“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.”
Update: A Living Church article is here.
So this says what?
My take is that one might have interpreted the letter as giving blessing on those dioceses that are preparing to jump ship from the sinking TEC. Most likely David Booth Beers blew a cerebral artery and had KJS call up one the stoolies in the ACO.
As I said before, Bishops and dioceses were the main locus of power in 200 AD but not in 2000 AD. It was a ludicrous letter from the ABC even before the “clarification”. Now, we have the letter gutted of meaning. So much for all the hoopla with the ACI statement.
[blockquote]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. [/blockquote]
Oh, no. We can’t forget precious polity (unless it is to the advantage of the usurpers)! This really sounds like Bonnie Anderson wrote it. What a pathetic joke.
I think what +++Williams may be suggesting — assuming that the “Lambeth Palace Statement” actually reflects what he’s suggesting — is that the diocese is the fundamental unit of the church in an ecclesial, theological, and/or sacramental sense; whereas the national or international church is an administrative structure designed primarily to facilitate the operations of the several dioceses.
To put it another way: the diocese and the diocesan bishop are the esse of the church; the Province (and by extension the world-wide Anglican Communion) are the bene esse of the church.
If that is what he’s saying, I’m not certain whether or not I agree with him… and I presume that the more Catholic-minded would strenuously disagree with the notion.
In any event, it seems odd that +++Williams, who usually speaks with great precision when talking theology (albeit sometimes less so when speaking of other matters) would say something that is, on the face of it, so puzzlingly vague.
No. 1: What this says is that there are a number of particular situations one is faced with in the midst of the Anglican collapse and, guided by the chief Anglican charism of “ambiguity”, one must attempts to shape responses to meet the various contexts. These responses should not be understood to have any independent meaning or logic. What matters most is that these responses say nothing new or definitive (or even clear). If they cause any of the faithful to be confused enough to pause or doubt their discernment of a faithful response to the Episcopal Church’s apostasy (and the complicity of Lambeth Palace…and even Orlando Palace) then they have value (if not truth) and enable the continuation of the status quo (which, oddly enough, is not static at all).
It all makes sense to me. Been watching it for years.
Let’s just wait for the revision of the clarification, shall we?
The ACI’s released a statement, too. It says, “Never mind.”
Clarification from the ACO: An oath of fealty to John Howe is, indeed, an oath to Katherine Jefferts-Schori, David Booth Beers, and Bonnie Anderson.
(If you ever were in doubt.)
Given the multiple interpretations given to the ABC’s letter to Bp. Howe, it is not surprise that a clarification has been issued. Now the clarification is being subjected to multiple interpretations. Nobody in the Anglican Communion can say anything these days without it being deconstructed into a thousand fragments.
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.
The uniform canon law referred to would include the PBs right to depose Bishops and the Dennis Canon
“…….the diocese is the fundamental unit of the church in an ecclesial, theological, and/or sacramental sense;”
IF ONLY the ABC acted like this was true!
There are some other diocese that should get a letter from the ABC. In summary it would say, shape up, or ship out. But shall we hear of such letters? …………………..hmmm?
Earlier I said of on ACI: Response to the New Orleans House of Bishops Statement:
[blockquote] It suddenly occurs to me that the “corporate culture†(that which is needed to succeed in an organization )of TEC is based on ability to control language. People who rise are those who master who can orate their view point in a whimsical manner and who minimize all weak elements and the game of polity can be one of gotcha. The leaders on all sides (revisionist, reasserters, reformers, reappraisers re-anythy) are products of this process, though their core beliefs are different the systemic processes were no in place to weed out theology (obviously) but ability to play the game of polity in a certain way (I can not say mannerly, for often it’s not, all polity should be persuasive but what I’m seeing is a accenting one element and definitely good damage control an air of slight civility but other elements too)
Luther would never make a good Episcopalian! Calvin might barely, but only hope to be average.
The negative side of the ‘corporate culture’ recent Episcopalians will bring with them is a tenancy to be tempted to manipulate and “yeses†are “noes†& “noes†are “not official†and everything is no longer as simple as Scripture commands as politics of blurring goes on. [/blockquote]
Just make it a form letter, cut-n-past and fill in the names with the latest example of manipulation, regrettably I’ve seen it with orthodox folks too. I really think that the last thirty years have been so much about polity that those who rose in their ranks were the ones who could play with the truth to put the best possible face on their stand at that moment.
I think +Duncan is correct that his intercessors are hearing from the Lord a call to holiness. If he believes this call to be true and implements a call for personal holiness of those in his care, I think one hidden subtle sin that seems innate with those associated with Anglicanism is the temptation to manipulate. I offer the same charge to the rest of here as well. I’m seeing this as a pattern of habitual sins to not speak what you mean directly with integrity. I do pray the Lord help me stop this in my own life, these examples show the ugliness of it all.
Thanks Brad. Hope you are doing well.
#12: Hi Br Michael. All is well with me…just making the rotation between dismay, amazement, and sometimes even laughter at this “theatre of the absurd”. Seriously makes the heart sad to see what the noble institution of Anglicanism has become. And, believe me, I’m not just talking about Merry Ol’ England. I have watched SHOCKING and DRAMATIC changes here in North and Central Florida. Perhaps is it time to sing that great Anglican hymn, the staple of many a Evensong, “The day thou gavest, Lord is ended” (the Anglican equivalent to the phrase “The fat lady has sung”).
BfB, deconstruction is where it is at, isn’t it? Or is it only certain things picked by certain persons that are eligible for that process? You know, the Bible, Tradition, faith. BUT not ever current communications or canons, huh?
Thanks for the humor! I needed the laugh.
The statement issued by the Lambeth press office did not retract or amend anything anything said in the Archbishop’s letter to Bishop Howe. Nor does it reject anything that could reasonably be inferred from the letter. Jan Nunley and Matt Kennedy call it a clarification but I don’t see that the Archbishop or his spokesman have done so. All the new statement does is respond to press reports and blog activity surrounding the making public of the personal letter to Bishop Howe by adding some context and negating some inferences that weren’t reasonable to draw in the first place.
Anyone who thinks “815” is likely to happy with this should compare what’s in the letter and the subsequent statement with the description of the relationship of the national church and the diocese in, say, the TEC complaint against the Virginia parishes.