At 5:15 p.m. I was reading the House of Bishops and Deputies List ”“ a list-serv for members of those two General Convention houses ”“ when I came across a copy of a letter dated October 14, 2007 from Williams to Bishop John Howe of the conservative Episcopal Diocese of Central Florida. This letter was read to the Standing Committee of that diocese last Thursday (October 18), and released this afternoon.
The letter was staggering in its misunderstanding of the polity of the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church and shockingly naive in its understanding of where most Episcopalians stand with regard to any interference in our own affairs by foreign Prelates.
Perhaps more significantly, though, it is the betrayal of beliefs that Williams held dear for so long ”“ right up, in fact, to the point where he became Archbishop of Canterbury, when ”“ he says ”“ unity became his ministry.
It is now clear that Williams is willing to abandon any individual and even whole Provinces of the Anglican Communion in the cause of “unity”.
I say “unity” in inverted commas because it is not really unity at all, but the bowing of a misguided, naive, and incompetent leader to what one person has described as the “Bullydox” of the Communion: those very narrow “Neo-Puritan” conservatives who wish to reinterpret Anglicanism to be something that is not the “large tent” we are all so familiar with but a prison wherein they alone guard and define what is “acceptable” for others to believe.
It is also clear that, having squeezed our House of Bishops in such a way that a significant part of our own Province has expressed outrage at their apparent abandonment by their own bishops, the Archbishop of Canterbury has pulled the rug from under our Bishops’ feet and invited acts of disobedience by dissidents in any Province of the Communion who disagree with any internal issue of that Province.
In so doing the Archbishop of Canterbury has opened a Pandora’s Box of problems that will almost certainly destroy the Anglican Communion as we know it.
Boy, they can get whiny and hyperbolic when they think they’re losing, can’t they?
Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
To Chris Molter: If you think that the letter represents “winning”, see the analysis by Dr. Noll [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/7037/#132827 ]here[/url]. But it is good to see that both sides of the argument are unhappy with the latest attempted manipulation by the ABC. As I have said before, political machinations do not engender trust in a religious leader.
Compare: Archbishop Orombi – straightshooter, says what he means and does what he says, and people trust him. Archbishop Williams – undermines DeS in actions while voicing support for it with words and people distrust him.
Call it: Pandora Projection.
#2-but can the foot reject the body and survive?
[blockquote]In so doing the Archbishop of Canterbury has opened a Pandora’s Box of problems that will almost certainly destroy the Anglican Communion as we know it.[/blockquote]
In reality, it is the “progressives” that have destroyed the Anglican Communion as we know it. The teaching of the communion was articulated in Lambeth 1.10 and TECUSA refused to listen. General Convention spoke on it in 1979 and we refused to listen. The HoB Theology Committee itself said that a legisative approach was not the answer and we refused to listen. The ACC and the Primates begged us not to do this and we refused to listen. The ABC asked us not to move ahead on blessing same sex unions or ordaining practicing homosexuals and we refused to listen. The Primates said that consecrating V. Gene Robinson as a bishop would “tear the fabric of the communion at its deepest levels” and we refused to listen.
Again and again this issue was answered by the Communion and TECUSA itself, but we refused to listen. TECUSA has sown anarchy and antinomialism and we are reaping what they have sown.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
An interesting take on what has happened it seems both sides are unhappy with what has been happening.
The idea, that the Diocese is the main element. Interestingly we have confirmed this at our diocesan synod two weeks ago when we removed our consent to a particular canon of the national church. What a diocese has assented to, it can also remove consent to.
Jon R
I am continually surprised to learn that there are people who think that “the Anglican Communion as we know it” is still whole.
It’s “…the end of the Anglican Communion as we know it…”
([url=http://tinyurl.com/2l8jqw]and I feel fine[/url]).
[i]ECUSA has sown anarchy and antinomialism [/i] …
Antinomialism — inverting the law — even to the point of affirming and elevating those who chose to direct their sexual energy not into the organ of life, but into that of death, decay, and elimination.
Such an approach is unfortunate enough at the level of an individual. When, however, an entire “church” follows that path, with evident enthusiasm, it is, truly, tragic. Functional Ba’alists they are, hiding behind ‘process’ and ‘polity’ and ‘inclusiveness’. Baby Boomers, in charge, with no vision beyond personal power and the next orgasm.
American imperialism at its very worst.
Fr Taber-Hamilton describes the reasserters in these terms:
those very narrow “Neo-Puritan†conservatives who wish to reinterpret Anglicanism to be … a prison wherein they alone guard and define what is “acceptable†for others to believe.
I will leave aside the abuse of language in the phrase “neo-Puritan” and the mischaracterization of Anglican conservatives as “narrow” and only point out that Fr Taber-Hamilton seems to think that the issue is that conservatives want to control what others believe. It seems that for some progressives it really is all about power; not about what the Truth actually is, but about who gets to control what “Truth” is said to be. But in reality, reasserters have no interest in controlling what the Truth is; rather, they wish to recognize what the Truth is, and be loyal to it.
Perhaps Fr Taber-Hamilton does not realize that, while the truths of Christianity are apprehended by faith rather than by sight, they are nevertheless realities no less objective than the facts perceived by our senses. Therefore, Christian orthodoxy is what it is, not whatever those in power manipulate it to be. Reasserters understand that, which is why they have something objective to “re-assert.” Reappraisers, on the other hand, appear to believe that orthodoxy may change to be what they “re-appraise” it to be.
Anglacanism sought to be a middle way between Catholicism and Protestantism. It was never a middle way between belief and non-belief and while it may have allowed a range between certain theologies it never ascribed to a “believe anything you want” mentality.
#5. If the foot is gangrenous it damn well better be cast off or the Body won’t survive.
I think Abp Rowan can try to push for a more “catholic” ecclesiology where the diocese and the Bishop are the primary unit of constituency in the Anglican Communion instead of the national church body, however, the elephant in the room is still, and always has been, the problem of discipline. If Canterbury can’t discipline a wayward province (or provinces), then how can it discipline a Bishop and diocese who’ve gone off the rails? How would the Anglican Communion declare a diocese “out of communion” with the whole?
Right now we have provinces in “impared” or “broken” communion with some other provinces, but there isn’t a sense of consistency there either, since even those provinces who’ve declared “impaired” communion are still in communion with Canterbury (who is in full communion with TEC, etc). It’s a big mess, and without having disciplinary authority (and USING it), moving from a province based model to a diocese based model will only contribute to further Balkanization.
#15…It sounds more eastern orthodox than western catholic.
From observation I gather that fideism is alive and well among many, if not most, conservative Anglicans. If we could be ‘certain’ (in the epistemic sense, not the psychological sense) of what was true, we would have far less disunity. No one that I have heard from has been able to justify their belief that truth is manifest and therefore those who disagree are simply living a lie. But even without this justification many want the progressives (who should be just as uncertain about their truth claims) to believe the same way they do without any rational justification. To put ‘sanctions’ on progressives because they hold different hypotheses is immoral.
However, this doesn’t mean that various progressive hypotheses shouldn’t be critiqued vigorously, they should. Just as the various conservative hypotheses should also be critiqued vigorously.
Truth may not be manifest, but it is important to strive and move toward it.
I agree wholeheartedly with #7, Frfiddle. ++Rowan’s letter was one more kick of the can, another handful of sand in the eyes to stall for time in the hopes that this all will blow over. Unfortunately, the ABC’s dithering has allowed apostasy and heresy to garner a rather large constituency by now, and this conflict will not simply disappear.
Worry not, revisionists, for ++Rowan’s non-strategy will only cause those with Godly principles to recuse themselves from the corrupted and debauched portion of the church. Your place in it is secure.
Rev. Taber opens his blog post thusly:
[blockquote] At 5:15 p.m. on Sunday, October 27 any respect I have been able to maintain for Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, and any hope for the survival of the Anglican Communion as we currently know it, died. [/blockquote]
The Anglican Communion [i]as we currently know it[/i]–that is, tolerating and even uplifting post-Christian beliefs and practices–is already broken and dying.
From today’s lectionary reading:
[blockquote] When you put a seed into the ground, it doesn’t grow into a plant unliess it dies first. And what you put into the ground is not the plant that will grow, but only a bare seed of wheat or whatever you are planting. Then God gives it the new body he wants it to have. (1 Corinthians 36b-38a, NLT) [/blockquote]
The old Anglican Communion with its parasitic post-Christian adherents must die so that the seed of faith may grow into what God would have it to be.
Subscribe.
I love it when someone such as Taber-Hamilton gets down in the mud and starts flinging it.
“Neo-Puritans?” I’m orthodox to beat the band, however, my Catholic roots would never embrace the likes of this sort of label. I guess if someone like Nigel has to fling the mud (derogatory labels) when he has nothing substantive to say.
“Bullydoxy?” Let me be clear that for years I have been berated, maligned and marginalized by a number of progressives in the Church. Have you ever experienced being an orthodox Episcopalian at a Provincial Conference? Not good, so I don’t attend anymore.
Thus far, I have yet to reciprocate with the kind of abuse I’ve experienced at the hands of some very intolerant people. So, let’s be honest here, just who are the real bullies in TEC? It’s certainly not the powerless minority of the Episcopal Church, regardless of what someone like Nigel would have you believe. Looking for bullies? Look no further than those who have boldly proclaimed themselves to be “The Episcopal Majority.” They possess the power to act as bullies.
“The letter was staggering in its misunderstanding of the polity of the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church. . .” Nigel is seemingly ignorant of (or ignoring) the fact that “The Protestant Episcopal Church” was formed as a loose confederation of dioceses . . . nothing more – nothing less. The dominant National Church rhetoric we’re being fed (A General Convention Church vs. a true Episcopal Church) is actually a fairly recent construct.
Tell me, has anyone ever seen 815 sued for the sexual misconduct of a parish priest in a local setting? No! It is the Diocese that is held responsible in the court of law and it’s the Diocese who ends up paying any judgements, not TEC. Of course, clergy pay schedules, health benefits, placements are all handled at the diocesan level as well, while TEC has no direct input, power or obligation. Nigel needs to open his eyes to the fact that “the diocese and its bishop constitute the core Church unit,” as affirmed by the ABC.
“. . . invited acts of disobedience by dissidents in any Province of the Communion who disagree with any internal issue of that Province.” Very well, Nigel, but what if the “disagreement” is centered on the core beliefs of the Christian faith? By example, attacking the authority of Holy Scripture, which is clearly foundational where our Church’s faith is concerned, is not merely “disagreeing with any internal issue of that Province.”
The rantings of the likes of Nigel Taber-Hamilton remind me of the time a lady backed out of a parking space and into the front of my car. She immediately jumped out and started yelling at the top of her lungs that it was me who had run into her car. Fortunately, a host of witnesses were present to provide the truth to the police, but darn if that lady would take responsibility for what she had done. In her mind, everyone else was wrong in their perception and needed to have someone redefine for them what had actually occurred. Sound familiar?
Why do people use hyphenated surnames?
What does “bullydoxy” really mean?
I think Nigel is too taken with the idea of “polity.”
The question we ought to consider seriously is why shouldn’t “the Anglican Communion as we have known it” be “destroyed”? It is at best an ersatz “Communion” – though individual primates claim to speak authoritatively, the “Communion” has no authority, and the resident Bishop of the See of Canterbury can’t even bring himself to claim a “moral authority” as a teacher in the “Communion”. What purpose does the “Communion” service as a “Communion” – what good does it do (besides supporting the trendy enthusiasms of the Anglican “Consultative Council”?
I’ve been saying — for reasons I’ve presented in apparently insufficient detail over on SF — that this letter is the best possible news for the orthodox, short of the final (coming) decision to in effect expel TEC from the Communion. Whatever the faults of the ABC’s letter, though, and however one interprets it, anything that elicits this sort of outraged whining from the revisionists can’t be all bad…
He’s probably helped us orthodox in ways that he didn’t imagine, or did he perhaps subtly intend to do this all along……but wasn’t sure of how to do it?
“Anything that elicits this sort of outraged whining from the revisionists can’t be all bad” —Craig Goodrich
Unless such protests (plus the threats from the Scottish and Welsh churchlets) were to help convince Abp. Williams that his dithering represents a sound middle course.
“Why do people use hyphenated surnames?” —Rob-Roy
I don’t know the details of traditional English practice. But it was one way to perpetuate a family name that might otherwise have become extinct. In some cases inheritances were even made contingent on a name-change. More recently, of course, hyphenated surnames may reflect feminist concerns that simply adopting the husband’s last name enshrines inequality between the sexes.
Susan Russell calls this post “Brilliant”.
’nuff said.
To Irenaeus #27: RoyIII is not the same as robroy. I had trouble logging in for a while with the switch to the new T19. I figured it out and now (as you see) have lost the hyphen. Also, please note the humble all lower case (I am the most humble person that you have ever met!)
Back to the matter at hand. We have seen on many occasions where the heterodox get handed a precious pearl and the wailing and moaning ensues. Thus, I don’t think one can draw any conclusions from the (affected sounding) Nigel Taber-Hamilton.
The Anglican Communion as we know it is in crisis. Since the writer won’t address this, how can we expect him to come to any sort of reasonable conclusion. The AC is a mess, it has been made a bigger mess by the power-hungry liberals in pecusa who will not listen to anything except what is in their own echo chamber. Bullydoxy? As #20 aptly points out the bullydoxy has been from the heterodox side for many years.
RobRoy [#29]: I consider you a capital guy. But I was just tweaking you with the hyphen.
29. robroy wrote: (I am the most humble person that you have ever met!)
I for one can appreciate someone who is proud of their humility.
I noticed the Rev. wife’s church website mentioned;
“Resolution #7 – Recognizing a Faithful Remnant* in Oak Harbor as St Stephen Episcopal Church, Oak Harbor”
Does this denote a previous division at St. Stephen’s and could it have colored Rev. Nigels’ prose?
“In so doing the Archbishop of Canterbury has opened a Pandora’s Box of problems that will almost certainly destroy the Anglican Communion as we know it.”
This is indicative of the entire thought process of this blog…there is no other appropriate response than to laugh.
Virgil in Tacoma wrote:
[blockquote]To put ‘sanctions’ on progressives because they hold different hypotheses is immoral. [/blockquote]
On the other hand, surely, to put ‘sanctions’ on conservatives because they hold different hypotheses is also immoral.
To date, in The General Convention Church, the only sanctions being put on anyone are sanctions on conservatives who are denied conservative bishop they elect, whose clergy are arbitrarily inhibited, whose vestries are summarily dismissed, etc., etc., etc.
As Bishop Iker told Forward in Faith – North America, there is no future for orthodox, catholic Christians in The General Convention Church. We are being systematically marginalized and excluded.
All in a dither because the American Imperialists ECUSA/TEC and fellow travelers have been (possibly) told they are being naughty and must conform to true Anglicanism rather than their yankee-fied version. Most entertaining.
The BULLYprogs call it “listening” when they force their agenda on the entire Anglican Communion and cry “foul” when the push-back says “Behave”. The BULLY pulpiteers overreached and found that there are vast numbers of others in the world besides themselves, and other agendas than their own. Now we get to have hissy fits in print. Amusingly, they employ the same “reasoning” and imposition of American “polity” which has been rejected as gospel along with the gay agenda, and they whine vociferously that no one is buying their faulty wares.
Oh the angst and the agony!
“Neo-Puritan” – a term I use to describe folks who want me to do what I don’t want to do. “Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori and the majority at the General Conventions of 2003 and 2006 are Neo-Puritans. They want me to approve same-sex sex and other things that the Bible condemns.”
Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC
“Again and again this issue was answered by the Communion and TECUSA itself, but we refused to listen. TECUSA has sown anarchy and antinomialism and we are reaping what they have sown.”
If there is any silver lining at all in the ‘ECUSA crisis’, it is that identical or similar crises in other provinces have been ‘outed’, such as the CofE, New Zealand, and others. Falsehoods, lack of honesty and integrity can no longer be ignored or covered up but must face the light of day.
Tom: NMPNCs, that’s us to them.
(Narrow-Minded Puritan Neo-Conservatives)
I dunno, people. Maybe it’s parochialism, but I could never trust British guys with hyphenated last names. Larry Hayseed-Morse
I should also add that I have a profound dislike for people use “Puritan” in the most pejorative sense, as if being a Puritan was the ne plus ultra of a vicious narrowness, prudery, fanaticism, and overwhelming ignorance. Larry
I have been sitting here in Maryland worrying about what I am to do given that we are, shall we say, tilting to the left here. The genius of +++Rowan’s move is the absolute stress it puts on bishops to take responsibility for their own actions. I am worried…but part of me loves this!
A response from Lambeth offices to the discussions around the Bishop Howe
emails:
“It should be understood that the Archbishop’s response to Bishop Howe was
neither a new policy statement nor a roadmap for the future but a plain
response to a very urgent and particular question about clergy in
traditionalist dioceses in TEC who want to leave TEC for other
jurisdictions, a response reiterating a basic presupposition of what the
Archbishop believes to be the theology of the Church.
The primary point was that – theologically and sacramentally speaking – a
priest is related in the first place to his/her bishop directly, not through
the structure of the national church; that structure serves the dioceses.
The diocese is more than a ‘local branch’ of a national organisation. Dr
Williams is clear that, whatever the frustration with the national church,
priests should think very carefully about leaving the fellowship of a
diocese. The provincial structure is significant, not least for the
administration of a uniform canon law and a range of practical functions; Dr
Williams is not encouraging anyone to ignore this, simply to understand the
theological priorities which have been articulated in a number of ecumenical
agreements, and in the light of this not to increase the level of confusion
and fragmentation in the church.”
http://tinyurl.com/2o27fv