The Archbishop of Canterbury’s authority is inevitably also diminished by these events, especially when his invitation to fellow Anglican primates to gather to take counsel is one which, because of who is invited, a significant number of Primates cannot in conscience accept. It is clear that, barring a miracle, there cannot again be a Primates’ Meeting in which the Archbishop of Canterbury gathers all Anglican primates from across the Communion: either the Presiding Bishop of TEC is not invited as a primate in full and equal standing or a significant number of Primates will not attend. Although some of those associated with GAFCON have spoken openly of a non-Canterbury communion, this is, thankfully, something which few are actively seeking. It is, nevertheless, increasingly obvious that this will be the next pressure point on the trajectory which has been travelled since 2003 and increasingly rapidly since 2007-8. There needs, therefore, to be a recognition that if the Instruments are unable to make themselves “fit for purpose” and the see of Canterbury continues to prove unable or unwilling to act in ways that secure the unity in truth of the Anglican Communion then God in his providence may raise up one or more other Anglican metropolitans who are able to fulfil at least some of Canterbury’s traditional responsibilities in relation to the majority of the Communion.
It is a biblical principle that we reap what we sow. The actions of North American provinces since 2003, the actions in response from other provinces and the actions (and subsequent inaction) of Primates’ Meetings have reaped quite a whirlwind. Whatever happens in Ireland there will be further consequences as a result and for some Anglicans those consequences will be painful ”“ there are no painless ways forward from our current situation. The danger is that actions this week will produce consequences that simply harden rather than constructively address the impasse over sexuality, further erode the Instruments’ authority and alienate the majority of the world’s Anglicans. Such consequences would also undermine the covenant as the best long-term means of providing commitments and agreed structures to prevent the repetition of the last eight years and place the Communion on a firmer footing.
This is an extraordinary piece that provides a comprehensive analysis that will bear frequent re-reading.
Two points stand out.
First:
[blockquote]It is important that this is not simply a matter of disagreement about biblical interpretation and sexual ethics although these are central and important. It is now very clearly also a fundamental matter of truth-telling and trust.[/blockquote]
When this sorry debacle is examined by historians, one thing that will stand out is the inability of so many people—not just TEC—to be truthful and trustworthy. One is reminded of Christopher Hitchens’ book on Bill Clinton entitled “No One Left To Lie To.â€
As a long-time litigator I was involved in some of the most contentious situations one can imagine. In one instance, the matter was so acrimonious that the [i]judges[/i] got into a fistfight requiring hospitalization. Yet I never encountered the degree of prevarication and spin I have witnessed from the leaders of the communion.
Second:
[blockquote] that if the Instruments are unable to make themselves “fit for purpose†and the see of Canterbury continues to prove unable or unwilling to act in ways that secure the unity in truth of the Anglican Communion then God in his providence may raise up one or more other Anglican metropolitans who are able to fulfil at least some of Canterbury’s traditional responsibilities in relation to the majority of the Communion.[/blockquote]
If there is a more stunning sentence in this piece—or any other—I am at a loss to know what it is. When the realization that “God in his providence†is realigning the Anglican Communion penetrates to the very heart of the Church of England, we have entered uncharted waters.
What Goddard misses, which I think is also extremely important, are the hundreds of depositions by TEC. This has led to a circumstance in which different provinces of the Communion no longer recognize the same clergy as Anglican priests and bishops. And some provinces may recognize both the deposed and deposers. This renders any true communion between churches impossible. There is even one bishop of the CoE deposed by KJS, so at that level, even the Church of England is, by definition of the word “communion”, no longer in full communion with TEC. And let us remember that the bulk of those deposed were deposed for “abandonment of communion of the church” and by definition, anyone (individual or whole province) who recognizes them as legitimate clergy is excommunicate from TEC. These are additional “relational consequences” that TEC has brought upon itself.
“…that if the Instruments are unable to make themselves “fit for purpose†and the see of Canterbury continues to prove unable or unwilling to act in ways that secure the unity in truth of the Anglican Communion then God in his providence may raise up one or more other Anglican metropolitans who are able to fulfill at least some of Canterbury’s traditional responsibilities in relation to the majority of the Communion”.
Ok, my bishop’s great but it would be wonderful to have a traditional primate or metropolitan. Where do we sign up?!!
Noted Pageantmaster quoting this one over on SF. It’s important.
Poor clueless Goddard. He is mystified why KJS was invited. He should be saying some actions have consequences of consequence. Rowan is willing for the TEClub actions to have inconsequential consequences but to consequential consequences (intentional irony). Thus, he boots the Americans and Southern Cone reps off of some little known committee. Who cares?
I was struck by this Anglo-centric and not Christo-centric statement: “Although some of those associated with GAFCON have spoken openly of a non-Canterbury communion, this is, thankfully, something which few are actively seeking.” It should be obvious to all orthodox the direction of the Church of England is exactly the same as the TEClub – only delayed a few years. An Anglican Communion tied to the Church of England rather than a Christo-centric Communion will be headed down the loo.
And this: “Such consequences would also undermine the covenant as the best long-term means of providing commitments and agreed structures to prevent the repetition of the last eight years and place the Communion on a firmer footing.” Makes me want to cry. Goddard hasn’t realized the Covenant is dead.
—
“I wish to register a complaint.”
“Sorry, we’re closed for lunch.”
“Never mind that. I wish to complain about this Covenant that I purchased two years ago from this very boutique.”
“Yeah, that’s the multiply revised draft, what’s wrong with it?”
“I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, it’s dead that’s what wrong with it.”
“No, no, it’s resting. Look.”
“Look my lad, I know a dead Covenant when I see one.”
(OK, [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE ]the original[/url] was funnier.)
—
Actually, I shouldn’t be so sure of the demise of the Covenant. It might become the centerpiece of the The Episcopal Communion, whose members are represented by the attending primates in Dublin.
Goddard also glosses over the active connivance of the ABC is preventing any discipline of TEC when such discipline might, just might, have had some effect. The tipping point came at Dar es Salaam when the ABC showed himself to be as trustworthy as TEC.
I don’t understand why Goddard (and apparently some T19 posters) think that turning the Primates’ Meeting invitation list into a “who’s in, who’s out” litmus test is a) possible and b) worthwhile.
The Primate’s meeting has the weakest pedigree of all the Instruments of Communion when it comes to legislative authority. It is a meeting of the chief bishops of each of the provinces. When it was started in 1978 is was billed as “leisurely thought, prayer and consultation.” Goddard doesn’t explain where and when it took on the powers of some kind of International Anglican Cabinet, with the ability to expel members and bind individual primates to certain policies, with the ABC as Prime Minister.
TEC has primate, like it or not. If you’re having a “Primates’ Meeting” what’s the point of excluding her? Punishment? By whose authority is she being punished? The ABC, who has never been more than primus inter pares? A dozen GAFCON primates?
For those exercised by “Dar,” what, exactly does “communique” mean to you? It is a “law” or a “rule” or just an expression of the opinion of some of the primates?
So Goddard wrings his hands that there may never be another full Primates’ Meeting unless “either the Presiding Bishop of TEC is not invited as a primate in full and equal standing,” otherwise “a significant number of Primates will not attend.” That is incoherent. “Primate” is a description. How could she be a primate with less than “full and equal standing,” to use Goddard’s formulation? She can come to Dublin but can’t wear her Mitre? She can come to Dublin but has to leave the room whenever a radiant GAFCON Primate enters? She has to stay home until she resigns her see?
In its short history, the Primates Meeting has acted very much like the U.S. National Governor’s Association. The membership of that group is made up of state governors–all 50 of them, regardless of ideological stripe. They meet to talk about shared concerns. They issue statements, author joint letters and pass resolutions that bind nobody but highlight issues that the governors–collectively–believe demand attention. Then each governor goes home and governs his or her state how he or she will, and nobody gets “disciplined” and barred from the next National Governor’s Association meeting.
Funny thing, the Orthodox “Unboycott Boycott” (speaking of incoherence) might actually allow the Primates’ Meeting to fulfill the much modest but realistic goal of “leisurely thought, prayer and consultation.” The ones who show up can talk about something besides Glasspool and outrage.
I agree with the above comments, but still think this is the best thing Goddard has written so far on all of this. For once I read it all, and think Kendall picked the right piece for focus above.
Having said that, it seems that from the ABC’s invitations to Lambeth and now this primates meeting, he does not believe we reap what we sow, or that there are consequences. Or, perhaps he does believe this, and the desired consequences are precisely what is happening. Soon he will be rid of the Global South and the thorn in his side they represent.
It became clear to me yesterday that three of the four “instruments” of communion either look back at Rowan in the mirror, or sit at the end of his inviting pen. This alone should bring clarity to where he stands. When the train wreck is done, I plan to hitch a ride with the Global South and ACNA.
Folks, I have to disagree with the broad thrust of most of these comments. So he didn’t mention TEC depositions or the connivance of the ABC or whatever.
Good grief — all he’s doing is talking about consequences. And the central consequence that he mentions is this one: “There needs, therefore, to be a recognition that if the Instruments are unable to make themselves “fit for purpose†and the see of Canterbury continues to prove unable or unwilling to act in ways that secure the unity in truth of the Anglican Communion then God in his providence may raise up one or more other Anglican metropolitans who are able to fulfil at least some of Canterbury’s traditional responsibilities in relation to the majority of the Communion.”
I might just as well say “he didn’t mention lawsuits” or “where’s the praise of Lawrence” or “I wish he had noted the full liturgical horror of the Glasspool consecration.”
The point is that this is a COE priest and tutor at a seminary [I think that’s where he is — somebody correct me if wrong] saying [to put it in the American vernacular] “goodness gracious this is quite a problem — the authority of the ABC is diminished and it’s looking as if we need somebody to step up and take over some of those traditional responsibilities like actually being able to assemble the Primates at least temporarily while this sad situation exists. But I hasten to add that of course I’m not trying to say ‘do away with the see of Canterbury’ since I’ve always said that the AC needs a central organizing sphere.”
How is this in any way wrong or bad? He doesn’t need my defense nor does he care about applause from a lay peon over in the states, but it’s an incredible acknowledgement. I’m always for communicating reality with clarity — we’ve had precious little of that from all sides [and I include Gafcon/ACNA/ACI/Covenant/Communion/COE/Instruments/ and most certainly TECUSA — I could list scads of [i]massive unreality[/i] emanating from *all* of those entities over the years] — and to me, he is communicating reality with clarity.
Makes me want to huzzah!
#7: you read selectively, apparently, and so missed the request of all the Instruments that the Primates Meeting exercise an enhanced responsibility. To cite the ‘age’ of an Instrument is like a faulty historical-critical logic. Goddard doesn’t cite what you want him to because he assumes graciously that you have studied the relevant materials from the last decade; you haven’t, however.
Now, if you want to say that forces are at work to demote the Primates Meeting and hand authority over to a Standing Committee (now there’s a point of authority of great venerability), yes, one can agree with that. But I think, regardless, that it is obvious all of the Instruments are now in freefall, as is the Communion itself.
#9. I agree.
Sarah, sorry if I did not phrase my comment well. My point was that a consequence, perhaps more serious than the ones noted by Dr. Goddard, is the breaking of sacramental communion. The breakdown of trust and organization is indeed a horrible consequence of the actions of TEC and inactions of the ABoC. However, the greater tragedy is the loss of sacramental communion between churches, the thing that indeed makes the Anglican Communion a communion of churches. Take out the sacraments, and you have a social club of members with certain historical ties to the 17th century Church of England. At best there are two “communions” emerging- one a communion of churches based primarily in the Global South, and the second the church organizations maintaining full relations with TEC, and bowing to its influence. In the short term, there will be a number of churches who will try to maintain relationships with Canterbury/TEC and also full communion with the GS. But at the end of the day, the choice will be too stark- it will be impossible to recognize TEC’s gay marriages and hegemony over the ACC and SC and submit to those authorities, and at the same time maintain full sacramental communion with the GS and its emerging conciliar bodies.
All that said, Dr. Goddard has done fine analysis. Unfortunately, the necessary audience for his advice is Dr. Williams, who has obviously stopped listening. One hopes that the Evangelicals in the CoE see the warning signs Dr. Goddard is posting, before jumping off the cliff to follow TEC.
Re: the primates meeting. From the [url=http://www.anglicancommunion.org/windsor2004/section_c/p5.cfm ]Windsor Report[/url]
[blockquote]In part, it is the task of the present [Widnsor] Commission to consider proposals made at the Lambeth Conferences in 1988 and 1998[72], and reiterated in [i]To Mend the Net[/i][73], for the primates to have an “enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral mattersâ€.[74][/blockquote]
#10 Rev. Dr. Seitz: Are you still ‘in freefall’ if you’ve already gone splat? IMHO, #4s reference to the Monty Python parrot skit is rather apt.
Why do I repeatedly get the image of the AoC as the police sergeant in Pirate’s of Penzance singing about going to fight the pirates rather than just fighting the pirates. So, some Primates have now given the line of the Major General: ‘Yes, but you don’t go!’
So, is the Anglican Communion dead? I don’t know, but I do think any hope of return to anything like the circa 1998 status quo ante will require an absolute miracle.
Tarantara, Tarantara,
-ms
And following up on #12, there is [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/resolutions/1998/1998-3-6.cfm]1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution III.6:[/url]
[blockquote]This Conference, noting the need to strengthen mutual accountability and interdependence among the Provinces of the Anglican Communion,
1. reaffirms Resolution 18.2(a) of Lambeth 1988 which “urges that encouragement be given to a developing collegial role for the Primates’ Meeting under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, so that the Primates’ Meeting is able to exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters”;
2. asks that the Primates’ Meeting, under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury, include among its responsibilities positive encouragement to mission, intervention in cases of exceptional emergency which are incapable of internal resolution within provinces, and giving of guidelines on the limits of Anglican diversity in submission to the sovereign authority of Holy Scripture and in loyalty to our Anglican tradition and formularies; [/blockquote]
Sarah is right that criticisms of Goddard because he didn’t mention this offense or that one are unwarranted because that wasn’t the point of the essay, but I disagree (I am in trouble now) with this: “Good grief—all he’s doing is talking about consequences.” No. A great deal of the essay, in fact the majority, is Goddard listing the offenses of the TEClub and puzzling about why did Rowan Williams still invited Schori. And that is my point. Fool the comm con-ner 23 times about Rowan, shame on the comm con-ner. What a Charlie Brown. Rowan has undermined all consequential consequences for the TEClub and always will. We could have some existentialist play, “Waiting for Rowan”, where two comm-con-ners keep expecting Rowan to do something to the TEClub, but it never happens.
And the consequences that Goddard is worried about is Rowan’s decreased status (pretty obvious. He’s sadly but literally a joke.) and damage to the Covenant’s ability to heal the communion. Help us, Anglican Covenant…you’re our only hope.
Those folks quoting resolutions about the Primates’ Meeting “offering guidance” don’t address the issue (I didn’t make my point clearly enough): I can’t find the resolution that empowers the Primates’ Meeting to become an instrument that uses its invitation list to discipline individual Primates–an entity that can limit its membership only to those Bishops who are on the right side of l’affaire du jour.
How, exactly, can that group acknowledge its “developing collegial role” (per 13 above) if its way of dealing with theological differences were to do the most un-collegial thing possible–expulse dissenters? I’d be curious to know how one can define “collegial” in a way that would capture the manner some of the GAFCON Primates would like to see KJS treated, ranging from “don’t invite her” to “don’t break bread with her.”
A Primates’ Meeting issuing a resolution? Sure. A Primates’ Meeting booting a Primate because said Primate was naughty and refused to a resolution like it was a de facto covenant? I repeat: Incoherent. The minute any primate–from Anis to Zavala–is cut out of the meeting then the meeting is pointless. Or would making the group not a “Primates’ Meeting” but a “Some Primates Are Beyond The Pale But Other Get to Attend Meeting” be an example of #10’s “enhanced responsibility?”
#14 Dr Dr Rob Roy – I wonder if you are missing the point. Andrew Goddard, as I read him, is describing the current situation, and he is asking those who have taken actions which are so divisive of the meeting at Dublin and in the Anglican Communion, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and ACO to account for them. That is a courageous and determined thing to do, and it is an accounting that needs to be given. Actions just do have consequences, as we are seeing.
PM, I may be missing the point but I don’t think so. Goddard writes,
[blockquote] There is, at present, no explanation as to why it was decided to invite the Presiding Bishop to the meeting despite it being apparent for some time that this action would have such serious consequences for the standing of this gathering of the Primates and potentially for the Primates’ Meeting as an Instrument of Communion.[/blockquote]
One can imagine Goddard wringing his hands in perplexity.
There is a very easy explanation – Rowan Williams has undermined every attempt to have the TEClub suffer any consequences of consequence. Rowan will continue to do so. He simply will not allow it. End of hand wringing.
According to [url=http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2010/11/11/dublin-primates-meeting-in-doubt-the-church-of-england-newspaper-nov-12-2010-p-6/]reports[/url] the ABC told the All African Bishops meeting in Entebbe that he did not have the authority to withhold invitations to the Primates Meeting.
As often one is left guessing about the reasoning or legal advice underlying such a view. Given the Primates Meeting has no constitution and no written statement of purposes or procedures beyond the very broad roles given to it by Lambeth, one might have imagined that he could have exercised discretion. Given too, that like Lambeth, it was formally established by the then ABC one might have considered that the authority to invite belongs to the ABC. Perhaps he feels himself bound by Resolution 12 of Lambeth 1978 which mentions “initiating consideration” with “all the Primates” (full quote below) but this resolution cannot refer specifically to the Primates Meeting since it didn’t yet exist.
[blockquote]The Conference asks the Archbishop of Canterbury, as President of the Lambeth Conference and President of the Anglican Consultative Council, with all the Primates of the Anglican Communion, within one year to initiate consideration of the way to relate together the international conferences, councils, and meetings within the Anglican Communion so that the Anglican Communion may best serve God within the context of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.[/blockquote]
robroy (#17) – I think that you are misreading Goddard here. I don’t think he is perplexed, but rather using an English way of saying “there is no discernible excuse for RW inviting KJS when he knew the consequences which would result”. In other words, I see this not as perplexity but rather a none-too-subtle criticism of RW. And this is precisely why this piece by Goddard is so significant. Previously, it seemed that the Fulcrum/Covenant authors would supply explanations for why a given action by RW made sense. Whatever RW did was always met with a rationalization by the comm-con crowd. But not here.
Instead, here we have Goddard making the rather dry comment that there is no explanation for RW’s actions. Read the possible explanations offered by Goddard – he suggests that either RW admit that he didn’t actually consult with the Primates at all or that he provides supporting evidence that he actually did. Seems to be calling out RW to me.
Then Goddard goes on to a pretty devastating critique of TEC – building upon his earlier implied criticism of RW. Again, the message to RW is “they did all this, but you still invited her?!??!?” He then goes on to politely suggest that many primates quite legitimately regard the current Primates’ Meeting as something of a sham.
He then finishes up by describing the consequences, including the collapse of credibility of the Instruments of Communion, and even suggests quite pointedly that if the ABC is not up to the task, perhaps it is time for some of the other primates to step forward.
I agree with PageantMaster (#16) and Sarah (#9). This is an absolutely devastating critique of RW considering the source.
As others have pointed out, Archbishop Carey had the authority to call on the former Rwanda Archbishop to resign and to treat him as persona non grata for his alleged (at the time) role in the Rwanda genocide. That is far more than asking someone to absent herself at a primates’ meeting. Rowan can’t make an open, oral request? He dismisses us for fools.
“Devastating critique considering the source”? Ouch. If I were Goddard, I would be more offended with this defense of his writings then my dismissal of them. Goddard writes,
[blockquote] The danger is that actions this week will produce consequences that simply harden rather than constructively address the impasse over sexuality, further erode the Instruments’ authority and alienate the majority of the world’s Anglicans.[/blockquote]
Authority is a non-negative quantity, thus you can’t get less than zero. Rowan’s indaba-fying the Instruments had reduced their authority to zero – or perhaps it was on a nano-scale and now it is officially zero. It hardly matters.
JamesW writes that Goddard “even suggests quite pointedly that if the ABC is not up to the task, perhaps it is time for some of the other primates to step forward.” More damning with faint praise. Goddard [i]suggests[/i]. What a timid term, [i]suggests[/i]. Here is what Goddard [i]suggests[/i]:
[blockquote] the see of Canterbury continues to prove unable or unwilling to act in ways that secure the unity in truth of the Anglican Communion then God in his providence may raise up one or more other Anglican metropolitans who are able to fulfil at least some of Canterbury’s traditional responsibilities in relation to the majority of the Communion.[/blockquote]
In case Mr. Goddard didn’t notice, God in his providence raised up GAFCon.
Here is a very interesting and pertinent scripture passage:
[blockquote] 12 Therefore, since we have such a hope, we are very bold. 13 We are not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face to prevent the Israelites from seeing the end of what was passing away. 14 But their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. 15 Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. 16 But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 , which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. 2 Cor 3:12-18[/blockquote]
And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory. Amen.
RE: “In case Mr. Goddard didn’t notice, God in his providence raised up GAFCon.”
Odd.
Because God in his providence did not see fit to give GAFCon the remotest amount of moral or gathering authority nor even the acceptance of half the Primates *who are currently staying away from the “Primates” Meeting*. It was a nice little club for 6 Anglican Communion Primates.
I expect the Global South Meetings to be now the group that has gathering authority.
RE: “Help us, Anglican Covenant…you’re our only hope.”
Comment of the post! ; > )
#10 Rev. Dr. Seitz – I don’t think their is much ‘free fall’ time left. With great sadness from this ComCon, #4s reference to the Monty Python parrot skit is rather apt.
Do the absent primates have the authority to decline an invitation? Certainly they do.
Why do I repeatedly get the image of the AoC as the police sergeant in Pirate’s of Penzance singing about going to fight the pirates rather than just fighting the pirates. Now some Primates have now given the line of the Major General: ‘Yes, but you don’t go!’
Is the Anglican Communion dead? Not sure, but I do think any hope of return to anything like the circa 1998 status quo ante will require an absolute miracle.
Tarantara, Tarantara,
-ms