In sum, I see the Lambeth Conference as the only real continuity into the future; Canterbury as a possible, if hoped-for, resource for the future; the Primates’ Meeting as giving way to some alternative Global South-oriented gathering of episcopal leaders that can move matters forward into the future in a provisional way (which may involve several decades); and the ACC as altogether finished. And this is perhaps all the Communion needs at the moment: we are learning to be less demanding of immediate solutions; more patient with less structured relations; more open to a future that does not depend on institutional sturdiness, but on God’s provisions and leading; less trusting in an ecclesial politics of maneuver and control; more joyous in the face of the Cross and the Resurrection. And in the course of such learning, individual Anglicans and their congregations are going to be drawn into new forms of witness, ones they perhaps never imagined, in a sense more globally bonded because less tethered to structures whose strength lay in local orderings we have now outgrown.
Another great, finely nuanced analysis from ACI with some thoughtful reccommendations. For me the surprise was this paragraph:
[blockquote]Instead of the Primates’ Meeting, the leaders of the Global South – whether they are Primates or not — along with their mutually supportive colleagues, need to order their lives according to some other provisional gathering point: the Covenant sits there waiting. Its adoption in some form under the auspices of a definable group would allow other non-Global South Anglicans in the world in less coherent or even friendly settings to join in and have some visible linkages and mutual relations that formally sustain their continued witness and mission. Should the current text be revised? In an obvious sense, yes: Section 4 is no longer rational, given the role it gives to the ACC and through it a now clouded “Standing Committeeâ€. But a gathering on the basis of Sections 1-3 is possible (altering little), with a view to revising Section 4 in a simple manner by replacing the Standing Committee with some provisional group representative of the Covenanting churches’ leadership, however that is determined. Those who have already adopted or confirmed the current Covenant text have shown their ability to deal expeditiously with any such simple revisions.[/blockquote]
Unless I’ve missed something, the ACI has been an important voice in arguing for working through the instruments. But this paragraph (and the article as a whole) would seem to essentially switch to the ‘Gafcon approach’: step back from the institutes, don’t cease being ‘part of the Anglican communion’, be prepared to be separated from the Archbishop of Canterbury (but don’t do the breaking yourself unless you absolutely have to), and set up your own ad hoc body that determines which Anglican bodies are part of your Global South regular meetings.
Take out ‘Jersualem Declaration’ and put in ‘Covenant’ and it reads like what Gafcon said years ago was the only realistic way forward.
As I read it, one point of the essay is that Gafcon vs. Instruments is no longer a meaningful classification–that is a category from a different time. The GS is united and the Instruments have stopped working. It is a simple fact. The decisive proof of this was the resignation of +Mouneer, who was not part of Gafcon. The question now is where do we go from here?
In reference to this article and from my lowly vantage point as a mere layman, I think that the Instruments of Communion should be in descending order of importance:
(1) A meeting (synod) of the Primates.
(2) The Archbishop of Canterbury (as advised by the Primates)
(3) The once-every-ten-years-meeting of all Bishops at Lambeth.
(4) The Anglican Council ( which should be ‘reined in’ and reduced to its appropriate status as a support staff supporting the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury)
(5) Any Standing Committee should be selected and appointed by a synodic meeting of the Primates.
In addition, the proposed Covenant should be reviewded/further developed and approved by the Primates (including the Archbishop of Canterbury as “equal among equals”).
The approved covenant should then be ‘up for discussion’ at each Lambeth gathering and its sufficiency/functionality monitored in between Lambeth meetings by a committee of canonically competent clergy/laity in between Lambeth meetings.
If this drives ECUSA and ACinC and others to declare themselves to be ‘in schism’ with the rest of the Anglican Communion, so be it.
[blockquote] Such concern proved ironically overstated, since the earlier 2007 Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam that had so worried some because of its sharply defined proposals for disciplining TEC, quickly proved to be a toothless tiger: the proposals were never taken up, nor did the Primates’ themselves seem surprised by this. [b]Whatever[/b] the reasons – a failure to carry through on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the fact that the agreements from the meeting were only paper-thin and fundamentally mistrusted by many of the participants, or a combination of these and other factors – the Primates’ Meeting quickly sank into obscurity as a body[/blockquote]
“Whatever…” Not whatever. That’s teenager speak. The Dar es Salaam agreement? Killed by a deadline isn’t a deadline and the early invitations. Lambeth? Killed by indaba. The ACC? Killed by the Jamaica jive – Rowan’s call for a vote that sent the meeting into chaos (Yes, George Conger states that he witnessed that Rowan was upset after the fiasco – those were crocodile tears). The Covenant? Sent to a Rowan appointed ad hoc Covenant redesign committee stacked with revisionists and a single token reasserter. Each time Rowan is caught at the crime scene with the bloody instrument of murder in his hands.
Can the instruments of unity be resurrected? Not with their murderer still in charge.
Well, when even ACI give up on the instruments, you know the fat lady is singing.
But credit where credit is due – the one common feature in each of the instruments ceasing to work is…..Rowan Williams. He has:
1. Reduced the Lambeth Conference to a farce by inviting all the TEC bishops save Robinson, and not allowing democratic decision-making there, replacing it with his manipulated ‘Indaba’;
2. Emasculated the Primates Meeting by assuming its powers post Dar, and replacing the role it had been given in the Windsor Report and following meetings with his ‘Joint Standing Committee’ which he sent to New Orleans and then manipulated its results in the face of the opposition of +Orombi and +Anis.
3. Replaced the democratic polity of the Communion wide ACC with an undemocratic, and over-reaching ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’. He has manipulated its constitution in a manner unnecessary on the grounds that it is necessary for ACC assets in the UK to be protected, but there are no such assets. St Andrew’s House is the only asset which needs to be here and that is leased for a peppercorn rent from an order of kindly nuns. That is without taking into account his gross interference in the democratic process at Jamaica, which whether intended or not, was disasterous for its credibility.
4. Connived at the reduction of lawful process in the Communion to the levels we have seen from Mrs Schori, with the outrageous manipulation of the prior Joint Standing Committee meeting to shoehorn in Janet Trisk and the Bishop of Connecticut to positions on that committee for which they were at the time ineligible.
5. In his latest outrage, he has apparently invited Mrs Schori to the next Primates Meeting, negating all he has said recently about leaving that decision for consultation with the provinces. This was the final straw.
It is now clear to me that only one Instrument of the Communion is not working, and that is the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is he who has reduced the rest to chaos. The Communion needs the opportunity to come back together and heal the wounds inflicted by TEC and ACoC. The first part of this process is to restore democratic control and governance to the provinces of the Communion. This cannot happen while Rowan Williams is able to interfere in his current role.
I think we have reached the stage where it is necessary for those provinces who wish to work to restore the Communion to come together with a vote of no confidence in Rowan Williams and to restore democratic governance to the Instruments, probably starting with the Primates’ Meeting. This should be done at the next Primates Meeting in January, but given the level of manipulation of agenda and process from Williams and the Standing Committee this may not be possible, so it can be done by a ’round robin’ resolution among the provinces who believe this is necessary. The governance arrangements will apply between those provinces who agree to them and meanwhile funds should be withheld from Communion instruments. The provinces who vote no confidence in Rowan Williams should send a copy of their decision to the Queen, the other Provinces of the Communion, the House of Bishops and Synod of the Church of England, and to the heads of government of the countries in which the province operates with the request that the matter be taken up at diplomatic level, and where appropriate among Commonwealth heads of government for those provinces located in Commonwealth countries.
As for the restoration of democratic governance, this will probably have to be led by a round robin resolution of the provinces of the Global South.
I am really sorry to have to say that in my view it has now come to this. We need healing and a restoration of proper governance, and that is not possible with Rowan Williams, although one hopes that there will still be a role for his office under a future Archbishop of Canterbury.
Well, I think it is a very thoughtful essay, but also, as others note, awfully light on the responsibility of Williams for all this. The moral authority of the Archbiship of Canterbury of which Radnor writes is only lightly presumed by the office on the occupant. It cannot be taught or bought; it must be continually earned. And yet we have an incumbent who has squandered the presumption and destroyed, by his own actions, any decent chance of earning it. And who by repeated duplicity, has had his hands in destroying each instrument. I suspect the bishops of the global south are not so much angered about this as greatly saddened.
It is apparent that the “facts on the ground” as people like to say, have been changing for some time, and this essay is recognition of that. The global south has its own meetings with those with which it is in communion – and odd, isn’t it, that we are at a point where a communion based on being in communion should be so remarkable – to which Williams is welcome to come if he is willing to have communion with those in communion, notably, recently, Duncan and the ACNA.
What this presages for the upcoming planned primate’s meeting does not seem yet clear. Certainly, arguments can be made for showing up and forcing a few points. But given the utter lack of respect Williams has shown for global south primates, let alone his tendency towards egregious manipulations such as at Jamaica, it would be hard to fault them for percieving it would be a waste of their time and simply not show up. They can, and in either event will, have their own meetings another place and another time, and those will be much more productive and joyful.
If only it were so easy: blame one man for all the troubles of the Communion! Alas, that is to miss the point of what has happened these past few years. I, for one, do not know all the ins and outs of decision-making in these matters in the last decade. But I dare say I know a good bit more, on a personal basis, than many. (I confess to being irritated with people who claim to know everything that went on at this or that meeting, yet who weren’t even there; or people, even if they were there, who think they understand everything about the very dynamics that moved the thing along as well as the meaning of its outcome.) Yet what little I know has not confirmed a key point of responsibility in all of this, but rather a network of responsible and irresponsible actions and reactions made by individuals and groups (many of whom are our friends and allies, whoever we are). Far from letting individuals off the hook, it has made each of us all the more responsible, including the Archbishop of Canterbury; yet it has linked this responsibility to a host of others’. One can say, “if only this person had done ‘x'”; and indeed, had he or she done it, that would have been good; but it probably would not have had the desired effect, largely because there are too many others who have their own calling to “do the right thing” who themselves have failed — that, I believe, is the case in the Communion these past few years. We are each daily confronted with choices that demand the fully integrity of our decisions, and this will continue. No one is off the hook. Still, I’m afraid that the mess is one we share; and until we accept this fact, the mess will enlarge and fester, not diminish and heal.
#7 Dr Radner – thanks for this essay and for your thoughtful contribution.
While it remains true that many have contributed and continue to contribute to the chaos, the problem remains that there is one person who has made it clear that he will block all attempts to heal the Communion or restore democratic governance, and that person is the Archbishop of Canterbury. There are still a few provinces who support, or at least are being used by him, but he is now down to one or two liberal institutionalists, having lost the moderate Global South conservatives who formerly stood by his approach.
We cannot carry on like this, with him blocking, undermining, disregarding and manipulating on an increasing scale. While you may not be sure yet that it is necessary to go based on the culpability of others, ourselves included, to me what makes it clear that he must go is based upon whether one can see any way forward for any of the necessary processes to take place if he remains in his current unaccountable and eccentric position. He will block everything, including all that ACI work for.
That is not to say that he will stop being Archbishop of Canterbury, we are stuck with him here probably, but there must be a restoration of proper governance, with meetings regularly called, chaired by persons who have the confidence of the Provinces, and with the agenda set by the provinces concerned. Even you, with his latest little number inviting Mrs Schori to Dublin, must see that there is no other way for any healing and moving forward to take place with him in place.
Robroy and Pageantmaster are absolutely spot on. The culprit in the destruction of each of the instruments is Rowan Williams.
Aided and abetted by KJS.
Did the ABC deliberately set out to destroy these instruments? No. Without the stress initiated by the installation of Gene Robinson, would the state of affairs in the Worldwide Anglican Communion be much different? Undoubtedly. My point is that where we are today was not planned, nor were the situations that brought us here planned for. It will take extraordinary leadership and God’s unfailing grace to restore the bonds of unity.
I think, Pageantmaster, you and I agree on the larger reality regarding what is or is not workable at this stage. And it is this that needs to be kept in view, informed by a sense of what needs to be held onto for a range of reasons as we move forward. We must find a way to move from A to B. While I can respect the fact that there are some, and not only within the TEC leadership, who simply want to see the Communion remain at A, and that their desires here are held for thoughtful reasons, both of us, along with many others, recognize B as here we need to move: a Communion, however reordered in its motive membership, that is not chained to increasingly depleting structural pretences, whose service in itself, and without their alternative transformation, is dissolving the core of our common life in Christ.
For all that the responsibility does not allegedly lie with one person, it’s funny how you didn’t see all these sorts of fast-and-loose manipulations when Archbishop Carey had the chair. And I am welll-aware when Robinson got elected…I also believe THAT timing was calculated…the revisionists knew well that their machinations wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance with ++Carey in place. Not to say that he’s perfect, but I think he could and would have kept a lot of these games in check.
If you allow the demons to convince you, contrary to God not existing, that THEY do not exist, then you allow them to run the table. See it for what it is and call it what it is–if you don’t, you aid and abet. Thank you, Pageantmaster, for your honesty and viewpoint. I don’t disagree.
It’s an awful lot of unilateral “accomplishments”, too, isn’t it, for someone who repeatedly insists he’s not a Pope.
“Did the ABC deliberately set out to destroy these instruments? No.”
This is simply not true. Rowan has not hidden his desire “to keep everyone at the table.” He has destroyed everything that would have excluded anyone.
—
The title of the article is “Can the instruments of unity be saved?” I think it is pretty obviously important to be clear about what destroyed them. What is the point of saving them when Rowan will simply do what he has been doing all along?
I am not blaming Rowan for “the troubles of the Communion.” I am blaming him for clear actions that have paralyzed the Communion to deal with these problems. No other person, not even ACO bureaucracy, could have so effectively castrated the instruments of unity. He alone has power to invite to Lambeth and he used it to invite consecrators of Robinson in clear violation of Windsor. It was he alone that said the September deadline wasn’t a deadline. It was he alone that sent the Jamaica vote into chaos. It was he alone that chose the members of the Covenant Redesign Committee. It is he alone to call a primates meeting – which he did not do after the Glasspool elevation.
There is simply no point of “saving instruments of unity” while Rowan will simply thwart them.
The rot in the Anglican Communion started long before Rowan. Every time one of us saw an unorthodox action or lent our consent to a blasphemous sermon by our silence we participated in the rot: with myself being guilty on more counts than I could ever remember. Once the rot reached critical mass, it took on a life of its own and pursued its activist goals, rolling over those who suddenly started to speak out in greater numbers. I view Rowan as the guy who got left holding the bag when the music stopped and every chair was occupied. He and those at the top of the Communion are probably ill equipped to deal with the situation that has fallen into their laps. And while evil is trying to consolidate its gains (TEC, etc), the works of God are finding new ways to shine the light on the darkness and faithful Christians are seeking relationships for protection and for mission without waiting for some new global order to tell them how to do it.
God is always God and the faith grows when the dark side tries to snuff out the light.
At one time I might have chimed in, but no more. It’s all irrelevant. What is going to happen is going to happen.
I forgot to answer Dr. Radner’s question: No, I don’t think they can be repaired [as previously constituted] nor do I think there will much enthusiasim for even trying.
Robroy: although you have misquoted the title (not that important), you have properly left in the question mark. Good for you. Unfortunately, you did not apparently read what I wrote in answer to the question. Had you done so, you would have realized that I believe that one instrument cannot be saved at all, another is probably not salvageable in its current form, a third is seriously ineffective and will probably remain so for the time being, and a fourth may need to be put on hold for a decade or two, but should not be abandoned. As a whole, my answer is “They cannot be repaired as a whole; at least as we know them; nor should we want them to be, at least as we currently comport ourselves.”
Let us not be too quick to blame Williams even for the list of grievances posted above. The failure, in 2000, to exercise any restraint among the Primates, and by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, regarding Rwanda’s and SE Asia’s formation of the AMiA proved to be a serious and debilitating misstep. At the time, perhaps it seemed wise to just let it ride. That has always been an Anglican habit. Instead, however, it turned out to be a deep wedge driven into the even pragmatic trust of the primatial college. It was one of the things Williams inherited — and it is important to see post-2003 in some continuity with pre-2003. To be sure, gatherings in late 2003 seemed to overcome this. But by 2004 and then later — and far beyond the Primates’ meeting — it resurfaced, and joined with other dynamics that made the coherence of decision-making increasingly fragile in a range of meetings: agreements seemingly reached, but untenable “back home”, or at least felt to be that. Private — but sufficiently public to be known by many — complaints about leaders from within various circles gave anyone who listened pause in the face of purported “agreements”. I have been at plenty of meetings where “allies” whisper their mistrust and complaints in the shadows, and you realize that public pronouncements mask a range of other realities that, going home, will trip things up in the long run. This was true at Global South-related meetings as much as at larger Communion gatherings, not to mention, of course, meetings among American conesrvatives. The issue of sexuality, in any case, was not the only one that was driving people apart, and this fact robbed the Global South of both internal and external apologetic traction in some other parts of the world. Some of this might have been repaired earlier, and certainly should have been, but probably not by means you or I understand. (Indeed — and I will insist on this — you and I do not understand much about all this; and the inflated rhetoric or “murder” and “castration” and the rest is, when wedded to this ignorance, more than a little unhelpful.) Rowan Williams’ own understandings of ecclesial life, as well as his personality perhaps, and also perhaps some of his own personal allegiance — but do we really know the substance of this? the answer is: no — have in any case proven ill-suited to resolving much of this through his office. This we agree on. But I have seen no great alternatives whom I trust would have any greater success in such a place, if for their own quite different reasons.
Well, having abstained from all comments here at T19 for over two months, this important thread has enticed me into re-entering the fray at last. I hope my comments are more temperate than the last time I attempted to comment on a thread involving the ACI, when in a fit of rage I said some very ugly and inappropriate things about the ACO that I still regret.
Although I generally agree with my friend robroy (and I certainly agree with him that the ABoC’s actions have been downright treacherous and inexcusable, and that ++RW bears more blame and responsibility for how this fiasco has continually gotten worse than anyone else), let me begin with a conciliatory gesture toward Dr. Radner by agreeing that we can’t make a scapegoat out of ++RW and that “No one is off the hook.” Sadly, that is all too true. Surely, here too the Pauline saying applies, “We have ALL sinned and fallen short,” and contributed to the demise of our beloved Anglican Communion.
Perhaps a useful analogy might be the breakdown of a marriage. All of us in pastoral ministry, and many others besides, know from bitter experience that when a marriages fails and ends in divorce, both parties have inevitably contributed to the tragic breakdown of the marital relationship. That’s not to say that both spouses are equally to blame, just that “no one is off the hook.”
Nonetheless, there is often one spouse that is eager to try to save the marriage, and one that is desperate to get out of the relationship at all costs. But unless both sides are willing to do the hard work and repentance that restoring trust and rebuilding the relationship takes, the marriage probably can’t be saved.
And that’s where I must take sides with robroy and Pageantmaster. For unfortunately, I see no sign whatsoever that the ABoC is willing to repent for his grevous actions and inactions that have allowed the revisionists a free hand in wrecking havoc in the AC, and violently “tearing the fabric” of the AC at the deepest level. As far as I can tell, admittedly as an outsider without the inside knowledge that Ephraim has as a member of the CDG, I regret to say that it certainly appears that ++RW intends to keep on playing his disastrous games that are permitting the nefarious PB and her despicable, heretical ilk in the Global North to go on perpetrating their destructive false gospel of moral relativism and “inclusivity” without suffering any meaningful consequences.
Rowan has apparently been playing for time all along, hoping to delay resolution endlessly until the seemingly irresistible currents of cultural change spread from the “enlightened” Global North to the backward Global South, or until the GS just gets fed up enough to quit the AC voluntarily on its own. Of course, I may well be wrong in thus imputing motives to him, as such a venture is always dubious. No one really knows someone else’s motives; often we don’t even know our own, as Ephraim has aptly pointed out here before. But regardless of what ++RW’s actual intentions may be, perhaps merely to keep everyone talking at the table and thus try to salvage the outward appearance of unity in the AC as long as possible, the fact is that his whole approach has been catastrophic in its effects. And he shows no sign of changing tactics.
IOW, I think he is unwilling to do what it takes to save the marriage, but rather the ABoC continues to thwart the efforts of the spouse (the Global South bishops and primates) trying to save it. Thus, for example, he could have made it clear that the American and Canadian primates were not going to be invited to the January meeting of the primates when he sent out word when and where it was going to be held. After all, he made a point of issuing the Lambeth Conference invitations very early, and he could have done so for this meeting as well. The fact that he didn’t do so speaks volumes.
But there is more than enough blame to go around, and I’d rather redirect this thread in another direction, if others are willing. That should however probably be done in a separate comment, soon to follow.
David Handy+
I think the situation is as much about money as ideas. Ideologues have taken over institutions that provide a livelihood, budgets and platform for their politics and have rigged various boards as a form of insulation from those who might wish to reform the theology and ministry along Biblical lines. By depriving the orthodox of institutional legitimacy the ABC has, wittingly or unwittingly, furthered this revolution.
One thing most respondents to this article can agree upon is that Rowan has made some very poor judgments–judgments that have done terrible harm. What we do not know is what his motive might have been and why he has made the particular decisions he has made. I refuse to make judgments about his possible motives. There is, however, one judgment I feel compelled to make. The Archbishop has made decisions that affect the entire communion. Many, if not most, believe them to have been mistaken. Yet, he has offered not justification for the judgments he has made. It is, therefore, very difficult to argue with him because, beyond pointing to the actual and likely bad results of his decisions, there is little one can say. One simply does not know what his reasoning has been. Speculating about this reasoning is as baseless as is speculating about his motives. Unfounded charges about motive and reason do no more than add to a hideous situation. What I plan to do is call for a public explanation of why he has taken or not taken certain actions. Unless his reasons are in the public domain, the Communion cannot respond in a charitable and helpful way to the course he has taken. I would like some reasons with which I can agree or disagree. I am content to leave the question of motive to God and the Archbishop.
Philip Turner
Here’s my proposal for a new direction in this thread. I would like to suggest we discuss a crucial point Dr. Radner makes in his piece that I regard as particularly problematic and dubious.
Perhaps first I should say that I welcome much in this articulate essay. As usual with ACI statements, there is much astute analysis here, but I fear that the diagnosis doesn’t go deep enough and therefore the prescriptions for treatment seem inadequate to me.
So I’ll content myself with two basic points here, which I hope Ephraim will take as a friendly amendment.
First, as usual, I think Dr. Radner, like the ACI team in general, confuses two things that ought to be kept separate, i.e., the Anglican Communion (AC) and Anglicanism. It is all too easy to confuse and equate the two. I heartily agree with Dr. Radner that ANGLICANISM has far too much value to let it do down the drain, and that it must surely still have a unique divine vocation to fulfill. But Prayer Book religion is NOT the same thing as the AC as an institution. To put it oversimplistically, Anglicanism as a Protestant-Catholic hybrid system of doctrine, discipline, and worship is the kernel, whereas the current institutional wineskins of the AC are merely the husk. The former is indispensable and precious; but the latter is quite disposable in my view. I regret to say that the old wineskins of the AC as we have known it (and that last phrase is the key, operative one, the AC [i]as we have heretofore known it[/i]) have outworn their usefulness and will have to be replaced. As the Master warned us, trying to patch up rigid old wineskins that have outlived their time is foolish and apt to produce the loss of both the new wine and the old skins (Mark 2:22).
IOW, I am glad that Ephraim recognized so frankly (if belatedly) that the Instruments of Unity have become instruments of disunity instead and that some are hopelessly compromised and beyond repair. Pageantmaster was dead on target (#5) in noting that when an ACI leader calls the Instruments broken, or in the case of the ACC even “defunct” and “dead,” then the end of the opera is at hand, for the fat lady is singing her final aria. But I don’t think Ephraim yet recognizes how fatally the AC itself, as an institution, has been corrupted and compromised by the tolerance of the intolerable. Anglicanism, however, as a classic religious system, is another matter ebntirely.
My second main objection, or friendly amendment, if you will, is that I think Ephraim still fails to take seriously enough the grim fact that personal meetings between orthodox Christians and heretics who are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing are not always appropriate.
I’m afraid I must vigorously dissent from his strong, unqualified claim that [i]”Failure to engage in personal discussions is NEVER good.”[/i] Wow, never (I added the caps) is such a big word.
How in the world can you say that, Ephraim?? Remember the harsh biblical admonistions to break off all relations with such unrepentant leaders? May I remind you, and other readers, of such deeply disturbing but timely biblical injunctions as these:
“I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral men…I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber– NOT EVEN TO EAT WITH SUCH A ONE” (1 Cor. 5:9-11).
In this case, we are dealing with the shameless ADVOCATES of immorality, as well as the immoral people themselves.
Or how about this one:
“I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine whcih you have been taught; AVOID THEM. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites (and agendas, I’d add), and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded” (Rom. 16:17-18).
To me, that is a fair description of the heretical, amoral advocates of the pro-gay agenda and the relativism behind it.
One more. How about this one?
“Be sure of this, that no immoral person or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is on account of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the children of disobedience. THERFORE DO NOT ASSOCIATE WITH THEM” (Eph. 5:5-7).
Now granted, this calls for careful discernment, not blanket condemnations. I certainly wouldn’t put moderate liberals like Prof. Grieb in the same category with such infamous advocates of the false gospel of inclusivity and relativism as +Chane, or +Bruno, or the worthless PB herself. Nor would I put ++RW in the category of those to be avoided and shunned in the name of Christ.
But I would definitely place the American and Canadian primates in that terrible category. Indeed, if it were up to me, a whole lot of people would be subjected to the equivalent of the Amish BAN until they repentant. But fortunately, it’s not up to me.
Obviously, I haven’t mellowed all that much, but I hope my time off has softened my fiery rhetoric a bit.
David Handy+
IMHO, the innovations and debilitating tolerance thereof began well before 2000. There may have been an opportunity for response at that time – but it would merely have been the commencement of treating one symptom of a long since ailing patient.
Dr. Turner (#21),
Thanks for an irenic, thoughtful, and very practical contribution to this thread. Very typical of you.
By all means, call on the ABoC for a public explanation for his various actions and inactions. That is entirely just and reasonable. If, and it’s a big IF, ++RW were to respond positively and comply with your request (perhaps slightly more likely if it were backed up by significant AC leaders around the world), such an overdue explanation would indeed do more than anything else to promote a healthy context for further discussion and debate in Anglican circles.
But frankly, I think you have a better chance of winning the lottery than that he’ll actually come clean and fess up in any clear way. I hope I’m wrong. It’s just that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. But thanks be to God, we can all change.
David Handy+
signing off for today
Dr. Radner’s splendid essay clearly points out the dysfunction in all of the Instruments. I propose that a more profitable next step is to discuss what orthodox Anglicans can do now to preserve the Communion, given that the Instruments are unuseable, rather than allocate blame for how we got here.
Dr. Radner’s article acknowledges for the ACI that the Instruments can no longer be used for anything, let alone to save the Communion. Everyone here knows that the ACI has been a prominent voice advocating working within the existing Communion structure. Thus the ACI’s acknowledgment that the Instruments are toast is very significant.
Hitherto, about six GS Primates have embraced GAFCON, which offers a way to organize the Communion outside of the Instruments. Most of the other GS Primates have not, hitherto, been willing to go that far. Will more Primates join GAFCON now?
I don’t know whether other orthodox Anglicans around the world will like the binary choice of (a) working with the broken and discredited Instruments or (b) GAFCON. Sarah Hey keeps saying that many laypeople will choose neither and simply leave Anglicanism altogether. Perhaps she is right.
If Anglicanism is not already a failed experiment, then we need to formulate a way to keep the Communion going that no longer uses the Instruments. If GAFCON is not the answer, what is?
Ephraim+ points out the formation of AMiA. There is the action of the diocese of Sydney with regards to lay administration, the other Anglican Church of South Africa (I forget what that is called), the manipulations of the liberal English bishop wannabe in Central Africa, the warring of the old and new bishops of Jerusalem, possible financial misdeeds in Southern India, etc. None of these are communion breakers like the actions of the Anglican Church of Canada and the TEClub. Of course, I am not saying that Rowan is responsible in any of these. That is a straw man.
But as far as the destruction (or whatever less violent term you may want to insert) of the instruments, the fault lies squarely in Rowan’s lap for the above mentioned, very clear reasons. Thus, the Anglican Communion is not able to deal with any of the above controversies. Rowan has left the Anglican Communion completely impotent (excuse the sexual allusion) to handle any crisis – down to an obscure vicar in East Derby stubbing his toe.
A Canterbury centered Communion is now an oxymoron. The only possibility is a Canterbury centered Federation and even that is in doubt. The only centripetal forces left is GAFCon and the Jerusalem Declaration on the one side and Katherine Jefferts Schori on the other, everything else is centrifugal. And her iron fist will not be able to keep together the “Episcopal Communion” when she has spent the all the endowments left to her, and she is burning through them fast.
This is a brilliant essay that is generally revelatory of the present situation of the Anglican Communion. I don’t contest most of Dr. Radner’s conclusions. But I do certainly agree with Pageantmaster that the key culpability in the demise of the Instruments lies at Canterbury’s door. I believe that Dr. Radner’s blind spot on this is echoed in a blind spot regarding AMiA/Gafcon/ACNA. As long as he does not recognize their value as preservers of Anglicanism, he can not quite be the “fair broker” that he almost is in these assessments. I notice that he generally avoids mentioning them (and apparently considers them part of the problem), even while one of his own main solutions is something similar (as noted above) to the Gafcon plan. Until their place in Anglicanism is included, I think the proposed solution stands incomplete and unworkable in the largest sense. One of the Archbishop’s errors was the denegration of Gafcon, and I believe this will become increasingly apparent.
Pardon typo–“denigrate”!
My experience is that newcomers to our tradition are at least intrigued if not downright smitten with the idea that “Bonds of Affection” are used in place of institutional legalities.
So the question remains as to what institutional venues can be used to reconstitute “Bonds of Affection.” I appreciated Dr. Radner’s summary of the current instruments, their flaws, and their future prospects – I think I can share this with concerned lay people and not watch their eyes roll back as is usually the case with the density of Anglican acronymns, statements and players.
What I would assert is that “Bonds of Affection” are not created by the procedural game playing favored by the LGBT (let’s be clear – the problem is not “some provinces” – it is some provinces under the leadership of a narrow faction). Most Episcopalians know that the TEC/LGBT team, from parish to diocese to GC to AC, loves [i] the game [/i] and not the people. It’s one of the reasons that people won’t go to conventions. The game destroys trust and solidifies bitterness and separation, as Dr. Radner notes.
So, as Dr. Radner says, the reconnection might require decades, not only for delicate work but for the departure of leaders undone by all the game playing – undone whether or not their side “won” a particular iteration of the game.
“If GAFCON is not the answer, what is?”
My vote is with Wildfire (#2). I suspect we don’t know yet. The answer will have to embrace something wider than Gafcon because leaders like Chew, Anis, Ernest and others will be involved. Also, new Primates, in Kenya and elsewhere. One can see this moment, then, as a time of potential (as well as one of great danger, as noted). It’s a time for prayer and hopefulness as we watch what God will bring forth. I suspect there will be some big surprizes, if for no other reason than the impact of deferred decisions. This balancing act has cost enormously — just look at the level of animosity directed at the Archbishop of Canterbury…from the progressives! This effort to hold opposites together will finally come to grief. New leaders will emerge because they will be required, or old leaders will be remade.
Just to come back on a couple of points. We are where we are, and although it may explain to go back over the history, the issue is where we go from here. For this reason it seems to me:
1. The history of AMiA was an earlier sideshow – I don’t know much about them, but they are clearly having some success, and more importantly have provided a home for some of the people whose opinions I have valued as commenters here, who might otherwise have left Anglicanism altogether when the Instruments have been impotent at finding an alternative provision. For this provision we should be grateful to the Lord, and I give thanks for it.
2. Speculation about the Archbishop’s motives are neither here nor there, neither is whether he has or is prepared to give an explanation for his actions in overstepping his authority, ignoring decisions of the Primates, not carrying through on prior decisions or anything else. That is history. The issue is whether he is capable of being part of the future solution for the Communion’s problems, and for the reasons I gave above I do not believe based on his past behaviour that he is capable of doing so, indeed I believe he will actively work against it.
3. There is a working group supposedly meeting in November charged [by the Archbishop] with looking at the functioning of the instruments [other than the Archbishop]. However as one of them complained, how can they perform any such function when they had [like the CDG] been kept in the dark about the constitutional changes to the ACC and Standing Committee? This makes the point I think about the continuing hopelessness of the way the Archbishop appoints and briefs committees, never allowing the left hand to know what the right hand is up to.
4. We have just had not only the invitation of Mrs Schori to Dublin, but also the seating of her and the Bishop of Connecticut on the Standing Committee. As Canon Terry Wong so rightly said:
[blockquote]Windsor Report, Para 134:
“… pending such expression of regret, those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican We urge this in order to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion…â€
And history has just repeated itself. Now, I find it ironic that, not one, but two key TEC leaders are actively participating at this level, at this time. And some Standing Comm members are clearly in support of this move.
How are we going to create “the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion…�
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/31297/#420835%5B/blockquote%5D
5. While I understand Rev Handy’s frustration, I think his plan to reform the Communion by demolishing it and starting again a little extreme. The truth is that world-wide the Communion is doing rather well: people are coming to Christ, mission work is expanding, new dioceses and churches are being built, particularly in Africa. This is in spite of the vacuum of leadership from the center and the efforts of TEC whose only interest if not obsession seems to be with making gay bishops for the Communion and marrying men. What is needed is a restoration of control to the many provinces, notably the large and growing ones who are currently alienated from governance which has been manipulated into the hands of a few tiny liberal deadbeat ones wagging the dog’s tail with the active cooperation of the ABC.
6. I completely agree with Dr Radner’s comment #12 – the aim is indeed to work for a church under the Lordship of Jesus Christ. I do not consider his work and that of the ACI either weak or unrealistic. Indeed I would say it is quietly effective, and becoming more so and again for that I give grateful thanks.
So really, the history and motives of the Archbishop, while interesting, are irrelevant. The only issue is whether on past experience one can trust him going forward, to which the answer must be no. But in any event, the question isn’t really about him. The Communion is much bigger and worthwhile than the foibles and flip-flopping of just one man. We are a grown-up church and Communion which deserves proper grown-up governance: democratic, owned by the provinces of the Anglican Communion, with meetings, agenda, priorities and common doctrine decided upon by them and I commend the course I set out at #5, but as ever, in God’s hands. The Communion needs and should have proper and faithful democratic governance in which all the provinces meet and make decisions by vote, not rule by personal whim of one man, and his cronies, indaba and endless, destructively manipulated ‘conversation’.
#31 — I disagree about the relevance of certain specific actions in the past, and also regarding Dr Turner’s concerns and if they are apposite for our present time.
But leaving that aside, A factual question.
TEC PB says she has seen an announcement of the Primates Meeting. She intends to go.
But does this mean she has been invited? She did not say this. I am unsure what the status of her invitation is, in part because she has not said publicly, ‘I have been invited by the ABC to Dublin.’ Instead she says, “There will be a meeting. I am the Primate.’ I think we need to see what transpires.
The solution? Can the instruments of unity be repaired?
Sure. First acknowledge the problem – Rowan Williams. After doing this, it is fairly easy to redesign the instruments in a Canterbury independent fashion.
The primates meeting evolves into an autonomous structure that can call itself to meetings. It can take a vote and ask members to excuse themselves. (Bye, Kate and Fred).
The ACC is a bit more difficult in that there is a double secret constitution that is beholdened to the regs of Britain and the EU. (Why anyone thought this was necessary, I have no idea. I am sure that the Roman Catholic Committee on Faith doesn’t submit its documents to the EU.) But I don’t doubt that the secret constitution can be undone. Lambeth is not really an instrument of unity but a tea party. Lambeth resolutions apparently carry no weight beyond the the closing ceremonies.
How about the last instrument of unity, Rowan himself? Thankfully, he has said he will be retiring in the not too distant future. Sadly, the Church of England is doomed. The next primate of the CoE will almost surely be worse. Thus, we need a revolving primus inter pares that is freed from the shores of Britannia and reflects the movement of the Christian epi-center away from Western Europe/North America.
There. That wasn’t too hard!
The com-con provinces like Tanzania, Indian Ocean, West Indies, etc., have been waiting for a Canterbury centered solution. I think they are finally waking up. (Although South Africa’s recent show of support for the Covenant shows that that province is still under the Rowan delusion.)
#32 Thanks Professor Seitz
For the record, answers to Dr Turner’s questions may be important, but my point is that future arrangements for governance should not depend on them. For me the record of the Archbishop speaks for itself, and he has made his attitude clear.
The information on PB Schori’s attendance comes from 2 sources:
1. George Conger in the Church of England Newspaper on 1st October:
[blockquote]US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori stated on Sept 21 that she had received notice of the meeting, and was planning on attending[/blockquote]
2. Virtue Online on 22nd September:
[blockquote]At the HOB meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, this week the Presiding Bishop said, when asked at a press conference if she would attend, gave an unequivocal yes.[/blockquote]
So two separate sources, admittedly based solely on what Mrs Schori has said at a press conference at the TEC House of Bishops meeting, but not denied by Lambeth Palace, but just allowed to be known ‘out there’ as is their wont.
Moreover, there is no distinction that I am aware of between being given ‘notice of a meeting’ which is presumably so a primate can arrange to attend, and an ‘invitation’.
So no, there is not, barring a ‘clarification’ by Lambeth Palace, any reason to assume that Mrs Schori is not telling the truth and has indeed been ‘given notice’ of the Primates’ Meeting with the intention that she attends.
But for me this changes nothing, it was just the final straw, but at the end of a long line of problems, but as I say that is not a reason for not putting proper arrangements for democratic accountable governance by the Communion provinces.
And for the record I am, unlike DrDr robroy, in favor of a Canterbury based Communion, but do not think that that means a Canterbury manipulated Communion but rather a democratic grown up Communion which makes decisions democratically, as it did before the incumbency of Rowan Williams. Believing in a Canterbury based Communion no more means accepting a Canterbury manipulated Communion than believing in a constitutional monarchy means accepting rule under the divine right of kings.
Well, NRA, welcome back.
But Dr. Seitz, what if new leaders do not emerge? What if, instead, the system has been drained of real leadership by the erosion of identity?
Is this not possible? That instead of leaders, we will get competing cliques, some very powerful, whose aim will be coalitions, not leadership? Larry
Thanks, Larry (#35). Nice to be welcomed back.
As always, I’m glad when the Three Musketeers, all three noble ACI leaders, show up here and contribute to a thread. And as always, their comments are carefully measured and insightful.
But let me clear up a potential source of confusion, as Pageantmaster seems to have misunderstood my drift, which is not surprising as I was speaking very briefly and in generalities above. In his #31, he took me to be suggesting that we need to wipe the slate clean and start all over again in rebuilding a new institutional replacement for the AC. Well, yes and no.
Let me try to clarify where I think we need to go from here. Can we agree that the fundamental problems are threefold? I would sum them up this way:
[b]Root Problem #1:[/b] [i]the collapse and discrediting of the current Instruments of Unity/Communion, i.e., the international structures of Anglicanism[/i]. IOW, I’m not proposing a total overhaul of all Anglican traditions or polity structures, just the international relationships. That is far from a total makeover. I’m not a Puritan by any means.
[b]Root Problem #2,[/b] the deeper, core polity issue: [i]the lack of a credible authority that can definitely clarify and ENFORCE the classic Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of Anglicanism across provincial boundaries.[/i] This is the real Achilles Heel of Anglicanism at the international level. As I’ve said many times (ad nauseum) here at T19, we are dealing with anarchy and chaos within the AC, because each province is free to do as it pleases. As in the days of the Book of Judges, when [i]”there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes”[/i] (Judges 17:6 & 21:25).
Now I’m well aware, of course, that the OT shows a high degree of ambivalence about the institution of the monarchy, with pro-monarchical and anti-monarchical viewpoints contending side by side in 1 Sam 8-15 and elsewhere. I’m well aware of the traditional Anglican aversion to anything that smacks of “papal tyranny.” But that deep-seated Protestant prejudice needs to be counterbalanced with an at least equal aversion to Protestant anarchy.
We need to squarely face head-on the basic problem that the Instruments were never intended to GOVERN the AC, merely as means of fostering consulation among provinces that for all practical purposes have been completely autonomous. Well, the time is clearly past when we could afford the luxury of that degree of informality and relying on uninstitutionalized “bonds of affection” and “gentlemen’s agreements” not to rock the boat too much. Today we are forced, willy-nilly, to come up with a way to reign in willful provinces determined to go their own way by creating a means to IMPOSE discipline and make the disciplinary measures stick. We must create GOVERNING structures at the transprovincial level. Nothing less will suffice.
One such poitential tool or instrument is the kind of judicial branch that I keep calling for, the equivalent of an Anglican Supreme Court with binding powers to adjudicate conflicts among provinces and to declare, authoritatively, without any recourse, the unbiblical decisions or actions of wayward provinces to be “unconstitutional” since they are in violation of the Bible as the real constitution of Anglicanism.
That is not papal tyranny, since it need not be vested in any one man. But it is a radical innovation indeed for Anglicans. However, I see no alternative to the creation of such binding, transprovincial powers.
Finally, last but not least, [b]Root Problem #3:[/b] [i]the co-existence of two rival and mutually exclusive gospels and religions within the AC[/i]. This is the ultimate problem. For too long we’ve been trying to do the impossible, to get oil and water to mix. It simply can’t and won’t work. Liberalism, as an ism, which I mean in John Henry Newman’s sense, an an ideology that rejects the whole notion of human access to divinely revealed truth, is simply incompatible with biblical and classical Christianity. It has no valid place within Anglicanism. Period.
It is high time to cast the Liberals into the outer darkness and banish them from Anglicanism once and for all. Mind you, I’m not talking about banishing all those who harbor some liberal tendencies, but those who advocate the false gospel that is Liberalism as an ism (with its corollary moral relativism).
As I keep harping on endlessly, the gospel text we must start taking seriously is the familiar but ominous text, “[i]A house divided against itself cannot stand[/i]” (Mark 3:25 and parallels). That is the unavoidable dilemma we face. For too long we’ve tried, futilely, to tolerate the intolerable, in hopes that those in our midst who are advocating that false gospel will come to their senses and voluntarily return to the true faith. We have been loath to administer, that is impose, actual discipline.
It’s time to admit that such a strategy is completely unrealistic and doomed to failure. We simply have to restore the doctrine and discipline to the classic Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of Anglicanism. BY FORCE!! Which means, by excommunicating and publicly denouncing and shunning the heretics and schismatics in our midst as the treacherous enemies of the gospel that they are.
There simply is NO PLACE for advocates of the pro-gay agenda in Anglicanism. Period. No exceptions.
Likewise, there is NO PLACE for advocates of the pro-choice agenda in Anglicanism. Again. That is absolute. No exceptions.
There is NO PLACE for universalists within Anglicanism. Again. No exceptions.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
It is high time to crack down on the advocates of heresy and immorality, and to crack down hard. That does not mean a new edition of the Spanish Inquisition and burning people at the stake, but it does mean a return to hurling formal anathemas at heretics and excommunicating them.
Starting with the Presiding Bishop of TEC and making an example out of her.
David Handy+
Fiercely polemical as ever
Another well thought out piece by Dr. Radner. A few thoughts:
1. I agree with Dr. Radner that it makes no sense to place all of the blame for the collapse of the AC’s Instruments on Williams. The reality is that IF the Primates’ Meeting, Lambeth and the ACC had been robust, healthy organizations to begin with, they would not have folded like cheap lawn chairs under Williams’ clumsy manipulations.
2. That said, I agree completely with Pageantmaster that Williams has proved time and again that he will work to actively undermine the reforms that are clearly necessary for the AC to become a coherent “Communion” once again. Whatever his motivations might be, we can have reasonable assurance of his future ACTIONS based on his past actions. And those actions will be to undermine and marginalize (a) any base of authority outside of the direct control and manipulation of his office, and (b) any scheme that would actually see TEC and/or the ACoC face concrete consequences for their actions.
Furthermore, Williams’ actions over the last 5 years suggest that it is very likely his GOAL that the AC’s Instruments have collapsed – to Williams this isn’t a bug, but a feature.
3. I would also agree with Dr. Radner that it is wrong to think that the conservative groups in Anglicanism bear no fault in the present debacle. There has been way too much unilateralism on the part of conservative Anglicans, and this unilateralism has broken trust, damaged relationships, and undermined conservative credibility. Rather then waiting on a wider common discernment, there have been too many conservative groups that split off, each with their own Grand Solution For the Future of Conservative Anglicanism in North America. Furthermore, it is apparent to me that the Global South provinces are NOT of one mind on what needs to be done, and so it is not realistic to hold up the efforts of GAFCON (with which many GS provinces didn’t agree to) and declare that that is the Only Game In Town. It isn’t.
4. Finally, I would also agree that now is not the time for another Grand Solution to All Anglican Troubles to be hatched. Rather, I agree with Dr. Radner that it would be much better to think for now in terms of practical, provisional arrangements that are explicitly NOT intended to be permanent ones.
Some suggestions that I would make would include the following (these are ideas, not set in stone):
1. The Global South and allies need to agree to some basic level strategy. One would be to adopt the Anglican Covenant with the added provision recommended by the ACI. Then create the provisional modified Covenant Standing Committee (CSC) and use it as a basis for further actions.
2. Have all primates attend the upcoming Primates meeting, and have a clearly agreed upon plan by the GS primates to demand the exclusion of KJS and FH and if this is not done, then the GS primates should immediately withdraw and begin an alternate primates’ meeting. They could then issue a statement of non-confidence in the official Primates Meeting and declare that provisionally, the CSC (see above) will convene a Primates Meeting of Covenanted Provinces.
3. Have the Covenanted Provinces (CP) refuse any further participation in either the ACC or the JSC.
4. Have the Covenanted Provinces’ CSC declare a provisional North American jurisdiction under the provisional oversight of the CSC (NOT a province, but a jurisdiction under the authority of the CSC) and have both the ACNA and AM folded into that jurisdiction.
Basically, what needs to be done is to recognize the uselessness of the current Instruments. But also recognize that now is not the time to come up with any permanent replacement solutions. Rather we need to create some stability FIRST, and begin to create some sort of order and discipline for OUR SIDE (if we conservatives can’t discipline and order ourselves, why do we think we can discipline and order the other side?). Let that percolate for a while, and then we will be in a better shape for more permanent changes later.
I see things a bit differently with respect to Rowan Cantuar being the cause of disunity, and I lay the blame squarely where it properly belongs: [b]The Episcopal Church, and especially their Presiding Bishop.[/b] I needn’t go into the tawdry details; we all know too well what those are.
James writes, [i]”I agree with Dr. Radner that it makes no sense to place all of the blame for the collapse of the AC’s Instruments on Williams. “[/i]
What killed Lambeth? The invitations of the consecrators of Robinson and Indaba.
What killed the primates meeting? The early invitations and the deadline isn’t a deadline.
What killed the (credibility of the ) ACC? The Jamaica voting farce.
[i]”The reality is that IF the Primates’ Meeting, Lambeth and the ACC had been robust, healthy organizations to begin with, they would not have folded like cheap lawn chairs under Williams’ clumsy manipulations.”[/i]
First off, I disagree that they were clumsy manipulations. We had comm-cons, up to just recently, still saying that Rowan really will come out on the side of discipline, he just needs the right mechanism. The orthodox, many of them very smart people, have been played the fools by Rowan for a long time. As to the instruments not being “robust, healthy organizations”, their degree of unhealthiness is their degree of disposition to be manipulated by Rowan, and Rowan had a free hand in manipulating them.
[i]”Furthermore, it is apparent to me that the Global South provinces are NOT of one mind on what needs to be done, and so it is not realistic to hold up the efforts of GAFCON (with which many GS provinces didn’t agree to) and declare that that is the Only Game In Town. It isn’t.”[/i]
The GS isn’t of one mind! Right. We all know that. There are still some comm-conners that are waiting for a ABC centric or “communion wide” solution. Some of them have been bought off by the TEClub lucre (South Africa comes to mind). Sorry but the “communion wide” solution ain’t coming. There are other games in town. Capitulating to the TEClub is one. Waiting for Goudeau is another.
I don’t think Pageantmaster’s “Communion that can’t be manipulated by the ABC” and my non-ABC centric Communion (autonomous primates meeting, rotating primus inter pares, etc) are too different. Nor is the revisions of the Covenant that take way Rowan’s being the be all, end all. And a revised Covenant is hardly a “communion wide solution”. Unfortunately, the Covenant process is dead. It is clear there will be Covenant in present form (e.g., Mexico), various revised Covenants and Covenant rejections. Covenant chaos. (Who was responsible for this, again?)
That leaves GAFCon/Jerusalem declaration as the only [i]coherent[/i] game for the orthodox.
On the question whether the Presiding Bishop was invited to the Dublin primates meeting, let me offer these comments.
The Presiding Bishop was asked whether she was invited to the primates meeting and whether she was going to go.
The PB’s press officer interjected that this question was not germain to the recently concluded House of Bishops meeting … however, the Presiding Bishop then said she would like to answer that question.
She said she had received notice of the meeting and was going to go. She did not say “I have been invited” and am going.
While I do not claim to know the mind of the PB, the PB made a deliberate choice in her use of language, and did not respond directly to the question of whether she was invited, but offered a statement about notice.
This may be parsing things rather fine, but I was struck by the distinction being made by the PB.
This also fits in with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statements that he does not have the authority not to invite a primate, as he convenes the primates meeting … cf the recent ACI commentary on the ACC constitution on the related point of that body’s attempt to subordinate the primates meeting to its authority.
From what I have learned over the course of several conversations with different members of the archbishop’s staff over the past few years, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s authority to invite extends to the Lambeth Conference. With the primates he has an authority to convene—e.g., he can call or not call the meeting … and perhaps add to the guest list such as adding John Sentamu a non-primate (though Primate of England is among his titles, versus Primate of All-England). However, I have heard the argument that his advisors tell him that he does not have the authority to un-invite.
George Conger
Thanks to Mr. Conger as I also noticed the hair-splitting in the PB’s language.
Regarding this
“The failure, in 2000, to exercise any restraint among the Primates, and by the then Archbishop of Canterbury, regarding Rwanda’s and SE Asia’s formation of the AMiA proved to be a serious and debilitating misstep. At the time, perhaps it seemed wise to just let it ride. That has always been an Anglican habit. Instead, however, it turned out to be a deep wedge driven into the even pragmatic trust of the primatial college. It was one of the things Williams inherited—and it is important to see post-2003 in some continuity with pre-2003. To be sure, gatherings in late 2003 seemed to overcome this. But by 2004 and then later—and far beyond the Primates’ meeting—it resurfaced, and joined with other dynamics that made the coherence of decision-making increasingly fragile in a range of meetings: agreements seemingly reached, but untenable “back homeâ€, or at least felt to be that”.
++Carey, if I remember correctly, was outspoken in his disapproval of the creation of AMiA. Had there been any real discipline of those provinces, I believe it would have had to come at the time of the 2008 Lambeth Conference, and it did not; that was also on ++RW’s watch.
I do not equate the creation of AMiA, an ecclesial issue, with descent into utter theological incoherence–where we have an Anglicanism that might consider Eucharistic “table fellowship” a tie that binds, yet all other aspects of our faith and Christianity itself are at best, negotiable; at worst, a free-for-all. In addition, I wouldn’t knock the creation of AMiA, unless, at least in America, you care to contribute in greater numbers to Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and free Christian Church evangelism.
At the risk of really spiraling it down to brass tacks, not to mention a sexual reference that tops even robroy’s, this denomination and Church is going to have to someday decide whether or not the nuptial blessing of sodomy, for it as a whole, is Christian. Even the issue of excommunication of “bishops” like Spong is also rendered “beside the point”.
I don’t consider, basically, the “Conservative Movement” perfect, and as Dr. Radner says I am well aware of what one could call “grumbling in the parking lot” after meetings regarding issues of trust and/or thoughts about the correct way forward. This has been, for YEARS, something conservatives need to work on. The longer they act like, to quote the movie “Braveheart”, a “nest of vipers who can’t agree on the color of (dung)”, the liberals will continue their march-on.
It is well-known in psychology and organizational management that if the head of a “corporation”, so to speak, is corrupt, weak, warped or ineffective; then the corporation will either follow or fold. In the secular world, when the corporation below the “head” is healthy, this is avoided by votes of no confidence and thus removal of the head, a scenario that can be sticky and requires drive, brains, cohesion, and guts.
I don’t believe that mistrust allegedly wrought by the creation of AMiA is the underlying cause of all the problems here. And if anyone here thinks that “agreements seemingly reached, but untenable back home” was not classic “bait-and-switch” by an agenda-driven, non-Christian person with no scruples then I think you are wrong. IMHO, the DeS Communique could have been executed through the leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury, aided by conservatives and instititutional liberals in TEC…to say “they won’t play” was probably no more than self-serving and convenient, especially when the sole priority was not maintaining the integrity of the Communion, but keeping Integrity happy.
‘Nuff said.
Robroy:
Don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that Rowan Williams isn’t a manipulator or that he hasn’t worked to undermine the Instruments. I said that it is neither fair nor realistic to place all the blame on him. If you read your comments, I think you actually agree with me:
Precisely my point. There have been far too many orthodox leaders in the Communion that haven’t stood up and demanded accountability from Rowan Williams. I simply don’t buy the argument that one person can so manipulate three Instruments UNLESS those Instruments were open to being manipulated. Railing against Rowan might allow us to vent our spleen, but the question WE need to ask OURSELVES (and I speak here as a conservative Anglican) is WHY did we let Rowan Williams get away with his manipulations for so long and WHY haven’t we reached a broader consensus on a strategy in response?
Think of it this way – there will always be scam artists out there. If you are consistently falling prey to these scam artists, you have two choices – you can rail against the scam artists and call them all the names in the book, or you can ask yourself the hard questions about why YOU always seem to fall victim to them. The first might make you feel better temporarily, while the second begins to address the underlying problem.
I think that the official Rowan Williams Covenant Process is dead. But not necessarily the covenant process. I see Dr. Radner and the ACI recommending that since the basic Covenant has been widely accepted throughout the Communion, and developed in part from Communion processes, that it makes sense to make as few alterations to it as possible. I think this is wise counsel, and I think that the alteration they suggest is a sound one.
The GAFCON approach will work if you aren’t interested in retaining the large number of moderate orthodox Provinces. While I am broadly supportive of GAFCON, there are aspects of it (i.e. its unilateralism, its refusal to closely examine and question the very real problems existing in the conservative North American Anglican ranks, etc.) that make me deeply uncomfortable. I would prefer a solution that is more comprehensive and I think one could come.
I am NOT saying to wait for a formal Communion-wide resolution, and I think that Dr. Radner isn’t calling for that anymore either.
Geoprge Conger wrote at #40,
[blockquote] This also fits in with the Archbishop of Canterbury’s statements that he does not have the authority not to invite a primate, as he convenes the primates meeting … cf the recent ACI commentary on the ACC constitution on the related point of that body’s attempt to subordinate the primates meeting to its authority. [/blockquote]
That’s our Rowan, to a ‘T’! Deny all responsibility, at all costs!
This is just sophistry. If the ABC was truly committed to orthodoxy, he would issue invitations to the Primate’s meeting and send a message to all the primates (including KJS) that KJS is not invited. If KJS then showed up, she would simply not be admitted to the meeting.
Conversely, if Rowan was openly committed to liberalism, he would publicly state that all primates had been invited – but he knows that would lead to at least some orthodox primates declining to attend.
Instead, he just doesn’t say anything. Therefore no primate has an excuse to decline the invitation. They must all turn up, and when they do, lo and behold! KJS will be there also. Great pressure will then be brought to bear on each Primate to not “make a scene”.
Rowan Williams is a snake in the grass, as slippery as they come. He should not be trusted.
And he IS largely responsible for the mess that the Anglican Communion is in, because he has always had the power and the status to prevent it.
#40 George Conger – thanks for adding that helpful information.
I was minded to go back to what Rowan Williams had to say in an alternative parallel universe in his Pentecost letter after the consecration of Mary Glasspool:
[blockquote] And when a province through its formal decision-making bodies or its House of Bishops as a body declines to accept requests or advice from the consultative organs of the Communion, it is very hard (as noted in my letter to the Communion last year after the General Convention of TEC) to see how members of that province can be placed in positions where they are required to represent the Communion as a whole. This affects both our ecumenical dialogues, where our partners (as they often say to us) need to know who it is they are talking to, and our internal faith-and-order related groups.
I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members. This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice. It does not alter what has been said earlier by the Primates’ Meeting about the nature of the moratoria: the request for restraint does not necessarily imply that the issues involved are of equal weight but recognises that they are ‘central factors placing strains on our common life’, in the words of the Primates in 2007. Particular provinces will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future.
I am aware that other bodies have responsibilities in questions concerned with faith and order, notably the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. The latter two are governed by constitutional provisions which cannot be overturned by any one person’s decision alone, and there will have to be further consultation as to how they are affected. I shall be inviting the views of all members of the Primates’ Meeting on the handling of these matters with a view to the agenda of the next scheduled meeting in January 2011.[/blockquote]
I take it from his references that at the time he wrote it, Williams believed that as far as the ACC and Standing Committee were concerned that these being governed by constitutional arrangements [in the latter case made up by him and the troublesome Canon Rees], attendance was dependent on those arrangements. This did not however stop the Standing Committee chaired by Williams from ignoring the provisions of the constitution of the ACC at that time to elect Janet Trisk and the Bishop of Connecticut. He has not undertaken the consultation which he undertook to engage in relation to the ACC and the ‘Standing Committee’
However in the case of the Primates Meeting [which he does not mention as governed by “constitutional provisions which cannot be overturned by any one person’s decision alone”] he promises “I shall be inviting the views of all members of the Primates’ Meeting on the handling of these matters with a view to the agenda of the next scheduled meeting in January 2011”
It is pretty clear that Williams has been told by many of the provinces that they are opposed and will not attend if the TEC representative is there.
Now if it is the case that you “have heard the argument that his advisors tell him that he does not have the authority to un-invite.” one can certainly imagine who those advisers are and their motives. Top of my list is Canon Rees, David Booth Beers’ chum who is responsible for the Standing Committee secret constitution fiasco and the advise on seating +Connecticut and Janet Trisk.
I think one has to remember:
1. Mrs Schori was not expected to attend Dar in accordance with the withdrawal of TEC from participation in the Councils of the Communion, including the Primates Meeting, and which had previously been applied to exclude PB Griswold. Williams in the face of the opposition of most of the Primates invited her notwithstanding the prior recommendations of the Windsor Report and the prior resolutions of the Communion councils.
2. Archbishop Carey had already shown in relation to excluding and calling for the resignation of another primate, Archbishop Augustin Nshamihigo of Rwanda in the aftermath of the Rwandan genocide that he certainly was able to take action, something Williams claims to be unable to do [when it suits him].
3. The Communion resolutions are certainly in place under the Windsor Report, various prior decisions of the Primates Meetings and indeed his own pronouncements to permit him, with or without the consultation which he should have undertaken, but on past performance probably has not undertaken, to exclude Mrs Schori’s attendance. There is also good evidence that he has previously asked her privately to exclude herself. In the light of #1 above, where Mrs Schori should not have been invited to the Dar meeting, are we now to believe that the situation has now reversed and having been invited unconstitutionally that that invitation must be continued?
So no, it looks as if he has just once again engaged in just making up the rules as he goes along, perhaps acting [unwisely in my view] on the advice of Rees/Beers.
And moreover if Lambeth Palace are letting it be known that “his advisors tell him that he does not have the authority to un-invite” then this is pretty good evidence that he has indeed done the deed and ‘given notice’ to Mrs Schori of the Primates Meeting in January with the intention that she attends, although in typical fashion he hasn’t got the guts to own up to what he has done publicly.
That aside, I am not blaming Williams, he is what he is. But the Communion needs proper democratic governance by the provinces of the Communion starting with the Primates Meeting, with a vote of no confidence in the continuation of the chaos induced by his actions in relation to all the Instruments, not in the last few months, but the last 5 years. To hope for any other result from his and his administration’s continued [in my view manipulative and chaotic] central role in setting dates for meetings, agenda and proposing documentation is just to permit the continuation of the slide into administrative chaos that he has brought to all the Instruments and everything in the Communion that he and his imported Welsh advisers have touched.
Oh, and by the way, if you want to know what a Communion which continues to be manipulated by Rowan Williams will look like, you need look no further than the just announced committee advising on the Code of Practice for those opposed to Women Bishops. Eight members, half women and overall described by David Houlding of FiF: “This is an appalling group and I know that these people have no interest in defending the interests of those opposed to women bishops”. Guess who sits on the Appointments Committee?
Read it all in the Church of England Newspaper and take note if you don’t want the Communion to go the same way as Williams is taking the Church of England.
And so, as I read the above entries, many both skilled and technical, I see that there is little or no possibility of leaders emerging, but the real real possibility of the formation of power groups that substitute coalition building, for a day or a decade, as a substitute for leadership. A house divided against itself is not merely speaking of dissent, or of persistent wrongheadedness, or of occasional heresy. It is speaking of the fragmenting of a basic identity, a coherent self-reflective construct whose integrity cannot be broken by simple dissent or passing heresy, however forceful.
I have said it before: NRA implies the existence of “supreme court,” not a papacy and curia. This is where we start, if we are to rebuild the identity, presently nothing but a boil of competing propinquities. We may then advance to the organic problem o using the raw material of an identity as an alembic wherein contradictions are assimilated, subsumed, synthesized, catalyzed. The shaping of an identity of fact a mystery, a thing that shouldn’t work…but does… mostly…. for most people. Like it or not, strong identities are hammered into shape, and yet, there must be a core, and it is defining this for which a “supreme court,” would be a generative force.
I am aware of how vague this is, but i know a strong identity when I see one, though I can hardly guess at HOW the forces have been integrated. Larry
JamesW, I will buy you the milkshake of choice at the next Anglican Men’s Weekend if Communion Covenant Chaos isn’t the rule. What to do when there are five Covenant responses – accept the current Rowan version, reject the current version, and at least three revisions? What a waste of time. And it is still playing Rowan’s game. The Covenant was always Rowan’s game.
You ask, “WHY did we let Rowan Williams get away with his manipulations for so long and WHY haven’t we reached a broader consensus on a strategy in response?”
Because Comm-conners didn’t have the boldness to do what the GAFConners did. The Comm-conners decried “unilateral actions” on both sides and yet as I pointed out, a revised Covenant is a unilateral, non-“communion wide” action (albeit a very timid one).
The only answer is the Primates Council freeing themselves of Rowan’s manipulations. If that doesn’t happen, the “moderate” orthodox primates will have made themselves irrelevant and they will disappear with the liberals. If it does happen, they can then demand openness and accountability in the ACC and jettison the double secret constitution.
It’s as I said above, when the leader is incoherent, that will trickle down.
When a ship runs aground in the Navy, the skipper gets relieved, even if he/she did not have the con, and regardless of whose fault it was. Would that we could be that clear-cut.
DeS Communique is dead.
Panel of Reference is dead.
Covenant Design Group is dead.
Sure are a lot of dead things around here, which is what usually happens when a leader tries to kick the can by burying things in worthless committees. And when they accomplish near-nothing or nothing, they are dissolved; and, hey, let’s try to problem solve with ANOTHER committee. The cycle begins again…
I agree with jamesw that the primates have allowed the manipulation. Why they’re not yelling from the rooftops I don’t know. Maybe it’s time to stop being so nice. Start with what Dr. Turner suggests above–at least ask the first among equals to explain his actions.
BTW, I think she’ll be at that primates’ meeting. She’s like an unruly kid–she’ll push Dad until he finally has the guts to tell her “no”. And as long as Dad allows her behavior, he’ll look weak, complicit, or used. Hope he’s happy.
[url=http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=101953]The first primate, ++Ian Earnest, has said that he will not attend if Ms Schori is there. [/url] +David Anderson is urging orthodox primates to go and then demand Ms Schori be shown the door. (Church Times does a bit of editorializing by calling this a “bizarre” suggestion. I guess Windsor is “bizarre.”)
RobRoy, it is a bizarre suggestion.
Because the Primates do not have the *votes* to cast Schori off the island.
You’re dead right on so much above in your comments. But you continue to be utterly blind to *reality* on several rather crucial things.
Let me say them again, and risk receiving lots of “yes, you’re right” emails privately, and lots of “how dare you” comments publicly.
Reality. Nobody on the ComCon side thinks that the Gafcon/ACNA/FCA thingy is “boldness” — we think it hopeless and crazed and growing more so *every single month that passes that brings yet another ridiculous bishop election* or various other horrifying and strange decisions.
I know it’s Cruel and Hard for me to say it. And my saying it doesn’t mean there aren’t a ton of people in ACNA who *are* brave and good and my friends too.
But Gafcon/ACNA/FCA will remain *not* coherent at all, in fact [i]in[/i]coherent from the standpoint of “options” for “unification” of conservatives.
RobRoy — it’s simply [i]not an option[/i] for the vast vast vast preponderance of ComCons.
Furthermore, I cannot imagine what good it would be for all the Primates to go to the Primates meeting [thus fulfilling what RW wants] and then having a vote to get rid of Schori, and then losing the vote by around 22 or 24 to 14, and then the 14 going off in another room.
Why not just save the trouble and have whoever is willing to boycott the meeting with Schori meet actually on a continent at which they happen to be closer. [And that number ain’t going to be 14 either.]
I don’t get it.
The unwillingness to see reality on the FedCon side regarding various purported “strategies” or “coherent options” is the absolute equivalent to the unwillingness to see reality on the ComCon side regarding the “any day now RW is going to act to bring coherence and integrity to the Communion.”
Except that ComCons seem capable of learning . . . over the grinding years . . . about their illusions.
I’ve heard reports of such counsel before – and I would not be surprised if it is true.
Of course we are in a context of selective observance of the rules of order, and the ABC has shown a willingness to break those rules for his own purposes. That said, the image of Lambeth observing the niceties of authority while the AC dissolves strikes me as a bit ridiculous.
At any rate, if the ABC were to (i) publish a denial of invitation to the PB; and (ii) deny her access to the meeting – then realistically, what is her recourse? Sue for a mandamus? There is no recourse – not only is the counsel ridiculous overkill – it is likely just a smoke screen for those inclined to self deceit.
🙄
I think Sarah (#50) is right on this. It would be great if there were some consistent and integrating agreement among more conservative Anglicans at this point. But there isn’t. Furthermore, this lack of integrating agreement comes out of what, in the past, was one of the virtues of the Communion, one that permitted Sydney to thrive, and Anglo-Catholic Tanganyika and PrayerBook conservatives in the US and so on — not to mention, as we know, more liberal theological outlooks. There are ways, it seems to me, for bringing some of this together still, and still drawing on some of the virtues of Communion — as virtues! — that have turned into liabilities during this conflicted season. That will mean a reordering of certain aspects of the Communion’s structures, in a way that will restrict the Communion’s reach — although I would hope as few as possible, though with every passing day, the level of reordering required is ratcheted up it seems. Still, the “realism” Sarah talks about might well indicate some shape to a positively renewed future.
As someone within the ACNA, fully committed to a radical reshaping of Anglicanism for the thrid millenium (rather than Ephraim’s minimal kind, per his #52), let me respond to Sarah’s appeal for a reality check in her typically lucid and provocative #50. I think we “Fed Cons” in the FCA movement are capable of learning through the painful process of disillusionment too. Having your dreams exposed as a mere mirage is always painful, and often discouraging, but nonetheless it’s helpful for illusions to be revealed as the false hopes that they are, so necessary adjustments can be made.
Speaking only for myself, and not for anyone else in the ACNA, I fully and frankly concede that the FCA movement is not going to garner support from many theological conservatives. Shucks, even AMiA can’t work harmoniously together with the ACNA. [i]”And yet it moves.”[/i] (That was what Galileo famously muttered to himself after being condemned for his impossible “heresy” that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than vice versa). As impossible as it seems, and as ungainly and platypus-like as it is, the FCA movement is growing and evolving, and the centrifrugal and fragmenting forces that have heretofore dominated breakaway groups are slowly being overcome. It will be messy and jagged, but I trust that long-term process will continue in a generally positive direction (with occasional setbacks like the hiving off of AMiA).
I firmly believe we may indeed be in the early stages of The New Reformation, a traumatic reshaping of the Body of Christ (and not just Anglicanism) such as we haven’t seen in about 500 years. If so, a lot more angst, debate, controversy and confusion lie ahead. But I remain very hopeful nonetheless, as these travails may turn out to be but the labor pains giving birth to a radically new order in the Christian world.
We are on the brink of the final collapse of the old Christendom-based system that lasted about 1500 years in the West. A radically new relationship with the dominant culture in the Global North is going to have to be forged in the next couple generations, probably a very contrarian, even antagonistic, “Christ-against-culture” type relationship similar to the pre-Constantinian Church. For us Anglicans, with our state church heritage, that will be exceedingly difficult and wrenching. But our brothers and sisters in the Global South, as well as our pre-Christendom ancestors in the faith, have much to teach us in that department.
Consider a possible historical parallel, the bitter strife between two ancient champions of orthodoxy, St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen in the mid 3rd century. Around AD 256 they came very close to a total breakdown in their relationship (and a wider break between all of North Africa and central Italy) over a key strategic difference, i.e., over how to reconcile heretics and schismatics who want to return to the fold of the Catholic Church. As is well known, Cyprian in Carthage held that heretics didn’t have the Holy Spirit and so couldn’t convey the Spirit, and thus they should have to undergo a full rebaptism. Pope Stephen took a milder, more conciliatory stance and urged that heretics should only have to be given the episcopal laying-on of hands instead. The dispute had gone on for a few years and was still heating up when another round of fierce persecution flared up, and both Pope Stephen and ++Cyprian ended up dying as martyrs. And the controversy died too in the flames of persecution, consumed by the bigger challenge both Rome and Carthage faced.
I suspect that is how it will be in our time. Both Stephen and Cyprian were godly men, totally dedicated to the truth of the gospel and the welfare of the Church. They had a major strategic dispute over how to handle a pastoral crisis and couldn’t resolve it. But both leaders remained faithful to the Lord, to the point of death, and God eventually rendered the struggle moot.
Personally, I ardently believe that ++Robert Duncan is absolutely rigvht. The old Elizabethan Settlement upon which classical Anglicanism is based is now obsolete and is withering away on every side. The old inherited structures of Anglicanism, especially at the international level where we are weakest, have had unbearable strains put on them and they have inevitably crumbled under a heavy weight they were never designed to bear. IOW, the old Anglicanism we’ve always known and loved is as “defunct” as the ACC (to use Ephraim’s apt term). That old form of Anglicanism, the familiar wineskins that have lasted roughly 500 years, is now obsolete and will not survive much longer. Nor should it. It was designed for a Christendom world that no longer exists, at least in the Global North (although a new Christendom society may just be emerging in Africa).
Clement of Rome (about AD 95) drew upon the fable of the Phoenix to help remind the Corinthians about the reality of the resurrection. If you recall that ancient legend, the firebird died every 500 years, but was reborn in the flames that consumed the feeble old bird. I like to think that Anglicanism is like the Phoenix. Approaching its 500th birthday since the first Reformation, I hope and pray that we too will experience a rebirth, and that our best days as Prayer Book Christians are actually yet to come.
But before there is a resurrection, there must first be a death. Fortunately, however, raising the dead to life is what God specializes in.
David Handy+
I’ll say the following as someone who is also still inside TEC.
Sarah, you are lucky to live in a state where you can still find a traditional rector. That is not true for A LOT of people. Maybe ACNA/AMiA is incoherent but it is all some people have; again, unless they are willing to make a leap to an RC, Orthodox, or Free Christian Church.
If you are younger than me(mid-40’s), and I think you are, I don’t believe you will be able to remain in TEC until you die, if you are lucky to live to old age. I think it will become more nuts than either of us could ever believe. “Nuts” will eventually equal “untenable”.
Part of the problem, I think(and this will probably sound a bit crass), is a “smoke and mirrors” one…you have radical gays that are “out and proud”–those are the ones making dungballs, yet the ones throwing them in the Anglican hierarchy are stealth, closeted; many even married to the opposite sex, but God only knows about people’s personal lives. Truly the closeted are just as radical as the “outs”, they’re just quieter about it–but, because of double lives, they are able to quietly accomplish most of what they want to–their views look legitimate to others, and others seem to have no idea of how they’re really being hoodwinked. They “fly under the radar” with a “this is just what I believe” attitude; all the while covering up the fact that they are, in reality, gay as maypoles, trying to convince everyone how “normal” it all is, and validating themselves by acquiring power, achieving majority votes, and hijacking what used to be a Christian, Scripturally-based Church. It never occurs to them that if they have to work this hard to scheme and get what they want, maybe it’s not so “normal” after all.
I agree with Dr. Handy that the Anglican branch of the Church catholic will have to re-form, because the serpent and the wolves in sheep’s clothing have too tight a grip on it to undo it now. I could yet be pleasantly surprised. Personally? This matters not to most(and that’s ok), but I believe the Scriptures to be the revealed Word of God and, until God decides to reappear and reveal Himself again, they are what we have and what we should “go” with. Not to mention Christ crucified for us, and bodily Risen. I had hoped TEC’s corruption would not reach Canterbury, but so far it has–when the rubber really meets the road for me, I will REFUSE to do Westminster Abbey, Lotti’s Crucifixus, and the blessing of sodomy or any other same-sex relationship. That time may be sooner rather than later; we’ll see. But sadly, I think it’s coming…like you I PROBABLY wouldn’t choose an alternative I consider incoherent, but never say never. Anything but a serpent-driven, deceptive, heretic church.
There are just two points I would like to make, if I may.
Firstly, the assessment of the instability of ACNA and AMiA from concons is not helpful. Yes they contain disparate views, as does the Communion, and yes they have their problems, as does the Communion. However none of the naysayers ever thought they would get as far off the ground as they have. But they provide a safe home, blessed with the support of the conservative provinces of the Anglican Communion who have at no small cost to themselves come to their aid. Then there is the carping at Communion Partners and those orthodox within TEC who a see themselves called to continue their witness within TEC and ACoC, again at no small cost to themselves and who are now faced not only by the sniping and attempts to split people and churches off from them by outside TEC, but also the predations of the TEC hierachy and its presiding bishop who put the persecution of the Lord’s prophets by Jezebel and her husband in the shade. This infighting and sniping between those who only recently shared so much with each other and who have so much in common only serves those who hate them and seek their destruction.
Secondly, 22 of the 34 provinces of the Communion are to a greater or lesser extent out of communion with TEC which for reasons such as the vicious persecution by the Presiding Bishop is increasingly isolated. Some of the throwing of toys out of the pram by the TEC hierachy seen recently reflects the fear and frustration that this has induced and a stubborn in your face determination to stick its tongue out at everyone else in the Communion. However, if one looks at the drift it is in the following direction:
1. the 22 Provinces remain out of communion with TEC;
2. the GAFCON provinces following Williams’ invitations to Lambeth formed and are now implacably opposed to any participation by TEC barring a major turn around by TEC, which will not happen;
3. the only thing which has kept TEC in some sort of Communion relationship has been the untiring efforts of the Archbishop of Canterbury who has sacrificed all process, legitimacy and credibility of himself personally and has damaged the respect formerly held for his office in the process. He did so by exploiting the differences of response to his actions between the GAFCON provinces and the more moderate GS provinces who have, whatever their misgivings, been previously prepared to run with his proposals. When he himself undermined them, they have lost patience with him so in the last year there has been a shift of even the moderate GS away from him and attitudes to TEC have hardened among them.
4. The only [half-hearted] support for TEC and the ABC’s attempts to avoid TEC taking the consequences of its actions now comes down to a very few, not exactly liberal, but certainly mixed provinces such as South Africa, who although deploring [as its primate did recently] the unilateral actions of TEC is not yet convinced that it is helpful to exclude it. Even those provinces one thinks of as more liberal, including Australia [in parts] and New Zealand [in parts] are far from publicly approving of TEC, and the cool reception Mrs Schori received on her recent shopping trip demonstrated that. Even provinces thought of as TEC client provinces such as Mexico have demonstrated a willingness to go it alone without TEC on things like the Covenant.
5. The unknown quantity is now the category of provinces which very much have their own problems, including extreme religious persecution which rightly occupy them, or their very small size and cultural isolation. In this category fall: the united churches in India and Pakistan who are mergers of Anglicans, Methodists and others, Japan which is small and very isolated; and others such as Myanmar subject to very difficult domestic circumstances.
Taking all this together we do not know what the last category will do, but they are far from liberal. So far they have, to the extent they have participated or been able to participate, followed the lead of the moderate Global South in going along with Williams. I am far from convinced, now that the moderate global south have lost all faith in Williams, that these residual provinces will stick with him. The lead given by the moderate, and hopefully the united Global South will probably be crucial in their decisions.
So for those looking for a lead from a united Global South I would encourage trust and giving them time, and not criticising. Many of the GS Provinces are not as up to date on what the issues are as people may assume and need time and careful answering of questions as became apparent in Singapore. I think the GS may well give the lead needed. They have made their position quite clear including making it clear respectfully and courteously to Williams what he needs to do. He unwisely in my view has to date has given no indication that he takes this seriously, as it deserves. The message was very clear however, and I would recommend reading the GS Singapore Statement carefully again, together with the more recent CAPA African bishops statement and GAFCON primates statement from the recent meeting. Williams has been asked politely to take action and if as looks the case he has not read the message and responded to it, for whatever reason, we may well find a harder response from the GS, or at least that is my reading of what they have been saying in their statements.
I think the GS have some careful thinking to do, and the rest of us should give them the time and space to reflect on this, without criticism and attempting to prejudge either their will or relative numbers. I think we are very much at a tipping point for the Anglican Communion and would encourage us all to pray for the Global South leaders at this time.
We need a restoration of representative democratic parliamentary governance by the Communion provinces, and the only way this will happen is with a determined lead by a united Global South working together, and sadly Williams will not provide this which is why reform of governance has to be root and branch, including of the role of his office while he is ABC as I argued for above, but which is only my view, and the GS will have to make up their own minds.
All of the foregoing comments seem to assume that juridical unity among the various conservatives Anglican groups will happen first, and that said unity will enable the vaious conservatives to overcome their divisions. I think this is backwards. Juridical unity will be the last thing that happens, probably not in the lifetime of anyone reading this.
To start, both Fedcons and Com Cons should recognize that the other are not the enemy but friends. We have much more in common with each other that either of us has with the Presiding Bishop. We can work with each other even if we remain apart in the juridical sense.
I suspect that the present generation will have to die before juridical unity among the various conservatives will be possible.
” . . . both Fedcons and Com Cons should recognize that the other are not the enemy but friends.”
Absolutely! That’s what I want to say, too. I hate to think it will take another generation, but TEC’s general hostility (toward ACNA especially) often forms a cloud over our conservative interrelationships. I see your point, #56, but I hope it need not be so.
RE: “To start, both Fedcons and Com Cons should recognize that the other are not the enemy but friends.”
Hard for me to believe that anyone sees either as the “enemy.” I agree that both segments of the conservative Anglicans are able to work together. I think juridical unity — or the lack thereof — has little to do with the friendships amongst all sides.
NRA, it honestly doesn’t bother me that the FedCons like their choices. That is no surprise, and I have vigorously helped people strategize getting to their solution, when it’s clear that given their values, that’s the best place for them. I’ve promoted their stuff, encouraged them onward, and given them good strategery, as best as I am able. Plus I’ve been able to maintain great relationships with my FedCon friends and allies.
But it bothers me no end to hear FedCons trumpeting — despite *very very clear communication* — about how great it will be when the ComCons come to their senses and tromp over to ACNA and recognize how “coherent” an option it is and how “unifying” it is, and what “boldness” ACNA shows. It would make me laugh out loud if it weren’t so utterly tragic, like the Geico caveman imagining that he is beating Billy Jean King at tennis, despite the depressing scoreline.
RE: “Sarah, you are lucky to live in a state where you can still find a traditional rector.”
Bookworm — oh, you don’t know the half of my woes. But whether I have a traditional rector or not, ACNA is not a coherent choice [I understand it is for some, but I am speaking about other people]. It is not an option — and if conceivable or mathematically possible, it grows less so with every decision it seems to make. I could name . . . what? . . . half a dozen just in the last 6 months — and a score more.
RE: “I don’t believe you will be able to remain in TEC until you die, if you are lucky to live to old age.”
Oh, I completely agree [although I sure have lasted a lot longer than the sometimes hopeful predictors have thought]. So it’s a pity, then, that it doesn’t appear that there will be a functional coherent Anglican option for me should I leave TEC.
I’ve long ago made my peace with that. Life is not always easy, and as I’ve said for years now, the US will be barren of functional Anglican options for many or most traditional Episcopalians for a long long time to come. That’s just the way things go sometimes.
RE: “Firstly, the assessment of the instability of ACNA and AMiA from concons is not helpful.”
Pageantmaster — so we ComCons should all just be silent, and smile pleasantly and nod our heads and stare straight ahead with glazed eyes when the FedCons start with the trumpetings about how great it will be when we all come to our senses and recognize just what a grand coherent option that ACNA/FCA/Gafcon is? In other words . . . just *lie* by silence? Don’t you think that will be horribly confusing to the Trumpeter Swans when we never end up in ACNA?
Or is it that we should not [i]think[/i] that ACNA/FCA/Gafcon is incoherent?
We shouldn’t “say it out loud” . . . or “think it to ourselves”? Which is it?
And is it “unhelpful” to tell the truth? Or to *think* what we think? Which thing is unhelpful? How?
RE: “However none of the naysayers ever thought they would get as far off the ground as they have.”
I thought ACNA would be just fine and accomplish most of what they wished — and they have.
RE: “But they provide a safe home . . . ”
And that is *wonderful* for the folks who have chosen that.
Of course, that is not the issue. The issue is that loads of other folks *won’t so choose* for clear and now rather obvious reasons.
The problem is that it is impossible to talk “strategy” or “unity” when some on one side [thankfully not most] seem to imagine that the “strategy” is for all of the other side to recognize how “coherent” something is that those on that other side do not believe is “coherent” at all.
How does that help with any strategerizing at all?
I may as well begin vociferously expecting all the ACNAites to return to TEC and put all of our faith in the ABC to act with vigor and courage and integrity.
If all comm-conners were like Sarah, we wouldn’t have a problem. The reality is that they are mostly sheep and not pastors. Sarah is right about the “moderate” primates not supporting the exclusion of Schori. The comm-conners sat around on their hands waiting for a “communion wide” solution, decrying unilateral actions and now have lost their zeal to fight. There “fight” seemed to be limited to issuing more paper, anyway. If ++John Chew and ++Mokiwa (Tanzania) go a break bread with Schori, a pox on them.
Implicit in all of this, is the charge by the comm-conners that if AMiA/Rwanda/Southeast Asia then ACNA/Nigeria/Uganda/Kenya/Southern Cone hadn’t acted “unilaterally” then there might have been “communion wide” disciplinary action. That is extremely speculative and, I believe, completely wrong. Why? Rowan Williams who would have subverted any discipline because that is what he does. (Sarah, your thoughts?…Is it even worth it to “Imagine there’s no ACNA. It’s easy if you try…”?)
So I take the complete opposite viewpoint. The failure of Windsor/Dromantine/DES/Covenant is a vindication of AMiA/GAFCon/ACNA. Action not position statements.
I would agree with Pageantmaster’s concluding counsel; only to say that they will do this better the less Anglo-Americans of any stripe attempt to sway their views strategically. Our presence, interpositions, and the rest at their meetings have never proven helpful, but divisive. (I plead guilty.) Americans, British, and Australians of whatever ilk need to butt out and wait.