(The link to this was posted yesterday but it wasn’t noticed and this is important–KSH).
Alleluia! Christ is risen! The Lord is risen indeed! Alleluia!
1. We met in Nairobi from April 25th through April 28th, 2011. We gathered as the elected leaders of provinces and national churches of the Anglican Communion and as leaders of GAFCON/FCA. We rejoice in the Easter proclamation that Jesus Christ is alive and we joyfully acknowledge his love for all humanity, his Lordship over all the earth and his promise to return with power and great glory.
2. We are profoundly saddened by the many disasters that have afflicted our world in recent months and offer our prayers for those whose lives have been devastated. We take to heart the warning from our Lord that in our age there would be “wars and rumors of wars” and a season when, “nations will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom and famines and earthquakes in various places.” We also remember His solemn warning that no-one can know the time for the end of this age and so we acknowledge all these events as reminders of the urgent need for repentance and reconciliation with our heavenly Father.
3. We are distressed that, in the face of these enormous challenges, we are still divided as a Communion. The fabric of our common life has been torn at its deepest level and until the presenting issues are addressed we will remain weakened at a time when the needs before us are so great. We were disappointed that those who organized the Primates meeting in Dublin not only failed to address these core concerns but decided instead to unilaterally reduce the status of the Primates’ Meeting. This action was taken with complete disregard for the resolutions of both Lambeth 1978 and 1998 that called for an enhanced role in “doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters”. We believe that they were seriously misled and their actions unacceptable.
4. We note the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church to offer support for those Anglican clergy and congregations who find themselves alienated by recent actions in the Communion. We believe that the provision of an Anglican Ordinariate is intended to be a gracious gift but sadly one that also points out that our own Communion has failed to make adequate provision for those who hold to a traditional view of the faith. We remain convinced that from within the Provinces that we represent there are creative ways by which we can support those who have been alienated so that they can remain within the Anglican family.
5. We devoted a considerable portion of our time together exploring some of the presenting issues regarding Anglican ecclesiology. We were mindful of the importance of letting scripture speak directly to the nature of the church and not simply let our current experience delimit our doctrine. While we are grateful for our history and our particular Anglican tradition we believe that there is and can only ever be one church of Jesus Christ which he has purchased with his own blood and over which he is the Head. The local church is the fundamental expression of the one true church here on earth and is bound together with other local churches by ties of love, fellowship and truth. From such networks have come denominations, national churches and global communions.
6. As members of the global Anglican Communion we delight in the particular history with which we have been blessed. We are grateful for the missionary heritage that gave birth to our global communion with its distinctive balance of reformed catholicity. Meeting in Nairobi we are especially thankful for the influence of the East African Revival with its emphasis on the renewing power of the Holy Spirit, a call to Holy living and unquestionable desire for evangelism.
7. We believe, however, that we are fully the church in our various settings, created and sustained by Word and Sacrament, and marked by obedience that results in faith, hope and love. We also recognize the Lord’s call to discipline demands from us a commitment to unity, holiness, apostolicity and catholicity. All of these are aspects of what it means to be church and we are committed to resourcing our bishops and other leaders so that we can more fully become the church that God has established.
8. We continue to be troubled by the promotion of a shadow gospel that appears to replace a traditional reading of Holy Scriptures and a robust theology of the church with an uncertain faith and a never ending listening process. This faith masquerades as a religion of tolerance and generosity and yet it is decidedly intolerant to those who hold to the “faith once and for all delivered to the saints”. We believe that the theological principles outlined in the Jerusalem Declaration offers the only way forward that holds true to our past and also gives a sure foundation for the future.
9. Confident of the power of God’s Word to renew His church we are creating a network for theologians and theological educators who embrace the Jerusalem Declaration to give further support for our seminaries and Bible Colleges. We have also reviewed and approved plans for the leadership conference now scheduled for April 2012 and the beginning preparations for an international gathering of Primates, Bishops, Clergy and Lay Leaders now scheduled for the first half of 2013 and provisionally designated “GAFCON 2”.
10. We are delighted in the election of the Most Rev’d Eliud Wabukala, Primate of the Anglican Church of Kenya to serve as Chairman of the Primates’ Council and also the Most Rev’d Nicholas D. Okoh, Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) to serve as Vice-Chairman. We were pleased to appoint Bishop Greg Venables and Archbishop Emmanuel Kolini as trustees. We also welcomed the Most Rev’d Hector Zavala, Province of the Southern Cone and the Most Rev’d Onesphore Rwaje, Anglican Church of Rwanda as new members of the Council.
11. We also recognized that if we are offer adequate support to our member provinces, sustain our various initiatives, and strengthen our communications capabilities we must add capacity to our current secretariat. Consequently it was agreed that a GAFCON/FCA Chairman’s office would be established in Nairobi, Kenya and a Global Coordination office would be established in London under the direction of the Rt. Rev’d Martyn Minns, Missionary Bishop of the Church of Nigeria, serving as Deputy Secretary and Executive Director.
12. Finally we know that it is only be God’s grace that we can accomplish anything and we call on all those who acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord to join us in prayer for our world and especially for those who are suffering because of natural disasters as well as those who struggle to live under violent and oppressive governments. We know that our only hope is in the redeeming and transforming love of God and we pray that we will all be faithful to our call to be an instrument of God’s grace.
13. To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.
The Primates Council
The Most Rev’d Eliud Wabukala, Archbishop, Anglican Church of Kenya, Chair
The Most Rev’d Justice Akrofi, Archbishop, Anglican Province of West Africa
The Most Rev’d Robert Duncan, Archbishop, Anglican Church in North America
The Most Rev ”˜d Onesphore Rwaje, Archbishop, Anglican Church of Rwanda
The Most Rev’d Valentino Mokiwa, Archbishop, Anglican Church of Tanzania
The Most Rev’d Nicholas Okoh, Archbishop, Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)
The Most Rev’d Henry Orombi, Archbishop, Church of Uganda
The Most Rev’d Hector Zavala, Province of the Southern Cone
The Most Rev’d Peter Jensen, Archbishop, Diocese of Sydney, Secretary
Heh. I’m not sure it wasn’t noticed Kendall, I think the response indicates where things are up to.
Increasingly comments on your blog seem to be located around the links to social/political/economic issues in the U.S., or broader Christian issues. Anglican specific things are provoking little discussion, where there is comment it’s rarely fuel for further thought. I think that’s a sign that the split has basically occurred, and people have made their choices – are no longer Anglican, are Anglican but not Episcopal, are Anglican within TEC etc. There’s not much reason for further dialogue between those who have been following matters over the last decade or more.
I agree that this communique is important. If it had been released at any time up until about eighteen months ago it would have lit up the blogs I think. The three big things that stand out to me:
1. Ecclessiology should be informed directly from Scripture with a statement that the local church is the fundamental expression of the one church and denominations and communions are secondary links between local churches. No mention of three-fold order or bishops as part of the esse of the church. That’s a big ‘win’ for a ‘Sydney’ understanding.
2. Opening a London office. Opening a London office. [i]Opening a London office.[/i] And under the direction of an American bishop outside of TEC. That is two huge symbolic things about GAFCON’s direction in relationship to the ‘instruments of communion’ in the one act.
3. Without quite coming out and saying it overtly, identifying Rowan Williams’ theology as the problem in point 8, and making it concrete how it is the problem. TEC’s theology isn’t the real problem for the communion at large – they’ll make the pitch, but the communion overall will still look to Williams and his circle for their marching orders. And it’s Williams’ theology that looks more orthodox on the face, but is fundamentally problematic underneath that is the problem at this moment in time. As part of what GAFCON seems to be doing is bring other orthodox, but more institutionally minded, leaders up to speed – spelling it out this clearly can only help give them the lenses to understand what they’re seeing and hearing more quickly than if they were left on their own.
The two smaller things, but still huge (they’re just dwarfed by those three):
1. Explicit mention that the battle is going to be won or lost in the theological colleges. Liberalism wins by taking theological colleges and from there co-opting a leadership that was produced by some other type of churchmanship operating in the local church. Liberalism is parasitic on other approaches to Christianity and cannot produce healthy churches or its own leaders in any numbers – it functions by taking control of leaders’ education. Here recognition of that dynamic and the intention to find ways to reverse it.
2. Explicit, clear, and calm discussion of the recent Primates’ meeting in Dublin and the Pope’s offer. Not deferring, not defensive, but clearly stating their critique.
As I said, we’ve moved passed the discussion phase. But this communique will strengthen those of us who see GAFCON as the future for Anglicanism – it is the kind of document that encourages confidence in the leadership for those of us who are receptive to what GAFCON was about. It will confirm those, orthodox and unorthodox, who don’t want that kind of future that they don’t want to move with GAFCON. And it will help a few more ‘undecideds’ in the orthodox camp move either way.
I think it’s the most significant thing we’ve seen in 2011 as far as Anglican matters go.
I’ve noticed the same thing, Mark, and not only in the Comments section but inside my head, as well. I simply no longer care. This communique struck me a singularly uninteresting, written in modern ecclesiospeak. More than unininteresting, actually. Boring, in fact. The TEC only cares about their little concepts, as does GAFCON. They really don’t care about me and those whom I serve. I’m only interesting to them for what they can get out of me, which is to say money and worldly power for themselves. A plague on both their houses.
Dear #2,
Your comment sounds a bit harsh…I wonder if you could expand a bit on what you would have liked to have seen in the statement.
Grant
Like Mark Baddeley, I also think it was noticed. But I didn’t read it [and still haven’t] because I know it’s only the Gafcon seven AC primates. Had this been released by even all the CAPA Primates — or all the faithful Global South Primates — I would be interested.
I’m just not interested in a redux of an international version of the old “we can do outside and inside strategy” Network. I think what happened with the Network forever shattered that illusion. Eventually one of the sides — the inside — got shafted and the outside moved on out.
That’s fine — but I’m not interested in an international redo of what was a dreadful strategic attempt.
That doesn’t mean I don’t know that the Gafcon 7 AC Primates are good and faithful leaders doing the best they can. But I’m over here — dealing with the inside. And the FCA is a non-starter, just like the Network eventual “outside” strategy was for so many of us.
I will certainly be intrigued by whatever CAPA or the Global South believing Primates announce — as I know that those strategies and activities will be largely inside strategies rather then the mixed strategy that failed so abysmally in the US.
The comments above reflect the “communique fatigue” of all concerned Anglicans. As you say, we’ve made our choices and we’re tired of the fight. Nonetheless, these primates are moving forward with an explicitly Christian agenda, which is much more than can be said for “official Communion” communiques.
I see directions and strategies in common with the CAPA Primates, even if they have not signed on to this specific group.
One encouraging note for American traditionalist Anglicans is Bishop Duncan’s signature on this document which delicately condemns the CofE’s failure to protect its traditionalist minority.
I did read it yesterday… one of the few blog posts I read as I have little time for the blogs these days. But like others, I just didn’t find anything much to comment on.
Yes, I think it’s significant and important, but just couldn’t think of much to say that hasn’t already been said.
Likewise, the news of the PCUSA vote would, in the past, have drawn DOZENS of comments, but now barely registers a blip on peoples’ radar screens. There is definitely a certain sense of fatigue in continuing to comment on these things when they now seem, sadly, all too predictable.
But, that said, Kendall, your blog remains a GREAT blessing, ESPECIALLY these days when I have so little time to forage online for church or economic or political news. I feel at least a bit in touch by reading your blog headlines and skimming articles. I’m grateful.
Karen
Is Minns actually moving to London from the US and can he have a Permission to Officiate there? There was some to-ing and fro-ing re: his status in the US and in Nigeria. Is this a move directed to that concern?
Meh.
+Minns is still a British subject, I believe, although whether or not he could officiate in the UK is up to ++Williams.
The problem is, Grant, that the soi-disant orthodox primates didn’t do anything when they had a preponderant majority on the now essentially defunct Primates Meetings. They didn’t do anything at Lambeth where they could have had a preponderant majority and taken charge of the agenda. They just withdrew into their own towers of purity and left the field free for Mrs Schori and her minions to take over the Anglican Communion. Anglican R&D and Episcopal R&D both want my parish’s money to prove they have support and clout, so I don’t allow giving to either, instead routing it to the Red Cross and similar orgs. Since CAPA and GAFCON are at best private clubs and have not done a thing for us orthodox in the US apart from issue statements I find them to not be worth my time. Actions speak louder than words. And they waited far, far, FAR too long and took no decisive action except take their ball and stand on the sidelines. Sure, CANA and AMiA were created as subsidiaries of certain overseas jurisdictions to provide ‘shelter’ for people who wanted to leave, but those were self-serving actions. TEC escaped undisciplined and took charge in the end. Again, a plague on all their houses. The game is over apart from the lawsuits.
[url=http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/gafcon-throws-down-gauntlet-to-dr-williams-the-church-of-england-newspaper-may-11-2011/]Here[/url] is a direct link to George Conger’s article about this.
#10, I am sorry you are so cynical about this. They “haven’t done a thing for us,” but there is little they could have done that we couldn’t do for ourselves. Their focus is, understandably, on leading and teaching the faith in places where people not only lose their properties for the faith but sometimes their lives. Those of us worshiping in rented spaces and tithing to help our dedicated priests to survive the changes are not enduring what African and Asian Christians often do. I do understand that senior American priests are being pushed and pulled in ways they don’t deserve.
I think the problem is a lot of us have moved on, either physically or emotionally. Basically the Episcopal Church where I live is now on life support and cannot survive much longer. Empty churches, declining endowments, decaying buildings, at least six nearby parishes now without rectors. So judgment has been pronounced and the Episcopal Church is going the way of the Knights of Pythias. I can’t feel particularly sad at this point.
The only problem is that the cancer continues to spread into other churches in other denominations. I can already foresee a whole raft of PCUSA “orthodox believer” blogs popping up, bemoaning the state of PCUSA and “WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?”
The problem is that Scripture is very clear about what to do. We are told “to come out from among them” and “with such person[s], do not even eat.” But we continue to refuse to hear God’s word, and think we can somehow convince these people to repent and return to God. And so we get picked off, one by one, over time, or spiritually corrupted. We should be spending our time on trying to reach the unchurched, not wasting our time with people and denominations who have decided to send themselves to Hell. By rejecting God’s invitation, in full knowledge of what He requires, they have condemned themselves. We cannot do anything about that, they have rejected the Holy Spirit and decided instead to follow false spirits, and that is a permanent decision on their part.
I am heartened that the GAFCON Primates recognize the strategic role and value of seminaries and theological colleges, as Mark (#1) notes. This point could be made more strongly. One sometimes gets the impression, from ‘outsider’ and ‘insider’ folks alike, that the seminaries are marginal to the renewal and reallignment of Anglicanism in North America.
RE: “The problem is that Scripture is very clear about what to do. We are told “to come out from among them†and “with such person[s], do not even eat.—
Well obviously I disagree that those verses have anything at all to do with leaving denominations or various other organizations — it was just such a faulty interpretation of such passages that led the early American dispensational separatist sects into fleeing from involvement in Hollywood, the media, the academy, and politics and it led to a lost half-century or more of cultural engagement and cultural resistance and cultural renewal.
RE: “. . . and think we can somehow convince these people to repent and return to God.”
That’s not at all the reasons why people should maintain involvement with various institutions led by corrupt leaders. There are plenty of other excellent reasons.
All that being said, I don’t know if you believe that interpretation either, Jim the Puritan. You’ve already talked on another thread about your joining the PCUSA after leaving TEC because you found a good local congregation and I completely understand that. But obviously, no one who reads T19 or other Anglican blogs could have possibly been unaware of the current corrupt leadership of the PCUSA denomination. It’s been blogged about repeatedly right here for many many many years now. So you didn’t even apply that faulty interpretation of those passages to your own denominational decisions.
+Minns status is actually clear. He is in communion with the Church of Nigeria but is not considered a bishop in the Anglican Communion. CANA is a branch of the Church in Nigeria, but not a part of the Anglican Communion
Hi Brian from T19 — I agree that his status is clear. I think the question, however, was whether he would be licensed to officiate there.
It will certainly be an interesting question for resolution there. I’m intrigued to know.
Katherine (# 11) I am not a cynic, but a pragmatist, and bemoan the poor strategic sense of my orthodox brethren while simultaneously admiring and deploring the furbismo (Italian: meaning a combination of crafty and clever) modern Christianity.
Sarah, I am careful how I respond because I know that comments being made about PCUSA on blogs are now being monitored.
A number of us in PCUSA have carefully watched what has gone on in TEC since 2003 to figure out what the Enemy’s attack will be on us. I want to thank people like you, Canon Harmon, the others at Stand Firm and other Anglican blogs for being a very good source of information and analysis to discern what has really been happening in TEC.
We have not been asleep. We know we are in a spiritual war and have been preparing for it. We are ready to respond, and are putting on the whole armor of God as commanded as the battlefield now shifts to our churches.
Ephesians 6:18 says we are to be alert and pray continually for the Lord’s people in these times. We will continue to pray for you, and would ask that you do the same for the Christian faithful in PCUSA.
Thank you all again for being a source of inspiration for us. I apologize for my negativeness.
Along with Mark Baddeley (#1), I think that the ecclesiology of the communiqué is worth reflecting on.
However, unlike Mark, I don’t see ¶5 necessarily as a triumph of Sydney protestant ecclesiology. There is nothing in the paragraph that could not have come from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The question as to whether this is a triumph of Sydney, or a statement of catholic ecclesiology, is what precisely is meant by “local church”. If by local church, the parish only is meant, then that is one thing. But it is another thing entirely if by local church, a bishop, all his clergy, and the parochial congregations under their joint care are meant, that is something else entirely that very much includes bishops as part of the [i]esse[/i] of the Church.
The distinctly protestant (and free church/Reformed protestant at that) note sounded in the paragraph is the statement that the local churches are bound together bound together “with other local churches by ties of love, fellowship and truth”. This is certainly true as far as it goes – but what about the ties of mutual recognition amongst bishops? What about the ties of eucharistic fellowship?
Hi Brian from T19—I agree that his status is clear. I think the question, however, was whether he would be licensed to officiate there.
Hi Sarah. What body would need to license him? He obviously would not be licensed to officiate as an Anglican priest. He could, I suppose, be licensed to officiate as a member of another denomination, but I don’t know the rules on that.
As a born and bred Sydney Anglican, I have to agree with Todd Granger – there is nothing particularly “Sydney” about this.
RE lack of response to the first link: T19 delivers a huge volume of secular US-focussed news. And because of this, its articles very quickly get cycled off the front page. That is not a criticism, just an explanation as to why things Anglican often get missed on it. The layout of Stand Firm gives some good hints on how to promote the important stuff.
Also, this FCA statement is focussed mainly on CofE. Those who are focussed mainly on the USA (which is perfectly legitimate) wouldn’t have found much of interest in it.
Liberals seem to find it significant, if the apoplectic comments on Thinking Anglicans are anything to go by (always such fun to read!)
I am not sure why the fact that there are “only” seven orthodox primates on the council of FCA is relevant to anything. This statement is directed towards ministry in the Church of England. It is just as relevant as ++Okoh’s recent statement about setting up the Nigerian chaplaincy in England (I can just hear the protests now: “But ++Okoh is only ONE primate, so that statement is SEVEN TIMES less significant than the Gafcon statement, which is THREE TIMES less significant than a GS communique…!!!!” – give me a break).
I personally think that Senior Priest’s gripes are unreasonable – Gafcon , CAPA, Global South, anyone else you care to name are not there to be “white knights” for us in the west. If you can’t cope with “Athanasius contra mundum” then why still be Anglican at all?
Finally re some comments along the lines of “boring”: If others are bored with all this, then I am bored with them! Take ACNA for instance – the fight is as intense as it has ever been, but many will find it “boring” because it has shifted ground. The focus now is on ACNA grass-roots evangelism and church-planting vs TEC’s slow decline. Neither make for spectacular reporting, but I find it intensely interesting, because if it keeps happening ACNA will surely end up as the major player in North American Anglicanism. At present, TEC is the biggest dog in the yard (even when its spurious figures are cut down).
Similarly, the work to foster orthodoxy in England is likely to be “boring”. Sure there might be something spectacular, but such things are usually few and far between. The next big spectacular issue is likely to be women bishops in 2012, but I still put my money on Rowan Williams getting the compromise position he wants. If that happens then neither SH&W nor Reform will split, and the fight will again become a long drawn-out battle of attrition between orthodoxy and liberalism. Sorry if its “boring”, but often these things are.
When we look at church history in detail, we find that the spectacular moments are actually few and far between. Contrary to what we might think, the church fathers did not experience a Council of Nicaea every year (or even every decade), and we shouldn’t expect to either.
Brian,
If +Minns wanted to celebrate Communion, then the starting point would surely be his status as a member of the Nigerian House of Bishops. I have no idea what additional licensing would then be required for England.
But why would he want to? He is going to be “Executive Director” which seems to imply other activities. And his record as Missionary Bishop in CANA indicates that his focus in London may be on quietly setting up networks and contacts.
As I recall, a year or two ago, Bp. Scott-Joynt invited his friend +Bob Duncan to confirm people in his diocese. It might even be that +Minns has already been licensed to do various things in some dioceses. Also, the Nigerian Mission to England (forgive me, I don’t remember its formal title) has certain rights within territory of the CoE already (note the discussions earlier this year between ++Okoh and ++Rowan). It is also not outside the realm of possibility that +Rowan will (or has) given his permission. You really never can predict what +Rowan will or will not do. The CoE has NEVER recognized the TEC depositions from a sacramental point of view, although +Rowan recognized the non-canonically appointed replacement bishops as having jurisdiction (although technically he did this personally, and not as the “Church of England”). If the CoE recognized the depositions as legitimate, then last year when the question of full communion with ACNA came up, the answer would not have been “we’ll study it and report in Synod in the fall of 2011”, it would have been “none of those people are priests or bishops, we cannot possibly enter into communion with an organization without holy orders.” Also keep in mind that TEC stripped +Henry Scriven of the orders conferred upon him by ordination, and that deposition is definitely NOT recognized by the CoE.
RE: “He obviously would not be licensed to officiate as an Anglican priest.”
Hi Brian — that’s an interesting assumption, but I think it’s just that — a not very informed assumption. After all, Bishop Duncan celebrated with Rowan Williams at the last meeting at which they were all together and other ACNA clergy have happily celebrated in COE parishes. I don’t think it’s a sure thing either way.
I should add that I don’t particularly care either way, either. I’ve got no skin in that game.
RE: “The layout of Stand Firm gives some good hints on how to promote the important stuff.”
Hmmm — I think the thread at SF probably is the right [as in — indicative of level of interest] level of comments. Ten fewer than the one on Pooh, 35 fewer than the Presby thread, 13 more than the Cleese thread, and two more than the Muslim mobs thread.
RE: “I am not sure why the fact that there are “only†seven orthodox primates on the council of FCA is relevant to anything.”
It’s only relevant for those persons who believe the inside/outside strategy is an epic error and will only make matters worse, and for those persons who believe that the actions of a united Global South set of traditional Primates are the actually significant and influential actions *within the Anglican Communion*. Obviously, MichaelA does not fall into either of those two categories and so it’s understandable that he deems the number to be irrelevant.
Both of those categories are matters that have long long ago been covered and recognized as big dividing lines amongst traditional Anglicans.
[url=http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2010/06/17/a-nadir-in-communion-relations/ ]Here is the reference[/url] to ABp Duncan assisting with confirmation in the diocese of Winchester and the reminder that Ms Schori was not allowed to wear her mitre (but she showed Rowan by holding it under her arm!).
I would disagree that lack of response carries this or that signficance. If one posts that a Church leader stated that Jesus Christ came into save sinners that His grace is there for the the asking, it probably wouldn’t generate many responses.
I do agree that the schism is here in all but name and people are tired of the war of communiques. The significance of the most recent missive is the action taken – the opening of GAFCon to the heart of the Anglican Communion – taking it to battle to Rowan’s doorstep. Good.
Was being called to dinner, so the fingers didn’t keep up:
—
I would disagree that lack of response carries this or that significance. If one posts that a Church leader stated that Jesus Christ came into THE WORLD TO save sinners AND that His grace is there for the the asking, it probably wouldn’t generate many responses.
—
I am intrigued by Sarah’s response. If the orthodox could have read Sarah’s book thirty years ago and had her foresight and gift for strategery, then there wouldn’t have been an inside and outside strategy. The orthodox leaders were played for fools, being tolerant of those who now show no tolerance. If they could have stood firm at the time of the Righter trial, could have given Spong the boot, the outcome would have been different but perhaps just delayed. Given their incompetence, there was no avoiding an inside/outside strategy. The orthodox were escorted to the exits and tossed unceremoniously on their duffs and the outside strategy was born.
Sarah wrote:
[blockquote] “It’s only relevant for those persons who believe the inside/outside strategy is an epic error and will only make matters worse, and for those persons who believe that the actions of a united Global South set of traditional Primates are the actually significant and influential actions *within the Anglican Communion*. Obviously, MichaelA does not fall into either of those two categories and so it’s understandable that he deems the number to be irrelevant.” [/blockquote]
Sarah of course knows from numerous posts that I think the actions of the Global South are significant and influential, indeed that they are effectively the leadership of the Communion.
But I agree I am out of her first category, since I don’t think that her “inside/outside strategy” ever existed in the way she seems to mean!
The reason why I don’t see the number of primates in FCA as significant, is because I don’t equate FCA with the Global South. They may have some members in common, but as organisations they are quite different in nature and aims.
[blockquote] “I’m just not interested in a redux of an international version of the old “we can do outside and inside strategy†Network. I think what happened with the Network forever shattered that illusion. Eventually one of the sides—the inside—got shafted and the outside moved on out.” [/blockquote]
If we are talking about the same organisation, the “Anglican Network” was formed in 2004 after the consecration of Gene Robinson by a group of dioceses in TEC, to promote orthodoxy within TEC. I would describe that as an “inside” strategy. At the time, I think all the member dioceses genuinely intended to stay inside TEC. By 2008, when it was clear that the liberals were winning, four of those dioceses had decided to leave and join the shortly-to-be-formed ACNA. But I wouldn’t call that an “inside/outside strategy” because it was no longer one strategy: those who had decided to leave now had an “outside” strategy different to those who intended to remain “inside”.
Perhaps you could describe the Common Cause partnership (also formed in 2004) as an inside/outside strategy, since it included groups from both inside and outside TEC (and some that were both): the Anglican Network, AMiA, REC, APA, AAC and others. But I don’t think in 2004 even CCP was committed to the formation of a new church. They were rather aiming at rolling back liberal influence in TEC.
[blockquote] “That’s fine—but I’m not interested in an international redo of what was a dreadful strategic attempt.” [/blockquote]
Why was it so “dreadful”? I agree, they failed in their goal to stop the creeping control of the liberals in TEC. But why was it so bad to try? If they had succeeded, there never would have been an ACNA. It was surely no shame to try.
I don’t see how England in 2011 can be compared in a meaningful way with that situation, except that I agree that those now fighting liberal influence in CofE may well fail. If so, we already know that there is an outside strategy – two influential groups within CofE (Reform and Society of Hilda & Wilfred) have both said in so many words that they will depart CofE if certain lines are crossed. So perhaps you could call that an “inside/outside strategy”, but it exists independently of FCA.
RE: “Given their incompetence, there was no avoiding an inside/outside strategy. The orthodox were escorted to the exits and tossed unceremoniously on their duffs and the outside strategy was born.”
Sure there was — please note that the “outside strategy” has no “strategy” for anything that those on the inside wish to accomplish [other than the Great Commission and such].
It’s like the Baptists claiming that they’re the “outside strategy.” I mean — just how far “outside” counts?
So yeh . . . there was always going to be a need for folks who left TEC or the Anglican Communion to come together and create their own body and work together. And that’s a great thing and I appreciate that. But a “strategy” for dealing with the thing that they left it is not.
RE: “But I agree I am out of her first category . . . ”
Read carefully again my *second* category which you are also in — I’ll italicize the bits that you’re glossing over: “those persons who believe that the actions of [i]a united Global South set of traditional Primates[/i] are [i]the[/i] actually significant and influential actions [i]*within the Anglican Communion*[/i].”
RE: “If we are talking about the same organisation, the “Anglican Network†was formed in 2004 after the consecration of Gene Robinson by a group of dioceses in TEC, to promote orthodoxy within TEC.”
The Network was composed of leaders who 1) wanted to promote orthodoxy within TEC and 2) wanted to leave TEC. This was a huge conflict and entailed numerous disagreeable discussions almost from the first months of its founding. I would guess that in the first year or so there was some hesitation on the part of those who were thinking “leaving” . . . but that hesitation shifted within a year or so to far more certainty.
The latter ultimately won, and the founding of the CCP as an arm of the Network was the latter side winning a key battle in that significant disagreement. Many in category 1 believed it to be a collossal waste of time in that it 1) did nothing whatsoever to help within TEC and was a huge distraction of money and time and other resources [and it was — for those who wanted to work within TEC and the Anglican Communion], 2) the vast majority of the cobbled together outside groups [which at the time included the APA and attempted to include several other Continuing groups] would not ultimately be capable of becoming unified anyway [and this was demonstrated to be true in spades], and 3) it attempted to muddle the players of who was inside the Anglican Communion and who was not — which was deliberate and we all knew that it was deliberate too. Many speculated that, having failed to acquire more internal TEC dioceses in the Network [and yes, the number of Network dioceses was significantly less than was expected], some of the leaders wanted desperately to get some success and affirmation from *somewhere* and thus proceeded to look outward. My personal opinion is that the permanent decision to leave TEC by the “outside strategy” leaders occurred around 2006.
I could go into specific reasons for that, but that would involve violation of some private discussions and also delve into details and events about which [as you’ve demonstrated before on numerous occasions] you were sublimely unaware.
At any rate, the “deliberate muddling” tactic is one of the hallmarks of the outside strategy because the point of it is to get the outsiders into a body that *includes* the insiders who are within the Anglican Communion.
What I mean by the “outside/inside strategy” is the notion that the two groups have coherent and confluent goals and therefore should “work together” on “strategy” regarding the departed body. I don’t mean having an a) outside strategy and a b) inside strategy at all. I mean having the two together under the fantasy that the two have congruent goals and strategies and tactics.
RE: “But I don’t think in 2004 even CCP was committed to the formation of a new church. They were rather aiming at rolling back liberal influence in TEC.”
Not. At. All. The CCP was most definitely committed to a unified Outside Church with all the parts together in one body — *hopefully* in communion with various Provinces of the Anglican Communion so that it could all appeal for membership within the Anglican Communion at a later date. A lot of the leaders of the outside strategy believed that many many more parishes and individuals would leave TEC and join them once the outside church was established [the numbers they were imagining proved to be completely delusional as they were informed numerous times — but they had a lot of assumptions about the insiders that were simply not true]. Many many were the statements made at events by those leaders claiming that they were the “courageous leaders” and the weak cowardly Insiders would eventually trail along with the outside plan once they became strong and significant. Because of course . . . those opposed to the leaders’ Outside Strategy didn’t actually have any real principled problems with those leaders’ beliefs and theology and activities — they had character problems [weakness, cowardice, care about purple/pensions/power, etc, etc] that would melt away once the path became easier as it was forged by the Courageous and Godly and Strong Outside Leaders.
RE: “Why was it so “dreadfulâ€?”
It was dreadful because the outsiders and the insiders do *not* have the same theology or values or goals regarding the church body of the departed and thus their work was often at cross-purposes entirely.
Just to offer an example. I can *guarantee* you that the reform of the COE is not the goal of the FCA, MichaelA. The leaders have given up on the reform notion and their main goal is to 1) create some sort of credible “outside Anglican English option”, 2) gather in the low-hanging fruit of the inside clergy and parishes who are willing to leave, and 3) have an entity that includes both the insiders and the outsiders to the COE so that there can be the usual muddle as well as the insiders supply some “credibility” to the outsiders who chose to leave.
That entity can be “in communion with” various Anglican Communion provinces, and in the meantime they can work on the insider members of the FCA to get them to leave the COE as well.
There will be a simple test for FCA strategic meetings in England — just as there was in the Network here in the US. At the FCA strategic meetings simply wait for the discussions to come up about how to strategize for Synod elections, for local elections/appointments, and various other “inside COE strategies.”
Won’t happen — not in any way comparably to the discussions about church planting and various other matters that have to do with the outside strategy.
Then watch the appointments of the leaders within the FCA in England. The old Deans of the Network — six Deans — included a grand total of *two* inside TEC deans [and then just one, and then none]. The rest were out of TEC — and those were the Deans of geographic regions within the Network back early on who were attempting to recruit parishes to join the Network and were the “face” of the Network in geographic regions.
They were to “counsel” [heh] parishes within TEC — and much of that counsel [with the exception of one of the Deans for whom I shall be forever thankful] consisted of “when are you going to leave Apostate TEC?”
I have rectors in parishes who had that exact issue. They’d call a Network Dean to counsel them and it would end up being on “leaving.”
I personally begged a Network leader to please appoint TEC co-deans — or something — so that inside-TEC parishes could have counsel regarding these matters and could have some credible inside-TEC Network leadership connection. Didn’t happen.
Why?
Because the “leave TEC now” strategy was in full-throated demand back in 2006.
It really was a travesty.
What ended up happening is that TEC parishes didn’t join the Network because they recognized that the Network wasn’t about staying in and working from within. And that escalated and became even more a self-fulfilling prophecy. And one thing led to another.
MichaelA — you weren’t here on the ground. I was. You weren’t talking to leaders [on both of these sides]. I was. These issues were a subject of fevered debate and disagreement for years — before finally the split between the insiders and outsiders occurred — as it should have long earlier.
The notion that the FCA in England will be about attempted reform/strategic political action *in* the COE is just hopelessly wrong. And you’ll see it in the content of the meetings and the appointments of the leaders. And those not interested in leaving the COE will attend — may even join initially [if they haven’t kept a close eye on how things panned out in the US] — but they’ll end up drifting away again.
Of course, the “pitch” will be that if a credible “outside COE” entity gets started in England it will “pressure” the COE to reform and actually “help” the insiders. It’s not true, of course. An “outside COE entity” merely means that a nice [hopefully] entity that is cohesive will have been started for those who are interested in leaving the COE and who wish to maintain a connection with Anglican Communion provinces. That’s all wonderful of course, but it won’t have a lick to do with “reforming the COE” or “pressuring liberals within the COE” who will be thrilled for those folks to be gone.
In fact, it became a truism over here. If in the latter days of the Network you were joining as a TEC parish — you had already recognized you were leaving. [This was not true for those clergy and parishes who joined in the beginning.]
In the last year to year and a half of this history [prior to the formal split between the Insiders and Outsiders] when I was asked for counsel by rectors or parishes, I always told them that if they wanted to leave TEC — if that was their goal — then yes, they should participate intensively within the AAC and perhaps the Network [which by then was being subsumed within the beginnings of ACNA]. Nothing wrong with seeking good counsel and great allies [for the outside strategy].
There’s a lot of truth and information in 28 and 29.
“The Network was composed of leaders who 1) wanted to promote orthodoxy within TEC and 2) wanted to leave TEC”.
As(basically) corrected in 29, not all initial leadership of the Network wanted to “leave”. I don’t believe that bishops like +Stanton and +Love(and prior, +Herzog) entered the Network with any intention of leaving.
It is true that “inside-outside” strategies eventually diverged, whether because some felt a need for “strategy change”, which can happen due to either inside/outside influences/consequences in any organization; or because some had been flying under false “leaving” colors all along. Re: insiders/outsiders, I would also say that I don’t believe much of their theology is different, but their ecclesiology surely is.
Sarah obviously knows more about FCA on the ground than I do. But I would caution anyone’s belief in any alphabet soup derivative flying in to save the day. The American debacle is evidence against that. But, perhaps the resources and ethos in the CoE are different.
Corporately, Sarah could possibly also tell you that when the top of any organization is rotten to the core, one or all of three things either follow–1) Top is forced out, however that happens; 2) Organization also rots, usually because underlings don’t have the guts, drive, energy or smarts for the fight; 3) Top and underlings end up in a hell of a fight, and top wins it; thus producing a “might makes right” version of #2. In any combat, regardless of who wins or who’s right, there is always collateral damage.
Point being, if the top is rotten it doesn’t seem to me like all the alphabet-soup stuff is going to be very effective, with its end result possibly a lot of wasted energy–unless it starts out with a “leaving” strategy to begin with. And then it will be tasked with all the same building/evangelizing issues that ACNA has.
For lack of a better phrase or term, TEC has locked horns over the “sanctity” of homosex. Eventually I believe it will be like WO(and I’m not trying to hijack this thread), with revisionism bulldozing the traditional teachings of the Church and then adopting a “do it, or get out” mentality. And, at that point, whether we are lay or clergy, those who remain in TEC will have to decide whether or not to assimilate the Borg or leave.
I will also say that there was a time when I had much contact with a Network dean; all of it was positive. He did not hide the fact that his strategy was leaving, but he did not put pressure on other churches to do that. He was a resource for advice and support; a most effective “sounding board”. Re: the notion of TEC traditional/Network deans in dioceses as similar resources, that would probably have been a difficult thing; said “deans” would(I’d bet) end up the targets of revisionist bishops, and/or said bishops would not have tolerated such a thing in the first place; or, they would have stated they didn’t mind but then would proceed to sabotage anything positive the dean tried to do. I can imagine bouncing that off the Network dean that I knew; but, considering the bishop we were “under” at the time, the former would have probably likened such a thing to target practice/sniper fire. Where I was at the time, a scenario like that, while good in theory, would have been doomed to failure before it even started.
My spouse likes to say, “Jesus preached the Kingdom, but we got the Church”…Yup… :-/
I am glad to see that Sarah and I agree on more points than I thought (as a careful examination of what I wrote and what I did not will bear out).
I suspect that what Sarah and others think of as a “determination to leave” was in fact a recognition of the true nature of the opposition. In other words, those people would have stayed if TEC had stepped back from ordination of practicing homosexuals, but recognised even back in 2004 that there was little chance that people like Frank Griswold would allow this to happen, and that it was necessary to plan accordingly.
This is an important point: It is entirely wrong to paint people who hold such views as “people who are determined to leave because they don’t want to be in TEC period”. The difference is important, not trivial.
Sarah seems to be asserting that, if TEC had in fact changed its direction significantly during 2004-2006, that the dioceses of Quincy, Pittsburgh, San Joaquin and Fort Worth would have left TEC anyway. That seems rather far-fetched.
[blockquote] “My personal opinion is that the permanent decision to leave TEC by the “outside strategy†leaders occurred around 2006.” [/blockquote]
I wouldn’t have any reason to disagree with that, and its consistent with my earlier post which referred to 2004 when the network was founded. I would have thought that by the time of the election of KJS it would have been obvious to many of those who had genuinely hoped for significant change in TEC, that it wasn’t going to happen. That does not mean that those people had been determined to leave TEC in 2004, come what may.
[blockquote] “The latter ultimately won, and the founding of the CCP as an arm of the Network was the latter side winning a key battle in that significant disagreement” [/blockquote]
Common Cause existed by mid-2004 (i.e. only a few months after Plano). It aquired a more permanent and systemic character in 2006.
And the suggestion that CCP was “an arm of the network” goes too far I think. That in turn would reduce AMiA, APA and REC to appendages of the network, which they very clearly were not.
[blockquote] “The CCP [in 2004] was most definitely committed to a unified Outside Church with all the parts together in one body—*hopefully* in communion with various Provinces of the Anglican Communion so that it could all appeal for membership within the Anglican Communion at a later date.” [/blockquote]
I inserted the date in brackets, because that follows from the context of my initial post. How can you say that Common Cause was “definitely committed” to anything in 2004? Some of its consitutents were, I wouldn’t doubt.
[blockquote] “It was dreadful because the outsiders and the insiders do *not* have the same theology or values or goals regarding the church body of the departed and thus their work was often at cross-purposes entirely.” [/blockquote]
I’ll ask the same question: why was it so dreadful? People have differences in theology, and they always will. If you mean that some people held a view that “It is never theologically permissible to leave TEC in any circumstances” whereas others held a view that “I will stay in TEC if it doesn’t go any further down the road to heresy, but if it crosses certain lines then I will leave”, then why can’t the first group work with the second, at least until those lines are crossed? As long as TEC doesn’t go any further, then they are not at cross-purposes.
I also question the sweeping nature of your claims and whether they are held *in such extreme form* by other orthodox in TEC. If your absolute view were held e.g. by +Lawrence and +Howe, they would hardly have gone to Singapore last year, when it was obvious that the Global South is promoting a future of American Anglicanism that will include ACNA in some form or other, as well as the orthodox within TEC.
To be continued…
Continued:
[blockquote] “Just to offer an example. I can *guarantee* you that the reform of the COE is not the goal of the FCA, MichaelA.” [/blockquote]
I can guarantee that you don’t have a clue about that, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the fact that you spoke personally with American leaders in 2006 gives you no insight into what certain foreign primates (which is who the FCA are, let us not forget) are intending in England in 2011; even less does it give you any insight into what various English leaders are intending in 2011.
Secondly, it is not certain that an “outside strategy” in the way you define it is even possible in England. It is not the same as USA, legally or ecclesiastically. Whatever FCA or the various other players in England come up with, I am sure it will be based on what is feasbile *in England*, not on what worked in the USA.
There are indeed people in England who believe that a purely “outside” strategy can work. Many of the most prominent have already left CofE: Charles Raven (evangelical) and the bishops who have joined the Ordinariate (anglo-cath). As far as I can see, those who remain in CofE, e.g. Reform (mostly evangelical) and Hilda & Wilfred (anglo-cath) are genuine in what they profess, i.e. they are prepared to remain in CofE, but not if it crosses certain lines. These are the people that are analogous to the Network in 2004, not FCA. Once we compare Reform, Church Society, Hilda with the Network, the analogy rapidly falls apart.
The best analogy for the FCA in 2004 is to the various foreign primates who were directly involved: Nigeria, Southern Cone, Kenya etc. Those provinces indicated back in 2004-2006 that they were open to genuine reform in TEC. The reason *they* (I am speaking of the primates here, not the American church leaders) promoted the formation of ACNA in 2008 was because TEC had not repented.
I see no evidence or reason to believe that those foreign provinces have any different goal in England in 2011: If CofE changes its direction, they will not be promoting a split. Its up to CofE.
You are asserting that the foreign primates in 2004 were determined to establish a new entity in USA. I say they were not, it rather depended on what TEC did. You are also asserting that the foreign primates in 2011 are determined to establish a new entity in the UK. I say they are not, it rather depends on what CofE does.
[blockquote] “There will be a simple test for FCA strategic meetings in England—just as there was in the Network here in the US. At the FCA strategic meetings simply wait for the discussions to come up about how to strategize for Synod elections, for local elections/appointments, and various other “inside COE strategies.— [/blockquote]
Again, I disagree with your analogy. You are trying to equate the FCA with various groups in England, which it clearly is not.
What you are really trying to do is to compare the Network in 2004 or 2006 with groups like Reform or Hilda & Wilfred in England in 2011. Whilst there are some similarities, the differences are much greater.
What you can be sure of is that all of these groups (and probably quite a few other churches that aren’t members of them) will already have contingency plans prepared for if CofE continues down the same path as TEC. Those plans may or may not involve leaving (I would presume that their plans in such a contingency are all the same). But that doesn’t mean that they are going to implement those plans, if Rowan Williams sees sense.
[blockquote] “Because the “leave TEC now†strategy was in full-throated demand back in 2006.” [/blockquote]
Earlier in your post you were claiming that it was in “full throated demand” back in 2004. The difference is rather important to the discussion. Which is it?
[blockquote] “MichaelA—you weren’t here on the ground. I was. You weren’t talking to leaders [on both of these sides]. I was. These issues were a subject of fevered debate and disagreement for years—before finally the split between the insiders and outsiders occurred—as it should have long earlier.” [/blockquote]
I agree that I wasn’t there and you were. But it is not clear how your personal knowledge permits you to essentially assert that the TEC dioceses in 2004 had formed the intention to leave TEC *regardless of what happened in TEC*.
Secondly, you haven’t said clearly whether you were talking in 2004 or 2006 to the intervening foreign primates (Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, Southern Cone etc) and knew their intentions. They were the equivalent of FCA now, not the Network.
Thirdly, even if you are entitled to make absolute statements about US leaders in 2004 or 2006 (whichever it is), how does that entitle you to make confident statements about what English leaders intend in 2001, or even about what the FCA intends in 2011?
Do you view the leaders of Reform, Hilda & Wilfred, Church Society or various large English evangelical churches as simply carbon copies of the American church leaders you knew in 2006?
My apologies, I left out the word “not” in my last post. Here is the corrected sentence:
[blockquote] Those plans may or may not involve leaving (I would *not* presume that their plans in such a contingency are all the same). [/blockquote]
RE: ““The Network was composed of leaders who 1) wanted to promote orthodoxy within TEC and 2) wanted to leave TECâ€.”
Hi Bookworm — thanks for clarifying that statement. Indeed, those who wished to stay I placed into category 1 and those who wanted to leave I placed in category 2. I wasn’t saying that the entire set of leaders in the Network wished to leave TEC — the divergence was a reason for the conflict that got played out rather publicly by bishops in the Network.
RE: “I can guarantee that you don’t have a clue about that, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the fact that you spoke personally with American leaders in 2006 gives you no insight into what certain foreign primates (which is who the FCA are, let us not forget) are intending in England in 2011 . . . ”
It gives me tons of insight into what Bishop Minns and others who are a part of this movement in England wish. And if you think that the “foreign primates” are going to be the ones who lead the boots on the ground in England you are simply naive. As I said, all people will have to do is watch the appointments in the FCA.
RE: “As far as I can see, those who remain in CofE, e.g. Reform (mostly evangelical) and Hilda & Wilfred (anglo-cath) are genuine in what they profess, i.e. they are prepared to remain in CofE, but not if it crosses certain lines.”
I agree — they’ll be recruited, however, to join FCA.
RE: “These are the people that are analogous to the Network in 2004, not FCA.”
No, the FCA is analagous to the makeup of the Network — it will hold people who both wish to leave and who wish to stay and fight. Hopefully, though, it will hold very very few of those who wish to stay and fight within the COE.
RE: “You are asserting that the foreign primates in 2004 were determined to establish a new entity in USA.”
Um, no. That’s a bit like saying the Communion Partners group [a group of Stayers who have also not succeeded in gathering in as many bishops as they wanted] is “led by foreign primates” just because of their connections. The Network had very little to do with “foreign primates” — it had everything to do with the bishops of TEC who joined its ranks and the parishes/clergy who joined its ranks. In those ranks there was a conflict over leaving or staying. The Leavers won.
RE: “You are trying to equate the FCA with various groups in England, which it clearly is not.
What you are really trying to do is to compare the Network in 2004 or 2006 with groups like Reform or Hilda & Wilfred in England in 2011.”
No I am trying to do neither. As I made clear, I am comparing the national Network with the international attempt at the same thing, FCA.
RE: “Earlier in your post you were claiming that it was in “full throated demand†back in 2004.”
Huh? Are you even reading what I wrote, MichaelA? I stated that the Network was *initially* composed of leaders who wanted to leave and leaders who wanted to stay. That conflict occurred throughout the life of the Network, with varying rates of decline [depending on deanery/national/local contexts] as people recognized that the Leavers won the battle on where funds/time/energy was to be placed in the Network. The “full-throated demand” — which I and many many others experienced — occurred in 2006 and onward.
RE: “I suspect that what Sarah and others think of as a “determination to leave†was in fact a recognition of the true nature of the opposition.”
As nearly as I can determine all the leaders of the Network [close to 100%] understood that the current TEC leadership was not going to change. Some decided to leave in response to that, others determined to stay. There was little to no theory that suddenly Griswold/et al were going to experience a conversion to the Gospel.
I’ll close yet again with this.
Congregations and clergy who join the FCA based on a hope that somehow there will be intensive and serious and long-term [rather than around the edges] work to reform the COE will be sadly mistaken. Congregations and clergy who join the FCA wanting an eventual solid outside-COE organization within the UK will be very happy.
I also want to be clear about something else that I’ve said now for many years. Being clear about what happened with the Network/Common Cause/etc — ie, the Leavers won with that organization — does *not* mean that it is bad to organized groups of parishes and clergy and bishops into a cohesive unit so that they can form an excellent outside-TEC [or COE] unit. The only thing that I’ve objected to over the years was the very poorly managed transition to that goal [poorly managed being a euphemism for what was *pretense* from some, but not all].
I think it’s fantastic that those who left TEC and wished to remain connected with provinces of the Anglican Communion and in a coherent Anglican entity were organized and have ACNA. I think it’s fantastic that they worked to establish an identity together and that they are engaged in lawsuits to protect their property and I hope that God will allow many to own their property and do well as a unit. Unlike what revisionists and some traditional Episcopalians believe, there is nothing wrong with organizing to leave and establish an alternate faithful entity.
“Congregations and clergy who join the FCA based on a hope that somehow there will be intensive and serious and long-term [rather than around the edges] work to reform the COE will be sadly mistaken”.
That might depend on their focus. Sadly, both selection and election can produce poor leadership, as evidenced in both TEC and CoE. TEC had a choice at the election of the last presiding bishop, and it chose the most inexperienced, radical person(especially theologically) on the slate. After that, it’s not hard to determine the organization’s priorities, and it would be a fool’s game to assume that the next time around, the organization will elect anyone LESS radical. But, if it did, I would plead guilty to pleasant surprise.
Here’s a rub:
“…if Rowan Williams sees sense”.
Is it a matter of seeing sense, or is it a matter of one finally following his radical theological path? I’m always amused by those who attempt being covert in their dysfunction, because the truth always eventually comes out. And so many of us have said before that the greatest predictor of present and future behavior is past behavior. Thus, “seeing sense”? I doubt he is going to see sense. He has chosen his path, but now he has done so much that everyone has their blinders off. What’s funny is, I don’t think he’s particularly happy about his path, because he knows the havoc he has had to wreak to follow it. And that’s where he’s lost sight of a Christian example–Jesus paved the Way, too, but not like this. If so much havoc is wreaked, than maybe the path is wrong–BUT, now, at least for one man, there’s no going back, or he will have to lose much face by getting egg all over it, and he can’t live with that.
I have no idea how much influence FCA and co. could exert over the process, but what is critical for the CoE is the next choice as Archbishop of Canterbury. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that’s where my focus would be.
And, pray against the choice of anyone who is also CONFIDENT in his dysfunction–those are the bad apples who wreak the MOST havoc. Prayers and good luck…
Thank you, Sarah–common ground is good, as we do have at least one thing in common–probably sitting in the absolute last boat. 🙂
Sarah,
Unless you are going to invoke a level of personal knowledge of the figures involved on a par with your knowledge of the American scene, I think your *guarantee* isn’t worth the photons it is written with.
I’ve been living in the UK for getting close to four years now, in one important FCA church, and studying through a theological training institution whose members would also be involved in FCA in high percentages, and I wouldn’t venture an interpretation of what the English are doing with that level of confidence.
My impression of the scene from personal talking to people here – moderate evangelicals, conservative evangelicals, involved with FCA and not, is that you are speaking only of those who have already left the CoE. From what I can see those who haven’t already left (and they’re the overwhelming majority of the FCA) have no exit strategy, nor any desire to leave. They will if they have to – if lines are crossed – but each church and leader has drawn that in a different place. There is no orchestrated leadership like existed in the U.S. trying to get people to lead. There is no figure here who could exercise that kind of role.
The English evangelicals, especially the Reform and FCA ones, hate politics. They wouldn’t be bishops even if they were asked. (And I think that captures the problem for me. A denomination run by bishops and conservative evangelicals won’t take a role even if asked – any surprise things are where they are? Can you really expect people with other theological views not to implement them for ever?)
So are the FCA meetings plotting the recovery of the CoE through an ‘inside’ strategy? I doubt it. Are they plotting taking everyone out? I doubt it even more. From the point of view of this Aussie, the evangelicals still don’t seem to have seen the writing on the wall – they’re still doing the ‘bunker down and get on with ministry in the parish’ thing they’ve done now for decades. They would rather come to an end than become political. They just don’t seem to see that they are going to be pushed out unless there is a game changer of some kind. They look at TEC and don’t go ‘that’s us next’ they go ‘typical Americans’. They look at Sydney and go, ‘Like how evangelical it is, but they have to be too political to have that.’
Enough of the key churches have enough independence from the hierarchy to thrive and do ministry that it just isn’t a pressing problem for those clergy who have already gotten through ordination or those laity who can be in one of those churches.
That’s my impression, based on over three years living with the people in question. And I wouldn’t *guarantee* it is right.
What I can say is that you just can’t draw a straight line from how things played out in the U.S. or Oz to how they are in the U.K. It’s three countries divided by a common language.
My personal knowledge of the FCA in England is very limited compared to Mark Baddely.
But I do know enough about the situation in England (from limited personal experience and from friends there) to confidently say that anybody who attempts to just project their experiences from America in 2004 onto the situation in England in 2011 will inevitably get it wrong.
As best I can tell, Mark’s post with its various nuances is right on the money.
We are into new territory.