The Archbishop of Canterbury has recently written Bishop Howe of Central Florida, in a letter now made public, concerned that traditionalist parishes ought to see the Diocese, in distinction to ”˜the National” or “provincial Church,’ as the main unit of Christian faith and teaching, in sacramental unity with the Anglican Communion through his own office. (This view has been generally accepted as a definition of fundamental Anglican polity and has been explicitly assumed in all of the recent Anglican-Roman Catholic Agreed Statements.) The Primates have also recognized bishops like Howe who uphold the Camp Allen principles. In a climate where the ”˜National Church’ may seek to arrogate to itself more authority than the Archbishop of Canterbury believes is proper, individual Dioceses appear vulnerable to many – especially when alternatives present themselves in the name of offering a more secure reality, outside of TEC altogether.
One of the useful aspects of the Network was its granting to ”˜traditionalists’ a measure of identification, still inside TEC, but laterally with other Dioceses, as the main unit of Christian faith and teaching, to pursue the Archbishop’s stated concern. Bishops like Howe, Stanton, Salmon and others availed themselves of this for this reason, and also because it was consistent with what the Archbishop here writes. In the meantime, however, the Network as originally intended has collapsed, and in its place or alongside it a new reality has emerged in the form of a Common Cause College, whose mechanisms for ”˜unity in faith’ are different to what the Archbishop describes. This has made the plight of Bishop Howe and others more complicated, precisely as parishes seek to leave and find places in this College or somewhere else.
What is necessary, then, is for the diocesan unit, in conjunction with other dioceses who affirm the Communion’s teaching and discipline as Windsor and the Camp Allen principles outline them, to find the place that the Network sought to provide, and to build on what the Archbishop is here underscoring. At a time when the individual bishops of TEC struggle to affirm requests made of them by the Primates, and when some openly reject even the generous assessment made by the JSC, it is all the more imperative for Camp Allen Bishops and their Dioceses to stand in the place the Archbishop has argued is the most secure place, whilst the evaluation of TEC is still being processed.
[blockquote] It pertains to the manner in which people take their “leave” of the Episcopal Church: if clergy and congregants, and even whole congregations choose to leave a diocese, for whatever reason, they should negotiate their departure openly with the legal authorities of the diocese. If there is no agreeable way found to take their property with them, they should simply leave it behind and start anew with grace and trusting in grace. Litigation – even participation in litigation initiated by others – acrimony, and recrimination is simply contrary to the Scriptures. Period. [/blockquote]
Doesn’t this encourge, even reward, un-Christian behavior on the part of TEC? Why would they even pretend to negotiate in good faith if they knew that, by stonewalling, they would get 100% of what they want? Parishes that have established, built, expanded, improved, maintained and otherwise sustained their property would be viewed, rightly, with contempt by any sane opposition.
Sorry, Dr. Radner, this is simply unwise counsel.
The old Network left, now we need a new network. It will of course be smaller, weaker and less influential. Had actual Alternative Primatial Oversight been provided as the Primates requested I doubt that these parishes in “Windsor compliant” dioceses would be leaving. But right now the tether to the national church is still there, no matter how much the ABC and ACI try to pretend it isn’t…
The reference to Bp. Salmon and the lack of reference to Bp. Lawrence rather demonstrates the shortcomings in this analysis.
ACI has done a brilliant bit of work here. TEC’s present direction is more marginalized, more compromised, more undermined, by doing as ACI suggests. Hotheads are playing into their hands and are in fact wounding the Body as a whole.
#3 — You have a very good point but it is practical. ACI has the theology right. We need to trust the rest.
SO, what’s important to the ACI? ++Rowan? Seems only process, and the illusion of “unity”.. Sorry Guys, no sale.
I don’t care who your bishop is, or even what he says about Windsor (which sure hasn’t been much in some cases of those who “claim Winsory”).
Does ANYONE in authority (except for a few exceptional bishops such as +Iker, +Duncan, and the other bishops who continue to stand on the scripture) care that souls are at stake here? Do they even think about the children who can see much more than when we were young?
Do they have to do as I do, “well yes I was Episcopalian, now I’m an Anglican regardless of where I go to church”.
As long as a diocese sends one dime to ECUSA, that diocese is still ECUSA, as long as anyone uses material from 815, or participates in any program, or recognizes the PB, that diocese is ECUSA, and the people are still bound to ECUSA. Recognition by ++Rowan, and/or the Anglican Communion of a diocese will make no difference, as the ACI says, the folks are still INSIDE ECUSA, and that will not change.
ECUSA (note I will not call them TEC), has an agenda, they will not back down AC or not.
as long as a diocese has to appeal to ECUSA (bishops and standing committees) for approval of their bishop, we are ECUSA.
So we will still be in bondage to ECUSA, an organization that no longer a church any your diocese is only an election away(or maybe a disposition away) from a reappraising bishop. .
Sorry for the rant, but the truth needs telling.
Gloria
I agree with number 5. Love it or hate it, if we are in TEC, are we not under, in one way or another, the authority of the Presiding Bishop. It is reasonable for those unchurched or unsaved or other potential church members to associate any Episcopal perish with the national church doctrine and what comes out of the PB’s mouth–whatever the doctrine…She’s the Episcopal leader and our local church is Episcopal.
This letter makes sense to those who are “insiders” to this affair. But if someone refuses to come to our Episcopal church because our national leader supports abortion or believes Jesus is not “the Way” because that would put him in a “box,” then I can’t expect them to read this letter and have it all clear…that would be naive and burdensome.
If the Windsor Bishops/Camp Allen Bishops buy this statement in letter to Bishop Howe from ABofC and the above statements from ACI, they will find themselves lost in TEC……
I believe a very relevant passage is 1 Corinthians 7: 12-16.
Mark in #8, I don’t think a lack of reference to Bishop-elect Mark lawrence ifs grounds for criticism. Bishop Salmon is acting bishop and was the one speaking for the diocese at the HOB meeting in New Orleans, so it seems logical to refer to him.
My father was a Roman Catholic. When he married my mother he left the church which for years he supported, financially, physically (working at events, altar boy etc…). He didn’t take a dime, ask for what he contributed to it etc… My parents left a parish and I left a parish in TEC recently for another parish (still in TEC). When we left the last parish (after 38 years), we didn’t ask for money or a brick or anything we donated. If things fold up here my next move is possibly the Russian Church (most of my fathers family goes there). I for one haven’t made up my mind but I gave to the glory of God, not to claim ownership of something.
It seems that the ABC is now implying that TEC is on the sidelines and the direct line is from diocese to Canterbury. It’s not clear where 815 fits in. In one way this is a positive development. But it leaves aside the question of the status of parishes in hostile (non-Windsor) dioceses, some which have already left for an overseas jurisdiction. These departures would not have been necessary had some of the Network bishops stepped up to the plate early on, and taken us under their wing. The ACI analysis has, unfortunately been overtaken by events.
#9
My point, too cryptic to be sure, was that Bp. Salmon’s role as acting bishop personifies the ultimate futility of ACI’s strategy. If orthodoxy in ECUSA cannot be perpetuated, structures need to be established that will enable its continuation for future generations. One has only to think of San Diego, Colorado, West Tennessee, etc. Had ACI been able to say “Bishops Howe, Stanton, Lawrence and othersâ€, we would listen more confidently. But it couldn’t. For a very good reason.
Just add the 12 further Bishops from the last CA meeting. You are making too much of a 3 bishop shorthand. Mark L has also been at CA meetings.
Mark, in #12, makes an excellent point. There will be no more Ikers, Schofields, Ackermans, Duncans within TEC. That much is certain. I doubt there will even be another MacPhereson or Salmon. Only fellow-travelers (or token conservatives, properly gelded) will be permitted from here on out. The ACI’s prescription leads to a rout, pure and simlple.
I think it wise to let +WLA, +WTX, +TN, +SC, +Albany, +TX, +Dallas, +CFL, +ND, and others from previous meetings speak for themselves — or, in the light of #14, change their statements. I’ll let you use the language of ‘gelding’ with +WLA and others.
The ACI generalizes Paul’s injunction against bringing others to civil court:
[blockquote]Litigation – even participation in litigation initiated by others – acrimony, and recrimination is simply contrary to the Scriptures. Period. [/blockquote]
Clearly instigating such lawsuits (the premise of Paul) is worse than merely defending oneself in court. But may I understand that the ACI is condemning Bp Howe for his bring suit against Church of the New Covenant in Winter Springs and his recent letter threatening to do the same with these nine new churches? Are they condemning Bp Salmon for the extremely drawn out litigation with the AMiA?
The elephant in the room ignored by this discussion is that of the plight of orthodox parishes under heterodox bishops. Here, bishops deemed orthodox if they are “Windsor-compliant” or “DeS compliant” or perhaps more simply vow not to authorize SSUB’s (ignore authorizing vs overlooking) and not support ordination of practicing homosexuals as bishops (ignore ordination of homosexual priests). But what exactly are the criteria for orthodoxy or heterodoxy in a bishop?
It is the conclusion of many here that the episcopal church is fatally wounded. Look at the recent videos at standfirm of Marc Sisk participating in the pornographic parade for confirmation of this [i]fact[/i]. And thus, only those bishops who are in the process of actively leading their parishes out of the TEC are truly orthodox and properly pastorally caring for their diocese. With this criteria, the churches in central Florida are within their prerogative.
I reject the contrived notion that one can be loyal to one’s bishop and merely pretend that the national church doesn’t exist. In his previous letter, Bp Howe made it abundantly clear that fealty to him implies fealty to the national church.
I reject the [i]”of going against the clear teaching of the Scriptures.”[/i] Scripture clearly warns us against false teachers. This mornings reading in Paul’s letter to Timothy, is case in point, with Integrity being the epitome of itchy ears. Perhaps, Bp Howe is not a false teacher, per se, but he prizes collegiality with false teachers (working closely with Bruno in New Orleans).
I reject [i]”of dividing, deliberately or not, the Body of Christ.”[/i] There is no debate on who tore the fabric of the communion. When will people stop talking about schism in the future? Schism is a fact established in the past. The parishes that have left have the TEC and [i]reunited[/i] with overseas provinces have re-established communion.
I reject [i]”of inadvertently drawing Primates, their churches, and many others into conflicts not of their making, thereby pitting one against the other and sowing the seeds of discord.”[/i] Despite the malignant procrastination of the ABC, these issues need to be decided upon [b]now[/b], before we can move forward as a body. We are in a state of corporate theological paralysis. That is so obvious, no further comment is needed.
Lastly, what did the actions of these parishes in Central Florida effectuate? Perhaps, it moved the timid, indecisive ABC a little closer to withdrawing invitations. For this, they parishioners and clergy are to be commended.
I’d be careful about reading too much positive news for traditionalists into ++Rowan’s letter. While he ‘disses’ TEC, and promises safe harbor to Windsor Compliant dioceses–both pieces of good news–there is little in his track record to date to show that he will act, even on behalf of the primates, to distance himself and the organs of the Communion from TEC.
More here.
Dr. Seitz,
I should hasten to add that I am greatly encouraged by the ABC’s letter to Bp. Howe. I think it is fair to regard it as due in considerable part to your many years of patient effort along with that of the primates and bishops you have assisted so ably. My reservation is simply this: to remain in communion with Canterbury does not mean escaping the tender mercies of the revisionist majority in control of ECUSA. Already tonight on the left-wing blogs there are calls for Mark Lawrence’s scalp (again) as a response to +RDW’s letter.
Mark writes, “I think it is fair to regard it as due in considerable part to your many years of patient effort along with that of the primates and bishops you have assisted so ably.” What a crock.
My last point in #16: The letter from the ABC was entirely due to the actions of the the nine parishes. The ABC was hoping for some sort of comm-con/institutional liberal compromise (in the much distant future). The nine parishes’ actions undercut this, and the letter resulted, pure and simple. So rather than criticizing these churches, we should be collectively praising them.
#15, my comment was a prediction, not an assessment of those sees’ current occupants. These men are clearly not gelded TEC drones…but their replacements will be. The wrestle royale over Mark Lawrence makes that abundantly clear. With +Iker’s declaration the other day, paranoia amongst the revisionist crowd is running at a fever pitch and I’d be shocked if Lawrence+ gets the necessary votes this time absent a complete prostration before TEC.
Good grief, #16 – it was Marc Andrus, not Sisk.
Use more care, please.
I understand — I think — the need for those dioceses remaining in TEC to stand together as a unit, as the Network had allowed three years ago. [And I understand the Network moving on and moving into the Common Cause strategy too.]
But the fact is . . . we all knew that parishes would be giving up on ECUSA and would be leaving, even if in “Windsor-Compliant” dioceses.
The Primates knew it too, which was why in the Dar communique they pushed for the “structures of pastoral care”.
But unfortunately there are three issues that parishes must deal with.
1) We’re all in ECUSA, and no matter how much we may point to an individual bishop . . . we remain in ECUSA.
2) None of us are really sure what the point is from a “Communion standpoint” of being in a “Windsor diocese” when unfortunately, Rowan Williams chose to invite everybody to the Lambeth meeting, even when they are most certainly not “Windsor compliant” thus essentially causing the Windsor Report to become “dull and void”.
3) And . . . finally . . . Rowan Williams chose not to prosecute Dar at all. It was a meaningless document [besides putting us all through the pain of Yet Another Deadline and the joy of watching everybody scramble around and sacrifice their integrity pretending to comply with the deadline]. Had the “structures of pastoral care” been implemented, we would not have the ghastly mess of what is now hurtling towards us.
Rowan Williams took a gamble.
Now there will be [further] consequences.
It’s all very sad. But that’s kind of what happens when people decide that “they’re on their own” and the Anglican Communion won’t discipline ECUSA.
While there is much to be commended in the ACI statement, and I was inclined to agree as far as it went (which was nowhere near the Diocese of CT anyway), I have to find some fault with it as others have alluded. TEC is simply and factually relevant, and more than the mere abstraction ++Rowan asserts. TEC will not allow more “Windsor compliance”. If Lawrence+ becomes +SC, he will be the last of his kind. Remaining in TEC entails submission to the General Convention and all the machinery of 815 between conventions. If the ABC’s and ACI’s ecclesial vision were factually true (I don’t dispute that it’s ideally true) then Calvary would have left Pittsburgh peacefully with a blessing, rather than arguably “winning” a legal case against the bishop. The Dennis Canon would be intrinsically null. Title IV would be a joke (OK, perhaps there is a degree of correlation!)
When Pittsburgh, San Joaqun, et al complete their constitutional machinations to divest themselves of TEC, then I might recognize the diocesan identity described here. But as much as I might wish to, I don’t recognize it today.
Regarding lawsuits: I’m aware of one parish who is trying to leave WITHOUT their property, but the ephemeral “national church” abstraction apparently won’t let them off that easily, pressing a lawsuit instead. I’m encouraging them to tell their story, so that it won’t simply be hearsay.
#20 Jeffersonian — I COMPLETELY agree with your assessment. Just because one’s diocese and bishop are “good”, it doesn’t mean that they will still be so after the next election. One example: Florida, Florida, Florida. We got duped. Now, 20 — yes, 20 — churches have left the diocese and have formed the Anglican Alliance of North Florida. Your either a member of TEC or you’re not. Saying that you are in a “good” diocese has little meaning anymore.
Dr. Stitz, Mark McCall’s point about succession of orthodox bishops is now an issue here in the DRG. With the largest orthodox parish gone and the resulting elections of non orthodox and moderates to diocesn office this convocation, how can you expect orthodox dioceses to last?
Parishes will leave. Shifts will happen. The outgoing tide will increase and we haven’t seen low tide yet. We are left without an orthodox diocersan bishop. Today’s ordination in Farmington was conducted by Bp. McDonald, a bishop that voted for +VGR.
“If nothing changes, nothing’s changed.” People will go where orthodox bishops lead. Vacumes will be filled. +++Cantaur’s actions are the only thing that might stem the tide.
Finally, TEC is fast gaining the brand reputation of the MCC as both shrink. If a diocese regains a vital evangelical and catholic stance, if I was unchurched with children I would still skip even looking at any TEC congregation.
Thanks TACit. Getting late. Was “off the Marc” in my post #16 but it still stands.
Dr. Noll has a depressing analysis of the ABC’s letter which describes the ABC flanking the orthodox. See [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/7037/#132827 ]here[/url]. More depressing in that the ACI-ers are cheerleading this effort.
Comm-con-ers like Howe are abetting the ABC from disciplining the TEC and then is rewarded with this letter for his patronage.
The only hope for withdrawal of invitations is for more churches to begin efforts to realign, yes, even in dioceses with comm-con bishops.
The Episcopal Church has been one national chuch from the first General Convention that recognized Bishop Seabury’s consecration and ended the feared possibility of two sectional churches in New England and in the Middle and Southern states. Archbishop Williams’ letter does not appear to take that historical reality into account. Absent a decision by the General Convention to authorize dioceses and congregations to withdraw from the authority of the GC or a clear decision by the Archbishop of Canterbury for the Church of England and by the relevant authorities of the other churches of the Anglican Communion to cease to recognize the Episcopal Church as governed by GC as a church of the communion clergy and lay people will individually and as congregations withdraw from the authority of the GC. With the ACI I would like to find some middle ground but I can’t.
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
I agree with Sarah in #22, but am particularly disturbed that the ABC has discovered this important perspective so late in the game. It appears to me that he’s attempting to have it both ways: playing footsie with Schori/TEC, and then admonishing those who respond to the failure of the NO HOB and TEC’s continued drive towards degenerate heterodoxy. The horse is long gone from the barn, and now the ABC wishes to partially close the door. It’s too bad he didn’t think these matters through before he sent out the invites for the tea party in ’08. Sad, sad, sad…….
It seems clear that unlike the remaining paragraphs, the ACI authors intend the above to apply independently of the character of the diocesan bishop. But does not 1 Cor. 6:1-8 assume a dispute among individuals (a grievance of “one of you” against “another”) and the availability of an adjudication by “the saints” instead of the law courts? Does it not also assume that a proper adjudication would need to be by someone other than the adverse claimant?
By analogy, if the doctrine of just war allows use of deadly force when what is at stake is the lives and safety of the community (not just the individual taking up arms), what is wrong with peaceful resort to civil authority to defend the rightful ownership not of property of an individual, but of property and assets accumulated over generations by a parish and dedicated to the church’s ministry. I am not arguing in favor of acrimony or recrimination.
Stephen Noll is not a man I always agree with. But he is right on target with his comment on the thread below:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/7039/#132865
Doesn’t this encourge, even reward, un-Christian behavior on the part of TEC? Why would they even pretend to negotiate in good faith if they knew that, by stonewalling, they would get 100% of what they want?
I think the point is for the reasserting types to take the high road and follow Scriptural teachings, not to beat the other side.
It seems that the ABC is now implying that TEC is on the sidelines and the direct line is from diocese to Canterbury. It’s not clear where 815 fits in.
The ABC is simply saying what people want to hear. He’ll say anything to keep people in.
But may I understand that the ACI is condemning Bp Howe for his bring suit against Church of the New Covenant in Winter Springs and his recent letter threatening to do the same with these nine new churches? Are they condemning Bp Salmon for the extremely drawn out litigation with the AMiA?
I think that you may understand it that way.
With +Iker’s declaration the other day, paranoia amongst the revisionist crowd is running at a fever pitch and I’d be shocked if Lawrence+ gets the necessary votes this time absent a complete prostration before TEC.
+Iker will soon cease to be a Bishop in the Anglican Communion. The PB will most likely depose him. So the revisionists are not paranoid or even disturbed. However, you may be correct that a pledge of total fealty to TEC may be needed for (+)Lawrence to be confirmed. But that is the fault of bishops like +Iker and +Duncan, not of other faithful bishops
BTW, off topic, but, when is the deadline for consent for (+)Lawrence?
TEC will not allow more “Windsor complianceâ€. If Lawrence+ becomes +SC, he will be the last of his kind.
TEC will certainly allow more Windsor Bishops, what they won’t allow are schismatic Bishops.
By analogy, if the doctrine of just war allows use of deadly force when what is at stake is the lives and safety of the community (not just the individual taking up arms), what is wrong with peaceful resort to civil authority to defend the rightful ownership not of property of an individual, but of property and assets accumulated over generations by a parish and dedicated to the church’s ministry.
Because life is not property.
Mrs. Smith is 72. She has been a member of St. Luke’s all of her life. Her funeral arrangements have been in the parish office’s file for 30 years. What about her? What about her Granddaughter who finally got the guy she was living with for 6 years to marry her and have their child baptized. They both seem to be getting serious. In fact, he’s coming to the men’s Bible Study. What about them and she’s doing coffee hour? Are we being a little too flippant here, self-indulgent and hotheaded? I think the ACI and ABC has more of an eye on Mrs. Smith and her Granddaughter.
Sorry for the lack of proofreading. I guess it’s my hot head.
I remember clearly, sitting at the organ in a rather small church. The priest , was finally almost forced into sort of an explanation of what happened in NH.
He said, “it might have been untimely, and I don’t think they should have done it, BUT:
WHAT HAPPENS IN NH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US”
It was all I could do not to get up and slap him. I didn’t serve there much longer.
This is the same head in the sand thinking we are still seeing, apparently even from ++Rowan.
Believe it or not, lots of folk, priests, and even bishops still behave as if that is true.
Gloria
TEC will certainly allow more Windsor Bishops, what they won’t allow are schismatic Bishops.
Riiggghhhht. Why on God’s green earth would you think the church of marching in a Pride Parade with all the bells and whistles of public masturbation would give consent to a man Like Lawrence?
“By analogy, if the doctrine of just war allows use of deadly force when what is at stake is the lives and safety of the community (not just the individual taking up arms), what is wrong with peaceful resort to civil authority to defend the rightful ownership not of property of an individual, but of property and assets accumulated over generations by a parish and dedicated to the church’s ministry.
Because life is not property. ”
I think was dealt with by specifying “peaceful resort to civil authority”. If folks had proposed seizing their parishes and repelling the diocese and the sheriff with deadly force, you might have had a point. But nobody has, and you don’t.
Gloria, I get your point. But the following is also true:
The Body of Christ is not an abstraction. The Body of Christ is first the actual people in the pews. It is those people with all of their bad and good theology, bad and good motivations, personal and collective history and issues.
Many, many clergy in our Church are trying to help this real Body to grow by engaging in a [i]necessary[/i] process that is not hotheaded, but pastoral and truly responsive to actual souls and parish dynamics.
TEC made these people. Grownups do not abandon their children but stay and clean up the parent’s mess as best as possible.
There’s too much abstraction in our discussions. What about Mrs. Smith and her Granddaughter?
A relatively quick meeting of the Primates can stop the chaos and confusion.
When will the Primates meet?
[blockquote] +Iker will soon cease to be a Bishop in the Anglican Communion. The PB will most likely depose him. So the revisionists are not paranoid or even disturbed. However, you may be correct that a pledge of total fealty to TEC may be needed for (+)Lawrence to be confirmed. But that is the fault of bishops like +Iker and +Duncan, not of other faithful bishops [/blockquote]
LOL…faithful to [i]what??[/i] To whom is a Bishop’s primary allegiance to be? I swear, you just can’t make this stuff up. And whence comes this loyalty oath if not paranoia?
“What about Mrs. Smith and her Granddaughter?” Well it all depends upon what they believe. If they believe TEC is no longer a Christian denomination and they are aware the Diocese of Albany and St. Luke’s are inextricably connected to TEC and complicit in its agenda by virtue of their membership and financial support, then it might be safer for the salvation of their souls to be buried from and married in another denomination. If these matters are of no concern to them, then it’s probably more convenient and comfortable to remain at St. Lukes.
Subscribe.
#41. Now that’s flippant. It’s not that simple and you know it. Mrs. Smith and her granddaughter are either clueless on the points you raise are in flux about them.
And are you seriously telling us the other local pastors are in better shape? Let’s get real. It’s about Mrs. Smith and her Granddaughter — the real Mrs. Smith and her Granddaughter.
Must proof better. Forgot the “or.”
I have read the Archbishop’s letter to Bishop Howe. The problem is that conservatives little in the letter to be encouraged. One action the Archbishop can take is to right now, take back the invitations of those bishops who have announce intent to subvert the idea of not doing the feign to bless same sex unions. Also invitations to those who have allow blessing of same sex unions should be taken back.
If the Archbishop were to do this, it would go a long way in establishment of the idea that it is dioceses and not national churches. Also there are a number of bishops who have openly expressed their disobedience to the primates demand. If those bishops in willful disobedience have invitations removed, then the Archbishop may have a chance to keep the communion together. Immediate and selective removal of invitations will help establish the idea of dioceses being the core organizational unit of the Anglican church.
The Archbishop may have setup his own point of no return. If he does not remove the invitation of bishops who have already allowed the feign of same sex blessing, since NO HOB, his letter has no meaning.
What is necessary, then, is for the diocesan unit, in conjunction with other dioceses who affirm the Communion’s teaching and discipline as Windsor and the Camp Allen principles outline them, to find the place that the Network sought to provide, and to build on what the Archbishop is here underscoring.
In other words, rewind, start again, be nice to the ABC, and hopefully this time the process will work.
#43, Why are Mrs. Smith and her Granddaughter clueless about what is happening in TEC? If their priest is not teaching and preaching about these matters, then surely there are many local pastors in much better shape.
The only lens I can find to look through and make sense of what’s going on works rather like this:
Imagine you and your friends are playing Monopoly. You all know the rules, agree on the rules and have a grand time playing within the rules. Then some dude from out of town comes to visit, and you invite him to play Monopoly with you. He rolls the dice, lands on a property you own, and immediately challenges you to a dice battle for ownership of the property.
“That’s not in the rules!” you protest.
“It is in my rules!”, he smiles calmly back to you.
“But here are the rules” you insist, pull out your Official Parker Brothers Monopoly Rule book and show him.
“That rule book is silly, outdated, cruel and bigoted!” He says, pulling out a different book, which you notice says “Risk” in big letters on the front. “From now on, this is the rule book we will use to play this game, and every other game you can think of.”
Now, it’s our move. What shall we do with this fellow who wants to change the rules for everyone to suit his own view of the world? We’d better figure it out, because at the moment, he’s in charge.
KTF!….mrb
#47 One could preach about these matters every Sunday and still have 72-year-old members who don’t understand or have their investments elsewhere — like their Granddaughter. And of course, she as a product of the age is at best in flux about those issues. Which pastor would do a better job? I don’t think we’ll get Mrs. Smith, a life-long Episcopalian, to the Assemblies of God anytime soon. And then, of course, even if we did, there’s the problem of the Sacraments.
The thing I think you aren’t getting Bill is that our concerns for Anglican Communion “issues” and the pastoral care of real souls don’t much go together.
Mark (3),
Kendall (9) was too subtle. Your comment intending to discredit the ACI and their theological argument in this article seems to be based on the idea that Mark Lawrence is already a bishop. He is not a bishop yet! He is still the rector of a California parish eagerly awaiting consents, and taking care of parish business as usual.
ACI seems to be attempting a “ground zero” observation and theological analysis with as little unfounded speculation as possible. Why would ACI want to undermine their point by making such an obvious (and tactical) error?
If you don’t like what the statement says, you will have to find some other argument to make.
RGEaton
He is not a bishop yet!
Precisely.
Albany*, Hey, be careful. From my perspective, 72 isn’t that old anymore. I wouldn’t give up on Gramma Smith or discount her abilities.
#46: that’s not quite how I’d put it (I’d prefer to say, let’s go forward with some renewed common purpose and integrity of behavior), but it’s not far off: the present direction we have been going is threatening to undermine everybody’s Christian witness. I realize that there are some conservatives who seem to believe that things are going just smashingly in Africa and for those who have broken off to go under this or that foreign Primate. This is not true. There are many deep and increasingly festering challenges to Christian witness and service in these places, and the current conflicts, born of TEC’s instransigent liberal narcicissism (which has led to unfaithfulness transfigured into Samsonite suicide) and of too much blinkered reaction to it, are contributing to them. There has got to be a better way than the path we are all traveling down at present. Christian wisdom, endurance, and hope demand it.
Mark,
Your response in 51 doesn’t take away from the fact that you had made Mark a bishop in 3.
Beyond that, glad to see your comment in 18 in pointing to something else in the article with which to disagree. Still, I don’t read that the ACI is suggesting “safety” for reasserters in TECusa – in the sense of non-persecution – by affirming the primary nature of the diocese and its bishop. Certainly, the isolated congregations in non-reasserter dioceses, without some allowance for extra-diocesan alliance, will continue to be hard-pressed.
At the end of the article I was left with the impression that ACI is simply asking ACN dioceses – based on the apparently near sacred teaching of Ignatius of Antioch – to hold their horses, and reasserter parishes and clergy in dioceses with Windsor bishops to be patient, for a certain time, especially as Sept. 30 has come and gone. I’m not sure what that means in the long run for ACI. But this is the sentence:
“…it is all the more imperative for Camp Allen Bishops and their Dioceses to stand in the place the Archbishop has argued is the most secure place, whilst the evaluation of TEC is still being processed.”
If it doesn’t go well, then everybody out? Or something new in the offering? To me, that’s the part that either is unclear to ACI, OR they are just not stating what they know because it has elements of speculation in it.
RGEaton
Baby Blue wrote a [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/7056/#133023 ]good post[/url] on the letters of Howe and Williams over at SF. I excerpt a portion:
[blockquote]There is not one reference to scripture in any of these letters from my old and dear friend John, nor is there one bit of scripture referenced in Rowan’s letter either. Not even a bit. And that is simply outrageous. [/blockquote]
Made me look at the scriptures quoted in the ACI letter. They quote Paul’s condemnation of the Christian’s use of civil court. Again, I ask the question posed in my comment #16 whether they are condemning Howe and Salmon use of litigation? They quote old testament stories of political relationships of Israel with pagan nations but ignore many scriptures concerning false teachers and wisely choosing one’s companions. Finally, they quote Ps. 55:12 about a friend who grieves about a relationship lost. Certainly better than the entire lack of scripture reference in Williams’ and Howe’s letters, but these choices seem forced to me.
Fr. Eaton
There were implicit scare quotes around my reference to “Bishop Lawrence” in #3. I thought that was obvious, but it is not the first time I have failed to speak clearly. My point is really very simple. The fact that over a year after Bp. Salmon retired and Mark Lawrence was elected his successor by near acclamation we are still referring to him (properly) as Fr. Lawrence and not Bp. Lawrence is a glimpse into the future of orthodoxy in ECUSA. Bp. Iker made the same point in his speech in London on Saturday (only he managed to make himself understood). He and Bps. Schofield and Ackerman will never be replaced by orthodox bishops if the dioceses stay in ECUSA.
I do agree that this is not a problem that needs to be solved before RDW announces the conclusions of the Dar consultation, and as I said above I take encouragement from the ABC’s letter to +Howe. But being in communion with Canterbury through a Windsor diocese is not much long term comfort if the next bishop-elect will be denied consents for being Windsor compliant.
Ed
Riiggghhhht. Why on God’s green earth would you think the church of marching in a Pride Parade with all the bells and whistles of public masturbation would give consent to a man Like Lawrence?
Need to re-read my post and what I said about (+)Lawrence
I think was dealt with by specifying “peaceful resort to civil authorityâ€. If folks had proposed seizing their parishes and repelling the diocese and the sheriff with deadly force, you might have had a point. But nobody has, and you don’t.
The question asked by the poster was a comparison between just war theory and property rights. Perhaps, being Roman, the language is a bit confusing. The problem with blogs is that they are written in a type of shorthand.
Bill,
Well, my father runs rings around me — so I take your point.
I think my own point is just it’s hard in the trenches in these real pastoral relationships. Thanks.
Mark,
I missed the implicitness. My apologies for pressing the point.
RGEaton
I made a comment about Ignatius that was cryptic for a larger concern. So I’ll share that, plus one other concern.
1) I would submit there is an unresolved issue in Anglicanism that surrounds the teaching of Ignatios of Antioch.
Being aware of the renewal of such teaching by the Tractarians, and thus into common Anglo-Catholic teaching will not suffice. Someone else with top of the brain recall might fill me in with the reference to his teaching (regarding the primary place of the bishop, a diocese and the very presence of Jesus Christ), from the Reformation until the early 1900’s when global Anglicanism became quite visible.
2) At least one part of Ignatius’ teaching (and I should add John Chrysostom, as well, to that school) leads to a certain awareness that ALL of us should ALWAYS have in mind when discussing these things. Ignatius speaks of the office and person of bishop as being a visibile unity with Christ, and also points to what is OUTSIDE that relationship, that is, another world, that of the Devil. Bob Dylan’s song comes to mind to illustrate Ignatius’ teaching – you’ve gotta serve somebody. It may be the devil, or it may be the Lord (made visible in the office and person of the bishop). This is in my head without reference, but I believe attributable to Ignatius: “he who does anything without the knowledge of the Bishop is serving the Devil.”
(boy, can that be made use of these days.)
Anyway, my point would be along the same lines of focus on the “worlds” to which we are subject to influence, and in this case we must always be aware of “The World, the Flesh and the Devil.”
Find Jesus Christ the Lord.
RGEaton
Mike Bertaut
An excellent description of what the African bishops are trying to do to TEC. Also a great example of how these foreign bishops are non-Windsor compliant.
Thx BT19! I always knew I could count on you to flip things upside down for me :)!
Just goes to show, reality is almost never what we think it is. Yet another massive requirement for a Savior who can lock things down for us.
KTF!….mrb
RobRoy:
Yes, litigation on the part of bishops is not appropriate in the cases you mention either. That seems rather clear, and not just to me. And the issue isn’t “but HE started it!”. That’s about as lame a response as one can imagine in the light of Jesus’ own teaching in Matthew 5:38ff.. The call by Paul is that someone else from the Church be called in to sort this out. That has never happened. Nor have the leaders involved by proxy (e.g. Kolini in the S. Carolina case or Akinola in the Colorado Springs case) ever made an effort to engage that role with others. Their imperial disengagement from this mess has been stunning in its irresponsibility. Paul’s point is quite clear and quite relevant. It is “forced” only for those who don’t want it to apply to them. As for Scripture texts that deal with false teachers, we have no argument. The point is that the bishops to whom we have referred in our statement are NOT regarded as false teachers by any recognized authority in the Communion; their episcopate is “without impairment” as far as all the Instruments of Communion are concerned, and that includes the very Primates who are overseeing the splitting up of their dioceses or accepting without reservation those who have done so. It is not only theologically inconsistent; it is unacceptable. I will not speak for Jeff Steenson –but onmy own observation, I would say that many “conservatives” have made his life as miserable as did “liberals”. Who wouldn’t flee such a brood of vipers? On this score, David is hardly crying in his milk in Psalm 55: he is expressing the deep contradiction to covenant brought on by insistent betrayal, that cuts to the heart of God’s purpose and that brings in its wake death itself, rather than the blessing expressed in Psalm 133. This isn’t about picking out the mercenary verses necessary to good pamphleteering; it’s about the coherent character and demand of the Word of God.
Living in the tension between “what is” and “what ought to be” is a challenge, but that is where we find ourselves. For myself, I am profoundly grateful for the witness of those Bishops who are fully Windsor compliant…and that includes the ACN and Common Cause Bishops. I am impressed by the actions and commitments of CCP and look forward to being a more visible part of that. A close look at the Anglican Communion Constitution makes me realize that it is bigger than I ever dreamed and, at the same time, more narrowly defined. I think, Dr. Radner, that your hopes for the Network are primarily disappointed because it has become something grander than what you invisioned when you helped to write its charter. To want to own what we initiate is a human failing. You helped to plant, others have watered, and God is giving the Increase. God keep you ever in His care, you have given so much of yourself and it is deeply appreciared.
Dr. Radner:
There seems to be one final (earthly) appeal for these issues, which cry out for clarification and decision. Where are the Primates?
It seems to me we are currently operating in a procedural vacuum–and that only the swift conciliar decision of the Primates can prevent further erosion and damage.
To wait to Lambeth involves the potential for great fragmentation and further mischief.
Dear Frances: Do Bishops Howe, Salmon, Stanton, McPherson, Lilliebridge, Steenson (now gone), Love, et al share your enthusiastic view of Common Cause being the healthy–and indeed larger, with nice watering, etc–outgrowth of Network? I think not. SC has a lawsuit on its doorstep from a CCP affiliate. Howe has not spoken approvingly of Minns. The others have been extraordinarily courteous, as should we all be. You may of course embrace CCP and speak of it as a ‘larger’ development. There is another way to look at it however: it now *lacks* the original bishops because of the direction it has taken. That is fine. CCP has another vision of the way forward. But so too do those Network Bishops who have decided on a different path. God bless.
Dr. Radner+ & Dr. Seitz+ still have my respect for they are consistent in their words, however Bishops Howe, Salmon, Stanton, McPherson, Lilliebridge do not because when given a chance to stand in New Orleans they did not and only the Common Cause bishops have been speaking consistently. Integrity should never be treated lightly and many words after the fact do not change what shown to the world at the House of Bishops. They could have used protocol to record votes.
Rick: I agree wholeheatedly, as does ACI as whole (and not just the “four guys and a laptop”!). Many Primates (though hardly all) have themselves called for this. Including many of those from the Global South. I cannot illuminate clearly why Williams does not make (or has not yet made) their quick gathering something to which he is committed. He writes that he is carefully gathering their views regarding TEC’s response, and this has been confirmed by others. But that will not necessarily issue in the kind of counsel that (I believe) ought properly to bring clarity to this situation, and that is, frankly, called for by the very substance of the Dar es Salaam agreement. It should be said that many Primates have admitted that the past couple of meetings have been not only exhausting, but filled with painful and sometimes unChristian behavior. This is not a reason to avoid such a meeting, however. But it may be a reason why personal enthusiasms are not uniformly high for having one. And why the call for a Primates’ Meeting has been issued by many, it has not been insistently issued. It should be.
Re #63: But Dr. Radner, the ACI’s statement did not mention calling in someone else from the Church to sort it out. The statement said that if the congregation couldn’t negotiate an acceptable outcome with the diocese from which it sought to depart it should simply leave the property behind. And in saying this it did not distinguish between dioceses recognized as faithful by the wider Communion and those that are not. This is what I was attempting to get at in #31.
If, for example, you have a situation in which the parish paid for the property and has title and the diocese comes in with a claim that is unlikely to prevail, the leave-it-behind alternative could at least in some circumstances be bad stewardship (and perhaps even a breach of duties under state law).
But if this what you believe is required, why stop at the diocese? What if the time comes for a separation between constituent elements and others such as envisioned in Challenge and Hope (June 2006) and TEC makes a claim based on its generalized “polity” argument and the Dennis canon? Must the diocese and the parishes then leave it behind?
I cannot avoid noticing the remarkable similarity of the ABC’s actions and situation as head of the Anglican Communion to those of Mr. Gorbachev some two decades ago. By his very machinations to save “it” in its familiar-but-disintegrating form he has all but guaranteed he will be remembered the one who oversaw its demise.
Oh, but wait.
Do my eyes deceive me?
Is Brian from T19 backing down from his bold and confident prediction [prior to Mark Lawrence’s *first* failure to receive consents] that Mark Lawrence would receive the necessary consents? Is there a chink in Brian’s public assertions of confidence?
Because this is what Brian says: “However, you may be correct that a pledge of total fealty to TEC may be needed for (+)Lawrence to be confirmed. But that is the fault of bishops like +Iker and +Duncan, not of other faithful bishops . . . ”
Hmmm. Sort of pulling back there, it seems to me.
; > )
Dr. Radner, thanks for the answer. I can imagine why the primates are gun-shy, after all that has transpired. The upside of a meeting is that a solid response may at least abate their own trevails, and frankly may bring about a decision to the current impasse.
If no action is commenced by Christmas, I see the situation becoming increasingly perilous, with more and more congregations and individuals losing patience.
I echo Sarah’s sentiment that +++Williams has undermined himself by his previous words and actions to the point that it is hard to understand, much less trust, his reassuring words in the letter to ++Howe. By inviting the TEC bishops that ordained Gene Robinson to Lambeth, by not promoting the Dar efforts to provide alternate oversight for orthodox TEC bishops, and by remaining neutral (perhaps) on the recent JSC Report on NO, which, in effect, gives TEC a free pass, Williams has disqualified himself as a reliable source of encouragement and support for American orthodox, in and outside TEC.
Mike:
You are right. ACI did not explicitly mention this. St. Paul, however, does. In speaking of “negotiating” we assumed St. Paul’s directive. We probably should not have, and should have said it outright. Consider this a correction, therefore.
Paul himself does not make the distinction between “faithful” and “less faithful” or even “unfaithful” members of the congregation in his discussion of lawsuits. Does he assume that those engaging in lawsuits among themselves are all the “faithful”? Frankly, I doubt it: the whole letter (and the next) is written to a church filled with disorder, factions, immorality, people running after false teachers (“pseudo-apostles”) and so on. If, in fact, a congregation is under a bishop who is in impaired communion with the rest of the Communion, I am not convinced that makes any difference to the scope of Paul’s directive, as if it’s okay to have lawsuits over church property and money as long as one believes the bishop involved is not faithful. Would we really want to say that it’s NOT okay for Anglicans to sue members of Camp Allen and Common Cause (because they are “faithful”), but it IS okay to sue Congregationalists and Unitarians?
You raise the interesting question of whether a FAILURE to sue for continued possession of the property could result in a “breach” of the law (presumably some kind of fiduciary responsibility). I have heard that some bishops have had this hanging over their head. And Bob Duncan has, it seems, been sued on just such terms by some of his flock. I confess to being utterly perplexed by this. It appears that the civil law will “force” me to engage in unChristian acts. Well, it wouldn’t be the first time. At this point, I suppose, some real matters of conscience and obedience will need to be dealt with. And we have many predecessors upon whose example we might dwell.
Is “leaving behind” the property to the diocese “bad stewardship”? And therefore “good stewardship” demands engaging in a civil lawsuit? We have movies — Erin Brockovich, A Civil Action, and so on — that have, from a secular perspective, underlined the moral heroism of engaging in certain lawsuits. Perhaps these are equivalent from a Christian side? But the question doesn’t come up in Matthew 5, for instance. Why not? I hear it all the time, when it comes to giving money to panhandlers: “they’ll drink it away”, “it’s a waste”. Why doesn’t Jesus address this problem when he says we are to “give to whoever begs”? I hope we would not rely on arguments like “beggers in 1st century Palestine were culturally different from those in 21st century North America”! Let’s put it this way: the argument from “stewardship” would need to be argued in an overwhelming fashion from Scripture for me to see it as determinative and defining of the clear and simple speech of Matthew 5, among other texts.
Your final argument has to do with dioceses. This one is, obviously, hypothetical (although, again with the case of Pittsburgh, not as much as it might have been 5 years ago). I am told that Bob Duncan is paying out $40,000 per month on legal fees. The Diocese of Colorado has spent perhaps up to $1 million in its pursuit of Don Armstrong and the parish property, and Armstrong the Grace Church have spent some kind of proportionate amount. It would be far more than than any of this, presumably, if this goes national. Where does all this money come from, on all sides? What shall we say of the stewardship involved in this? Indeed, “why stop at the diocese”?
When Dr. Williams backs up these words with actions and when the “Camp Allen bishops” actually lead instead of weakly folding the way they did in New Orleans(where was the minority report? Where was anything strongert than “It was the best we could do”), then and only then will I be impressed by the Archbishop’s words and by calls to remain attached to the rotting carcass that is TEC.
As it stands now, Dr. Williams’ words are far too little and far too late. And to describe what the “Camp Allen bishops” have displayed so far as “leadership” is a sick joke. Indeed, it’s entirely likely that many of these parishes are taking the step of finding themselves African bishops because the “leadership” of the “Camp Allen bishops” has been so unutterably abysmal. The mere fact that someone has a pointy hat and a hooked stick and has declared himself and his diocese in compliance with the Windsor Report is no longer enough. Show me, don’t just tell me.
There are a number of things I do not understand. For example, it was said;
[blockquote]Let us be clear as to the moral stakes involved in this matter. Those who seek to undercut the authority of bishops who have been recognized by the Communion without impairment and who have confessed the faith openly and in the face of the Gospel’s detractors are in danger:
a. of going against the clear teaching of the Scriptures;
b. of dividing, deliberately or not, the Body of Christ;
c. of inadvertently drawing Primates, their churches, and many others into conflicts not of their making, thereby pitting one against the other and sowing the seeds of discord;
d. of proving distracted stewards of the gifts and resources entrusted them;
In addition, those who encourage these activities, whether within the United States or elsewhere, are furthering a work whose character is placing a question mark over the Christian witness worldwide.[/blockquote]
Yet I fail to see how the same thing could not be said to those who actively encourage Anglicanism at the expense of Roman Catholicism. I am not an Anglo-Catholic; I merely point out the dissonance for an Anglican to make so much about undercutting the authority of duly appointed bishops. They would not be Anglicans but for those who did so. I do not mean to be smart, but you must at least recognize that similar things could have been said to Cranmer. I also realize that the ACI qualifies it by referring to those who confess the faith openly, etc., but Bruno or Chane would say that he meets the criteria, and I have not seen the ACI say that their admonition does not apply in those diocese.
The ACI has been consistent when it answers the question of what the orthodox can do when they have a revisionist bishop, and that is to be vocal but do nothing, or to leave TEC. Therefore, I don’t think the ACI should be so angry when some choose to leave TEC and put themselves under another Anglican bishop. Now one can debate the question of lawsuits, stewardship and so forth. It is not an easy question. I don’t think anyone is easy with the answers. But really, I don’t think lawsuits are the reason the Anglican Communion is in crisis. They are but a symptom.
Anyway, when folks are under pressure – and it does not help to ignore it – and leave, maybe instead of complaining about it, the ACI should spend more time decrying the developments in Anglicanism that have lead to it – the failure of the panel of reference, the failure of adequate alternative oversight, the failure of the PV/PC scheme of DES; the list could go on for some time. I certainly do think the ACI has failed to do what it could to help the orthodox have a place in TEC where it could stay for a while, which would have accomplished much more to keep the orthodox in the communion than telling departing ECUSANs that their souls are in danger for undercutting their bishop. (Perhaps I am still a little sensitive since I was one time similarly told I was going to hell by a revisionist for redirecting my tithe away from the liberal parish I was in to orthodox causes.) From where I stand, it looks to me like it was all done at the last resort, when protection after protection failed, and stand after stand was defeated. Sometimes I get the feeling that the ACI would be happier if all those departing ECUSA become Presbyterians instead of CANA and AMiA, but I fail to see how that would help reform the Anglican Communion. The ACI should cut them some slack. They are doing the best they can, as are we all.
Dear Dr. Seitz,
Perhaps the cause of the Gospel would be better served if ALL the Windsor compliant Bishops could forget their differences and pull together in mutual support. Seems to me that is what is called for at this time. I still have great hopes for the future of The Church and no fear that it may not greatly resemble what we are familiar with as TEC or the Anglican Communion. God bless. Frances
I am beginning to think that the ACI is a large part of the problem.
Are there any actual “Windsor” bishops in TEC today outside of the now forming CCP? How many of these “Windsor” bishops opposed the HOB statement in NO? Answer: NONE! The statement appears to have been unanimous and unopposed except for Bennison. How anyone can think that the late, lamented, and completely silent “Camp Allen” and “Windsor” bishops will be capable of leading the orthodox in TEC is amazing to me… They had a chance to lead in NO with Iker, Duncan et al out of the picture. They collapsed without a whimper. While they may be “Windsor compliant” in their own dioceses they appear incapable of challenging the majority revisionists in the HOB.
While I do not always agree with ACI’s most able writers, I do invariably read what they write, print it out, share it with my husband, read it over and over to make sure I really understand it, and file it away for future reference. I am very pleased that Radner, Seitz, et.al., stick aroud and reply to commenters. They engage us where we are, and if we are confused, they will even explain in plain english what they mean. Good, really good, teachers do that! God bless them all!
I have been in clinic all day so I am just getting to #63.
Thanks Ephraim, most definitely agree the verses from Paul is relevant and not forced. Paul wrote, “If any of you has a dispute with another, [b]dare he take it[/b] before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?” So Paul’s premise is [i]taking[/i] not [i]being taken[/i] to the courts, but of course Paul’s reason for the injunction is to avoid bringing the church to shame in the eyes of the world. This certainly needs to taken into account but so does allowing property to fall to the hands of a profligate organization. I can’t speak for any of the churches that have chosen to defend themselves in court, but it seems that most understood this dilemma. Yes, arbitration would be wonderful. The other day, I did ask whether ABp Drexel-Gomez could mediate in Central Florida because of his longstanding ties to that diocese and universal respect.
The verses that I felt was forced was the old testament examples of the diplomatic relations of Israel with pagan nations as a model for intra-ecclesiastical relationships. Perhaps, the best verse is “do not yoke yourself to an unbeliever.” I said specifically that Bp Howe was not a false teacher in #16 but that I disagree with his fraternization with the many false teachers of the TEC, e.g., Bp Bruno whose vulgar prevarications that were made wonderfully manifest at the concluding press conference. You, yourself, called for alternate GCC at one point. In hindsight (and your foresight) it would have been better for all the Camp Allen bishops to have stayed home than to suffer the ignominious defeat that they did in New Orleans, lending themselves to the seeming stamp of near unanimity to the sham of the HoB “Response.”
Anyway, I hope that you are well. Annette will be baptizing Caleb on All Saints day, and we just were approved for the adoption of a precious little girl from China.
[blockquote]But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope.[/blockquote]
Dear Frances–there are matters both of substance and principle that divide them. Apart from that, yes, it would be good if all Windsor compliant bishops (your term) pulled together. It is just that it could be equally said, pull together according to the principles of the group X rather than group Y, and that is precisely what is at issue. The Bishops mentioned do not accept the principles of CCP and so have stood aside. The CCP movement has equally not accepted the principles of the Bishops mentioned. And there we are.
The end of the last note dropped off. Frances: thank you for your kind remark and for your own witness. We at least know what we are praying for.
Firstly, I just found out that Nina Meyers of ’24’ fame, is in real life Sarah Clark who was in my youth group at St. Michael and St. George in St. Louis…so I’m pretty excited about that.
Secondly, Grace Church & St. Stephen’s will have some big news tomorrow…
Thirdly, I think ACI is trying to put in parity dioceses with faithful bishops and parishes with unfaithful bishops.
ACI has a one size fits all proposal, which is basically a maladaptive plan to the ever changing circumstances…
But for those of us living in the real world, we are talking about a small percentage of dioceses in which it would be pleasant to exist, and by comparison a huge number of parishes living in oppressive circumstances with repressive bishops.
This is a reality that Rowan and the searching for a new identity ACI do not have on their radar screen.
Rowan has tried to change the subject, blaming the Florida Nine for the currently difficult situation–when in fact the problem is of his own making and the Florida Nine are merely left to be reactive to what Rowan himself has wrought in the Communion by his own lack of decisive leadership.
#85,
You’re an SMSGer?! And Nina Meyers was there too?! Cool. I grew up at Emmanuel in Webster Groves. From about six months after my entrance into this world until 2003. Which, of course, means that I’m a whole lot older than you. 😉
Oh, but wait.
Do my eyes deceive me?
Is Brian from T19 backing down from his bold and confident prediction [prior to Mark Lawrence’s *first* failure to receive consents] that Mark Lawrence would receive the necessary consents? Is there a chink in Brian’s public assertions of confidence?
Because this is what Brian says: “However, you may be correct that a pledge of total fealty to TEC may be needed for (+)Lawrence to be confirmed. But that is the fault of bishops like +Iker and +Duncan, not of other faithful bishops . . . “
Hmmm. Sort of pulling back there, it seems to me.
; > )
Your eyes are fine, but your analysis is off.
In the first election, (+)Lawrence did in fact receive the needed consents, they were simply not in the correct form. So I was correct that he would receive the necessary consents.
After the election was voided, I said that I hoped the Diocese of South Carolina would quickly re-elect Lawrence+ and send out instructions seeking a rapid consent. I had hoped they would have the consents in in a week’s time.
Now, during the excruciatingly long consent period (which I have no idea when it ends), we have some intervening events. Rogue bishops such as +Iker and +Duncan not only say they may try to take their Dioceses, but actually implement a process to attempt just that.
Now faithful Episcopalians have to wonder: “Before (+)Lawrence was simply predisposed to schism, now he is predisposed and a ‘road map’ has been drawn out for him and other schismatics.” This will most likely (although not definitely) cause those who were hesitant but willing to give (+)Lawrence a chance to change their vote to no.
I can’t be responsible for the renegades;)
Having powerfully made the case that TEC is outside the pale of orthodoxy, ACI is now arguing that orthodox Christians would be risking their soul to leave. Having asked the Primates to take disciplinary action toward TEC, ACI is now arguing that the very actions taken by a group of primates in response to the call are inappropriate. One must ask if there is any circumstance that would lead ACI to support the idea of orthodox Christians exiting the TEC structure. Where is ACI’s line in the sand? Is it the ABC’s judgment? If so, what does that say about ACI’s concept of authority? If the present circumstances do not justify the exit of the orthodox, then they certainly would not justify the breakup of the communion. If ACI believes that to be the case, they have done a grave disservice to the Anglican Communion.
I believe the sins of the TEC are of a communion breaking importance. I applaud the ACI for their work in putting the issues in writing. I am disappointed that their actions do not support the passion of their words.
RE: “In the first election, (+)Lawrence did in fact receive the needed consents, they were simply not in the correct form. So I was correct that he would receive the necessary consents.”
LOL.
So, if you, for instance, in a desperate attempt to make your first prediction come true had simply scrawled your name across a piece of paper and written “I Brian from T19 consent to Bishop Mark Lawrence’s election” some 95 times, that would have been “receiving the needed consents”?
Sorry Brian. The election was declared “null and void” because in fact Lawrence did NOT receive the necessary “consents” because . . . to be counted as “consents” they must be in the proper form and order. They were not. Can’t have it both ways. Either the declaration of the PB is correct . . . or it is not.
RE: “Rogue bishops such as +Iker and +Duncan not only say they may try to take their Dioceses, but actually implement a process to attempt just that.”
Ah yes — it’s all the INCREDIBLE, and SHOCKING, and TOTALLY UNEXPECTED, and HITHERTO UNLOOKED-FOR actions taken in the months between the first failed consent process and the second that will cause Lawrence to fail, huh? I think you should have accounted for that in your first prediction!
I smell equivocation. I smell hesitancy. I smell a struggle to discern a graceful, yet subtle way out. I smell fear. ; > )
Sorry Brian. The election was declared “null and void†because in fact Lawrence did NOT receive the necessary “consents†because . . . to be counted as “consents†they must be in the proper form and order.
Seriously Sarah? I know it must be that it is a bit late and you are feeling tired. So in case you are still sleepy tomorrow: Your argument is that those who actually consented but did not use the proper form and order were somehow trying to trick us? It was a mean-spirited game where they colluded to dupe the conservatives? A vast left-wing conspiracy?
They were not. Can’t have it both ways. Either the declaration of the PB is correct . . . or it is not.
You, of course, know that it can be both ways. That a person can receive enough votes but not have them counted due to a technicality.
I think you should have accounted for that in your first prediction!
I smell equivocation. I smell hesitancy. I smell a struggle to discern a graceful, yet subtle way out. I smell fear. ; > )
I’ll admit that I should have seen it from +Duncan, but I really didn’t expect +Iker to be this unethical. As for your olfactory senses, they are a bit off. I have admitted several times over the years when I have been wrong and have unequivocally apologized to some folks. The reason is that unlike those who do their machinations in the dark, I have no fear of the light. How many reasserting bishops can you say that about?
Not at all saying that those who did not submit the consents in the proper form and order were trying to “trick” anybody. Simply that Lawrence did not receive the necessary consents, as “consents” actually have to be in the proper form and order, and cannot just be “named” consents when they are not.
Sincerity and good intentions really don’t count in a voting situation. One can be sincerely wrong
RE: “How many reasserting bishops can you say that about?
All the Network bishops, Brian! ; > )
They have press-released and web-sited incessantly. Nobody should be at all surprised by Iker’s responses and actions. Indeed he has probably stated MORE than any other Network bishop what his intentions were and are, over the past four years. You can trace them back all the way to the close of GC 2003.
No . . . you and others just didn’t expect him to keep his word.
And of course, as the ABC has demonstrated so beautifully in his latest missive, it is not at all unethical for dioceses to make decisions about submission to another province of the Anglican Communion. In fact, I would say that it is more ethical for a diocese to legally and carefully assent to membership in another province, then it is for parishes to depart.
But . . . we’ll see what the courts say over the coming 10 years!
[i] Duplicate comment from this thread. [/i]
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/7050
Re #90:
“I have no fear of the light.”
Well, some, or you could drop the pseudonym.
In light of the “clarification” by the ACO of the letter the ABC (which guts the letter of any meaningful ramifications) and in the words of Emily Lutella of Saturday Night Live fame…Never Mind.
I thank God that, in the long Arian crisis of the Fourth Century, there was no “Imperial Communion Institute” that could have tut-tutted (although to “tut-tut” as a response to heresy is so quintessentially Anglican a gesture that such an earlier response would have been impossible) at Athanasius, Eusebius of Samosata and all of the other orthodox bishops that “intruded” into the dioceses or heretics; or who could have “deplored” (another copyrighted Anglican response) the intrusion of Gregory of Nazianzus into Constantinople in 378 as its orthodox “missionary bishop” in the face of its “canonical” bishop, the Arian Demophilus, who had the allegiance of the great majority of the city’s clergy and laity, as well as the possession of all its churches. As to the ACI, it is not so much that these folk are frauds or witting deceivers, but that as espousers of an Anglican ecclesiology whose one essential trait in history had been its supine Erastianism in the face of either Crown or (latterly) bien-pensant public opinion, and trying with such “bricks without straw” to fashion a “Catholic response” to the dilemma in which they find themselves, they are engaged in the proverbial hopeless task of making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear — in exactly the same way that their liberal counterparts have been trying so long to make “priests” out of women, “marriage” our of sexual perversion and a “Presiding Bishop” out of a failed oceanographer.
Hmm. One paragraph with two sentences of approximately 120 words each. Good luck.