrespectful of Kendall, who is one of the most gracious people I’ve read in the blogosphere, and it makes your comments above ring quite hollow and hypocritical. Play nice with the “tightasses” here and then diss them on Jake’s blog. I really don’t understand this mindset and think it’s shameful.
[i] We agree that name-calling like this is inappropriate on a Christian blog. Marc, you’re better than this. [/i] -Elf Lady
That would not be preferrable, but then I think we’re dealing with faulty assumptions again, i.e. that the Communion is on the brink of “falling apart.â€
Make no mistake, Marc, that the American branch of the Communion is unravelling at the seams. Comfort yourself with the notion that it’s only a small number of parishes, if you like, but check the annual numbers for TEC … if the 2006 numbers ever appear. And look at the video footage from the recent CANA consecrations and see how many primates were there. I wouldn’t be so hasty about labeling other people “pure,” either, when TEC seems to have a take no prisoners attitude of its own. I appreciate Bishop Howe, Kendall and others who have suggested ways to get us unstuck, but as I read these two threads it’s hard not to feel despair.
[blockquote] Marc, you’re better than this. -Elf Lady [/blockquote]
True, but you can’t accuse him of not knowing his audience.
Long and short of +Howe’s proposal: Nice idea, but anyone who thinks that revisionists are going to absent themselves from the very institutions they have spent decades capturing – and on the verge of assuming complete control of – is not particularly ‘reality-based.’
There is a core vision in this Church that is so very right. It is not to be found elsewhere. It is worth fighting for in the spirit of the Apsotle Paul’s words:
[b]”For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” (Gal. 5:1.)
For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love be servants of one another. For the whole law is fullfilled in one word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ But if you bite and devour one another take heed that you are not consumed by one another.” (Gal. 5: 13-15.)
“Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” (2 Cor: 17.)
“For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we preach among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No; but in him it is always Yes. For all the promise of God find there Yes in him.” ( 2 Cor. 19-20.)[/b]
I do not mean this in any polemic at all — but dear Rome is clear enough on the flesh, but the freedom is remote and I cling to my Anglican home. At our core, yes, the “pretext for the flesh” must finally be addressed in this Chruch. But if we do not fight for this “core” of “freedom” and “Yes” the Catholic Church will suffer a great lost — our lived faith of holding fast to the Yes and freedom of God in Christ.
OK, I stand so accused and will refrain from such unnecessary catiness from here on, even on Jake’s blog.
There seems to be an implication in #39, though, that I’m using different names there and here in order to…what…hide my identity or something, I don’t know. The only reason I haven’t continued to use Marc here, as I have in the past, is that when Kendall changed servers, by the time I registered, the name Marc had already been taken and I had to choose something else (part of my email address), something I haven’t had to do on other blogs. Nothing more complicated than that.
Even though so often you guys really do seem far more uptight than you really need to be, I do apologize for the insults. I admit, it really isn’t necessary, and as I mentioned above, will refrain from here on.
What would happen in a diocese such as the Diocese of Florida where the diocese (and diocesan) consider themselves “Windsor Compliant” and would thus be constituent members of the communion — yet have numerous Anglican congregations under African Bishops. I can’t imagine that those congregations and rectors would be willing to fold back under +Howard. I think it sounds like a sound plan but have concerns about reconciliation in dioceses such as Florida.
Marc, appreciate your apology in #44
–elfgirl
“This proposal does not offer “the survival of the Episcopal Church,†unless by that you mean “the survival of that portion of the Episcopal Church made up of reasserters.†It is, in fact, everything the reasserters want, tied up in a red bow: they get to form their own province which will soon be the recognized Anglican presence in the U.S., while the reappraisers get kicked to the curb.” (Ross in #36)
“Long and short of +Howe’s proposal: Nice idea, but anyone who thinks that revisionists are going to absent themselves from the very institutions they have spent decades capturing – and on the verge of assuming complete control of – is not particularly ‘reality-based.’ ” (Jeffersonian in #42)
Yes, these articulate precisely the point I was trying to make, and it largely applies to Kendall+’s radical proposal as well.
If the reappraisers were actually being offered some quid for the very large quo that these proposals ask of them, there might be some truly radical solution possible. Yet these particular “radical” proposals boil down to, in effect:
“You reappraisers, hold back from finalizing the ‘victory’ within both TEC and the AC that you are on the verge of, and give us reasserters the minimum of what we have sought all along, including your withdrawal from all the councils of the Communion, and instead of *us* having to walk apart from the official Communion following the core GS Primates, we will then be sure to be kind enough to use your absence to force *you* to walk apart in 5-10 years’ time.”
Removing oneself from one’s actual “factional loyalty,” who would take such a bargain if one were a reappraiser? Or even consider it *generous*?
But if we are to send up trial balloons for truly radical proposals, OK, I’ll try in a post below to take my own stab at laying out something that might leave each side enough to feel both that it is giving up a bit — even painfully — yet still getting enough in return to justify it.
In a sense, #47, +Howe is asking TEC to do to itself what ++Rowan lacks the courage and character to do himself.
With respect, #48, I don’t think Abp Williams is lacking in courage or character. Rather, he conscientiously adheres to the view of Anglican authority that Marc has set out in his comments above; this does seem to me to have some claim to be the traditional Anglican position and for a long time it enabled a tiny national established church to muddle along without major strife. The question is, if Anglicanism is to establish a claim to be a “worldwide church” (and Abp Rowan was recently described in one press report as the “leader” of a “worldwide church”), can it dispense with some form of magisterium? Clearly, there are many within the Anglican tradition who are taking the view that Anglicanism needs to change, embracing something like either the leadership model of the Catholic church or the somewhat more diffuse conciliar approach of the Orthodox, or perhaps something yet to be revealed.
“We will then request the Primates who have established extra-geographical oversight in this country to give that up, and fold any congregations under their care back into “constituent” dioceses.”
Yeah, right. Thats gonna happen.
“But if we are to send up trial balloons for radical proposals, OK, I’ll try in a post below to take my own stab at laying out something that might leave each side enough to feel both that it is giving up a bit yet getting enough in return to justify it.” (me in #47)
OK, deep breath, and here goes:
The HoB could issue a statement telling the following objective truths about the state of both TEC and the Communion:
a. We are broken; we have all sinned and all share in how we got to this point; we acknowledge that we are *not* all of one mind on either scriptural interpretation/authority or the specific presenting issues of human sexuality; we acknowledge the diversity of views on the foregoing that are held among and within the various provinces; we acknowledge that the traditional teaching within (not “of”) the Communion is as expressed in Lambeth 1:10, which is also currently the majority teaching in most provinces of the Communion, but not all; we expressly acknowledge that those who support SSU blessings and non-celibate same-sex-partnered clergy (of *any* order) *are* innovating, but also that they do so motivated out of bona fide theological conviction rooted within the Anglican Christian tradition.
The statement could then build upon that foundation to state:
b. We wish to stay in communion with each other; we love each other and need each other. Each of us is profoundly sorrowful over and repents of whatever s/he has done uncharitably toward others in these disputes. We humbly ask God’s forgiveness. We are family to each other, and we seek a way to live together until the day we reach a common mind on scripture and on sexuality. This will mean an extended but finite period of ongoing “impaired communion,” along with continuing — and genuine — fellowship.
c. We trust in the Gamaliel Principle. We intend therefore to create an ecclesiastical structure built both upon that principle and upon a key lesson of our American political heritage, the principle of federalism. Federalism enables states to “experiment” with innovations, or not, and the results of such experiments inform the decisions of other states as to whether or not to follow the innovation. We seek a federalism-based way to facilitate the operation among us of the Gamaliel Principle.
d. We note with appreciation the innovative, culture-appropriate example of our Anglican sisters and brothers in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, who have introduced into their provincial structure three “tikanga” or cultural streams. Although we are well aware that the differences in our own province which lead us to experiment with federalism are not ethnically based, as are the tikanga, they provide an admirable model as to how to depart from the Nicaean standard for dioceses when the Gospel may best be advanced in a different manner, and it not necessarily true that our own theological differences are *entirely* free of influence from cultural streams within the United States’ larger culture.
e. We therefore propose that a special General Convention be called to set up several “streams” within TEC, and we pledge to work consciously and conscientiously toward the day when these streams shall again fully converge.
f. One stream (the “Right Stream”) would be for those who adhere to traditional beliefs about scripture and traditional norms of sexual ethics. (This stream may within itself organize in such a way as to permit those not able to accept women’s ordination to maintain their faith and practice within TEC. The hope would be to fold back into this Stream the bishops and congregations now affiliated with foreign jurisdictions.) Another stream (the “Left Stream”) would be for those who wish to explore innovations (which we acknowledge is not per se a “dirty word”) in scriptural interpretation, theology, sexual ethics, liturgy, etc. A third stream (the “Middle Stream”) would be for those who wish not to pioneer any innovation (but who are open to ultimately receiving innovations). In immediate, practical terms, the Right Stream would ordain no women or non-celibate gays/lesbians and bless no SSUs; the Left Stream wold be free so to ordain (even to the episcopate) and bless; and the Middle Stream would refrain for at least a set period of years (5? 10?) but proactively engage in theological study and empirical observation of the Left Stream’s experience in these regards.
g. Each Stream would have its own Primatial Vicar, selected from among the bishops of that stream by majority vote of those bishops, subject however to confirmation by General Convention. No one outside TEC would have any role in selecting or supervising any PV (or in selecting or supervising the PB); GC would remain the highest authority of TEC, albeit with stronger “minority protections” for each Stream. The Canons and Constitution would be amended to relieve the Presiding Bishop and Primate of the duty to visit each diocese of TEC; s/he would instead be *encouraged* to do so, subject to invitation from each bishop ordinary. The Primatial Vicars, however, *would* be obligated to visit each diocese in their respective Stream. The Canons and Constitution would also be amended to allow any diocese in the Right Stream to refuse to implement women’s ordination, and to allow dioceses in the Left Stream a wider range of experimental innovation than now allowed (while still requiring of them no departure from the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral). The PVs would be considered to have the rank of an archbishop, as would each of the heads of TEC’s geographical provinces, which would be continued for purposes of regional consultation.
h. The Presiding Bishop and Primate would be elected, as now, by General Convention. S/he would serve as chief consecrator of bishops unless a bishop-to-be specifically requests, for reasons that need not be stated, that his/her Stream’s PV serve as such. However, either the PB or the PV must serve as such. *All* Streams will recognize the PB, regardless of the PB’s own chosen Stream, as the chair of meetings of the HoB, and as the ecumenical and inter-Anglican representative of TEC. By the same token, the PB would be enjoined to represent fairly the actual full diversity of views within TEC. (The PB would become even more than ever primarily a “head of state” rather than “head of government.”)
i. Each diocese shall select a stream, by majority vote at diocesan convention. This affiliation can be changed by simple majority vote at two successive diocesan conventions. Congregations which, by a 2/3 majority vote of their membership, wish to align with a different Stream than that of their diocese, may do so. Geographical boundaries of dioceses shall be respected within each Stream, but may overlap (as do RC and Eastern Catholic / “Uniate” jurisdictions) dioceses adhering to other Streams. If a diocese elects to change Streams, the boundaries shall be shifted accordingly and by negotiation with the neighboring dioceses of the Stream being joined.
j. At cross-Stream gatherings, including GC, non-Eucharistic services may be presided over by members of any Stream. The expectation will be that, at a minimum, all Episcopalians maintain sufficient fellowship with each other that they can gather in such worship together, even while holding theological and other differences. However, at cross-Stream Eucharists, including at GC, only a member acceptable to all Streams would preside (meaning, usually a member of the Middle Stream).
k. Wherever the Dennis Canon is not respected by state law, congregations of *all* Streams will take whatever steps are necessary to make it enforeable for their property. All Streams recognize that property and parishes ultimately belong to the entirety of TEC. However, in return, TEC shall amend the Dennis Canon so that, if the Streams expire (say, after 20 years) without voting to merge into the other Streams, a fair and transparent standardized process and formula shall come into force TEC-wide to allow a congregation to purchase its property and depart TEC with it.
Well alright then. I’m sure I’ve omitted the kitchen sink and a few other details that will come to me after having posted this, but that’s the basic outline of what I have long thought to be a way forward, that accords reasserters, reappraisers, *and* those in the middle the space and time that each grouping needs to preserve its principles while maintaining the maximum possible degree of fellowship and communion, both within TEC and with other AC provinces.
l. All Streams would cooperate in establishing an Episcopal Academy of Theologians, which will *never* issue definitive pronouncements, but rather will exist to maintain dialogue and inquiry — and to hold each other’s theological feet to the fire, to “keep each other honest,” even if not in agreement, and to keep each other talking. The EAT would issue papers and support conferences, etc., and any Stream’s council of bishops or convention (which would track the forms of our existing polity), or TEC’s HoB or GC, could request that the EAT study and analyze specific questions or issues — but any responses would be broken out into responses from each Stream, plus set forth whatever common ground or impassable obstacles were found.
Admittedly, the foregoing does not do justice to the full complexity of positions along the spectrum from “extreme reasserter” to “extreme reappraiser.” Many more than three “Streams” exist, but hopefully this set-up would reflect reality better than winner-take-all, black-and-white, reappraiser-or-reasserter schema do, and allow more ample room for all to co-exist while we continue to figure this out as family, instead of as adversaries.
I pray for forgiveness for whatever weak points this proposal contains, or wherever it may fail to achieve its intended aim.
The flames may now begin.
I beg to differ, #49. The ABC is not without extant resources to apply leverage and he has assiduously relinquished them at every opportunity. He failed to contain this fiasco when it was most possible – at the outset. Now sin has an international constituency and the ABC is reduced to pleading for a miracle to resolve what he has done nothing to remedy. Moreover, he has actively sought to undercut any primatial attempt at impeding TEC’s revisionist agenda.
At first, I deferred to ++Rowan’s famed intellect and told myself he was playing the long game. But the long game has come, and there has been so much pain and anguish already that, even if he manages to pull a rabbit from his hat, why he waited until so many had left, so much money was spent and so much venom was spit. I personally, think ++Rowan has no ideas and lacks the spine to act.
#52, what you write makes sense, but only if you first grant that the ABC is a [i]leader[/i], or someone who [i]contains fiascos[/i]. My point is that according to Marc’s view of authority within Anglicanism (which I think the ABC shares), it is just not open – to the ABC, a church council, or indeed anyone – to rein things in.
I will agree with you that even if he has no magisterial influence, at least the ABC could have [i]set the tone[/i] by his preaching and exhortation. In this regard, my (perhaps mistaken) impression is that Abp Williams is at his most passionate and convincing when he pleads that he has no authority, or juggles competing ideas in an academic and inconclusive way – as a sort of [i]amicus curiae[/i] without a [i]curia[/i]. Am I fanciful in thinking that, standing back as he does and resolutely professing not to interfere, he is somehow acting like Elijah on Carmel (1 Kg 18:20ff) and relying on the Lord to strike a light? It seems to me a position of faith that is vaguely admirable, and I find myself reluctant to join the prophets of Baal and jeer at him. At the same time, I can’t help wondering if a sacrifice of sodden blankets is really going to catch fire in quite the way that a good old-fashioned theophany ought.
On a quite different tack, I was hugely impressed by #51’s draft solution. Had any influence with Her Majesty, I would definitely recommend that Abp Williams be pensioned off and Nadine Kwong immediately installed as the next ABC. I would love to think that I had been even slightly instrumental in rescuing the Anglican Communion!
Christi sit lectoribus pax
Makersmarc, and I wish you well too. And I agree fully with 52, Jeffersonian.
53, if you are correct then there simply is nothing here.
Long time reader, first time poster…
I have read this and just been left to wonder: what leaves anyone of the disaffected parties left to think that any length of time will allow for reconciliation?
I can’t see this working toward any end but atrition.
If you look at the demagraphics of the current seminarians – considering gender, sexuality, churchmanship… Then look at the short list of candidates for episcopates that will be vacated in the near term… What would 5, 6, or 10 years accomplish? The likelihood of parties practicing and promoting the issues of contention having a wholesale change of heart seems right up there with Ocean-front property in Nevada… certainly it’s possible…
So 5, 6, or 10 years would realisticly allow for what?
Thanks SimpleSinner you and I are now a chorous of two on this blog.
I will add yet another expression of sorrow to the many we are seeing with the resignations and departures that come in the wake of this. I expected nothing from +howe who has blatantly been a company man throughout all this.
I expected far more from Radner+ Seitz+ Harmon+ whom even from reading blogs seem like genuine men of God. Gentlemen, how is your behavior any different from that of the TEC leadership which you claim to disagree with adamantly? The Primates made their requests at Dar. Like the ABC and TEC you are undermining them by treating their requests like the beginning of a negotiation instead of a question that simply deserves an answer, with all of your “proposals radical and otherwise.”
You’ve been sucked into TEC’s dirty game and you don’t realize it. Canon Harmon do you really think Don Armstrong is going to “fold into” the oversight of a TEC Bishop after all this? That cavalier notion that any of us who left will suddenly “fold” or that our Archbishops will betray us like that is, gentlemen, beneath contempt.
#57 and 57, make that three. Larry
#55, I think that in the Global South, and in pockets of the Anglican Communion elsewhere, there has developed the view that there needs to be an Anglican magisterium of some sort. I think it’s significant that this feeling is strong in the dynamic, missionary areas, and among those who are concerned with inter-faith relations.
I leave it to the historians to determine how far back into Anglican history one can trace the desire for an Anglican magisterium; but historically, it has never been as strong as the principled, conscientious rudderlessness that is espoused by the ABC.
“Had any influence with Her Majesty, I would definitely recommend that Abp Williams be pensioned off and Nadine Kwong immediately installed as the next ABC.” (CPKS in #53)
:::blushing:::
How sweet of you, CPKS! But really, that’s a job that requires a saint these days, and I’m afraid I’m altogether lacking in that department.
Of course, on the other hand, I *have* been told that purple flatters me… 😉
Comments to various:
–Why do we continue to wait for evidence/action that would even hint that ABC is a leader, except that we have it that he personally agrees with ECUSA on almost all things? He came to NO for “the answers” with his belief that the Primates really hadn’t asked for answers or on any schedule.
–+Howe is indeed a ‘company man.’ What will his plan gain? Five to ten years will have him well into retirement/pension and us trouble-makers in the looney bin if we agree to his plan. What is that old definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
–+Howe’s “plan” assumes that ABC, ECUSA’s PB and other radical liberals will do the things they sign to do. Again, don’t we have evidence that this never is so in their cases? ECUSA PB’s sign documents and aren’t through baggage check before they have plotted the way to avoid keeping their words. And ABC couldn’t even make it to NO without destroying the basic sense of the Primates’ questions of ECUSA’s bishops and their deadline.
–“Don’t we have to ‘try’ at least?”–My friend, I’ve been trying for decades and the result has been that now the PB and other leadership positions in ECUSA are held by those who clearly show they are not Christians. It isn’t that they aren’t orthodox Christians; they aren’t Christians at all. I examined the Mass (Rite I) yesterday as we do it in my parish–not what I would call “orthodox.”
PB could not have honestly recited the Creed, even. Give another five to ten years and I’ll be tossed out on my bottom for daring to say it outloud myself as a part of ECUSA’s liturgy. Why, at the rate it is going now (and the orthodox among us allow it to be so when we delay, postpone, etc.) if there is a BCP, and if in it there is a liturgy of Communion, I dare say it will not include anything like the Creed.
–Given that many of the ECUSA leadership (bishops, clergy and laity) deny the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of The Christ, the one way through Jesus our Lord, the authority of scripture, the importance of tradition, etc., what is it we are working so hard to stay a part of? If there are some in ECUSA who still believe some of the above (cherry pickers, I’d call them) they nevertheless elect leaders like the current PB who do not believe them.
As His Grace +Jerusalem has said, if you do not believe those things required to be a Christian–so be it. Go your own way and leave us be with our long-held, deeply-held beliefs.
I for one no longer strive to hold ECUSA with us. They are determined to be a different religion. “God is doing something different,” they tell us. I don’t believe God is doing it–and I don’t believe that their different religion is Christian at its base. So, what do we gain by this UNITY? (I know what ECUSA gains for the moment: money, real estate, numbers they can list, props for their ego, etc. Perhaps even some of them believe what they say and do–and may even be religious in it. But they aren’t Christians.
–But I do not expect that we will see a strong stand in the US in support of those who call themselves Anglicans and at the same time believe and attempt to live as Christians. Our ‘leaders’ will fall apart again–they will delay again–they will pose again–they will consider, and debate, and even threaten again. But they will not take action.
I do not blame those who leave for Rome or other homes. At least Rome stands firm for its beliefs and requirements. I find myself agreeing with more from Rome than I do from NYC–or after the last week from Canterbury, and I have more respect for Rome’s leaders.
–Finally, whatever you decide to do, NYC and Canterbury, just do it. Stop the charades. Stop the pretense. Stop the delays. Stop the deception. Just do it. Meanwhile, I will go my own way, too.
#51 Nadine Kwong:
That’s a very interesting proposal, and I like it. It’s certainly “radical,” in the language of our host.
My fear would be that it would be unacceptable to the “GS” Primates (using that term as shorthand for “the Primates for whom ++Akinola is the most noted spokesman”) because it would still look too much like remaining in communion with — as they see it — heretics. And if the other provinces were allowed to pick which “streams” they were in communion with, then it would lead directly to the schism that you’re attempting to prevent.
But if somehow that hurdle could be overcome, I think there’s a lot to recommend this idea.
“But if somehow that hurdle could be overcome, I think there’s a lot to recommend this idea.” (Ross in #62)
Ross — Fair enough points regarding the “interprovincial relations” aspect. I do have some thoughts on that which I failed to pack into the basic outline.
I think the best we all could do is to distinguish “in communion” and “in fellowship.” I actually think the streams model could (and should) be applied throughout the Communion in all internally-diverse provinces. Thus, Nigeria could be only in communion with the Right Stream of TEC, but would need to be at least “in fellowship” (see model for Eucharistic versus non-Eucharistic worship at cross-Stream gatherings). This would get complicated, but would reflect reality and ties across provinces. The saving grace would eb the expressed goal of ultimate re-convergence of the Streams, within TEC and across the Communion. And it would build-in fellowship mechanisms to keep us all at least tied together in conversation, while maintaining our own internal integrity, and hopefully, the “default” “Middle Stream” would be such that each “lateral Stream” could maintain full communion with it for the foreseeable future, if not with each other.
Just found a significant typo in my #30.
“Reasserters are being asked to absent themselves or turn over control just as it seems they may be on the verge of decisive “victory†not just within TEC but even within the AC (at least, the institutional organs thereof).”
should of course be:
“Reappraisers are being asked…”