In the case of TEC, moreover, the issue is complicated by a polity that seeks to frustrate the maintenance of any stance which views women’s ordination in strict terms of reception, not done-and-dusted acceptance: that is, as an innovation being tested and received – or not. Because TEC has rejected this understanding, and because a PEV (provisional Episcopal visitor) scheme was not adopted, the traditional position has been maintained not across the geographical spectrum (as in the UK; or as in the Communion at large), but in specific dioceses of TEC: dioceses which now feel they have nowhere to go but into zones of special integrity and survivalism – and into the company, though they may not say it too loudly, of those who are chiefly friends of expedience and not of core ”˜catholic’ principle.
I mention this because in TEC, while there may be a general spirit abroad for carving out a special province in the light of theological innovations by ”˜the revisionist majority,’ the number of bishops actually seeking such a solution are relatively few at present (perhaps the three hard-pressed anglo-catholic dioceses; and Pittsburgh). This is because hope still exists on the part of a number of bishops, and of a large number of parishes outside their dioceses, that another way forward is possible. This may be due to not liking what they are seeing-legally, emotionally, morally, practically-when dioceses seek to move out of TEC or otherwise form a new province or structure; it may be for lack of having a clear sense of what to do, for godly or for less salutary reasons; it may have to do with belief in a communion accountability that simply will take more time, at a time when time feels short all the same.
At what point does waiting simply become an excuse for doing nothing?
Sorry Dr. Seitz, “no sale”. The silence since NO from the ABC is almost deafening. The ACC seems actively at work to sweep all under the rug. There seem to be no plans for a Primates meeting anywhere on the horizon, and 815 continues to sue, berate, and threaten all who do not toe the line.
What’s to wait for? There will only be one result of much more waiting, the reasserters will be pretty much gone, and that’s playing directly into the plans of 815.
And, this is just more of the same-old, same-old..
Gloria
Br. Michael – why not ask Athanasius or Francis or Dominic or the Wesleys or the Tractarians. Those of us who are strong reasserters, but not yet ready to move away from TECUSA are not “doing nothing.” We are working and waiting for a communion solution – a catholic solution.
While I think that the lifeboat image is a good metaphor, we need to ensure that all the lifeboats cometogether instead of going their separate ways.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
I continue to think that Chris Seitz is perhaps not paying as close attention to the situation as he thinks. Take his characterization of the Lambeth Conference, for example: he says that, “we do not know and will not know until [Rowan Williams] declares it, what the invitation list and its footnotes will look like.â€
But, in fact, we do know that. Not only have we known it for some time, the structure of that list, very much including the footnotes, is arguably responsible for the increasing determination of besieged parishes and dioceses to get out of ECUSA.
Dr. Seitz continues that the choice before us as concerns Lambeth is, “do all come and all ‘fight it out’ regarding the neuralgic issue of sexual teaching … or do those come, and only those, who are prepared to accept the teaching of the last Lambeth conference …†Again, this is a misrepresentation of the choices, since Rowan Williams has declared Lambeth will be neither of those, but a no-decision, utterly non-synodical extended Bible study, or what Peter Akinola rightly terms a “jamboree.â€
ACI seems to recognize there are no good choices other than what Common Cause is doing. So, we get Dr. Seitz’ backhanded slap at a marriage of convenience between Anglo-Catholics and Anglo-Protestants, even while encouraging a marriage of convenience, within which there is far less common ground, between ECUSA and its disaffected units. And, we’re told a solution is a “non-juridical alliance of Bishops†overseen by foreign “Communion Associates,†which is what Common Cause is already doing. The difference, I suppose, is that ECUSA would – what? – agree to the former, even as it rages over the latter? That this organization, which is going to depose Bob Duncan for a matter on which he didn’t vote and isn’t even effective for at least another year, is going to accede to the same result because it’s proposed in more soothing tones by ACI?
I appreciate the sentiments behind Chris Seitz’ thoughts, but, in light of the cold, hard reality of the composition of ECUSA’s leadership and its scorched earth strategy, they remain wishful thinking.
Phil Snyder: Please don’t think that my question is sarcastic, I ask it in all good faith: I know that you are waiting, but in what way are you working? I hope that some things are happening that I may not be aware of. Thank you for your reply.
Phil, you may wait a long time for the perfect lifeboat to come along.
I tend to agree with Granny Gloria in #2. What motion there has been from ++Rowan since the various and sundry responses (and non-responses) to the DeS communique’ have been to undermine and freeze out the reasserters in TEC. Where are the initiatives Dr. Seitz speaks of, the statements, the Primates’ meeting notice, etc? Nowhere to be found. Not even when an entire diocese announces it is on the brink of dissociation can our narcoleptic ABoC be roused into action.
There is a difference between waiting, Dr. Seitz, and waiting for Godot. Regrettably, the ACI’s headliners seem more intent on assuming the roles of Vladimir and Estragon these days.
I found this section to be the most challenging and thought-provoking part of Seitz’ address:
“‘Leaving’ may seek to take the form of ‘belonging’ – to another section of the Communion. But this is potentially to dislodge the struggle from the point where it must be joined, with charity and with grace, if the dispute is not to be prolonged indefinitely. It is to spread the struggle far and wide, to broaden its scope, and so to magnify, and not to resolve, its intensity. What looks for some like a ‘rescue’ in the American region is yet another example of the American Church monopolizing the Communion’s attention and dictating the terms of its becoming, at this critical time.”
“…non-juridical alliance…” Did I miss something? I thought that this was tried with the CA group, but that it fell apart in NO. I am perplexed by the suggestion that this body of otherwise fine bishops would somehow be able to behave differently, or that TEC will somehow concede its polity in ways it has previously rejected.
Among other things, I don’t think the case has been made that dioceses, such as Dio of Pgh, should change their plans, or that isolated parishes should forego consideration of common cause affiliation. This is not to say that parishes or dioceses that remain are somehow necessarily unfaithful.
That said, note that the good order described culminates in the production of a covenant that certain provinces may or may not be able to “embrace” – whatever “embrace†could mean. This appears to be a proposal to delay addressing the “juridical†issues, which will apparently be addressed at the point it finally is decided by some organ or yet-to-be-determined process of the communion that a province has conclusively and not only MERELY not-embracing, it is really most SINCERELY not-embracing the covenant.
Of course, the DES communiqué provided a deadline, the ABC issued invitations early, the ABC has cooperated with TEC in producing the WG report and with the JSC’s role in NO, and TEC appears not to have accepted the DES communiqué.
IMHO, the ACI and the ABC are operating in tandem in rejecting excommunication of TEC, or portions thereof, and the replacement of such excommunicated sees. For the ACI, there seems to be a desire to ‘game’ a recalcitrant TEC into a position of nicely withdrawing, and preferably they will voluntarily do so in a piecemeal fashion. As for the ABC, I am coming to believe that he considers an AC without reappraising TEC not worth having/preserving.
My point is that one effect of this is to include as many reappraisers within the “system†for as long as possible – of course, without consequence for their rejection of Lambeth 1.10, the WR/DC, or DES. And during this time, these reappraisers will be working on the covenant, staffing communion offices, drafting reports, electing bishops, making appointments, changing canons, teaching children, suing reasserting bishops, suing reasserting churches/parishioners, etc…
If the outline for the upcoming Lambeth is indeed accurate, no one will be “duking it out” in regard to issues facing the Communion as the schedule is designed to prevent such action. Lambeth 2009 if held with all bishops in attendance has no provision to address the issues at concern, period. One can easily understand the enormous waste such a “jamboree” will be to third world areas fighting real issues like HIV, malaria, water, Islam. Why waste the money or carbon?
Now If there were a blueprint for a showdown or the possibility of one (as developed in 1998), it might be worthwhile. Otherwise, waste of time and money.
Dr Seitz reads this blog, I take it. Judging from the above comments the ACI stance seems, in this forum at least, to be flying like a lead balloon. People are no longer prepared to give the benefit of the doubt that it is authentically catholic in its ecclesiology. Perhaps it still plays a little better in Canada, where determinations are less fierce? I’d love to hear a bit more on this difference in perspective.
Jeff (#5)
I am a deacon in the Church and, as such, I don’t move in the circles where these decisions are made. What am I doing? Well, I sit on the Commission on Ministry in the Diocese and I work there to help raise up the new leaders in the diocese and to be sure that they believe the Faith before I (and I am not the only voice) approve them to move forward in the process. Before a person’s call is confirmed, I believe that he or she should have a good understanding of the Faith.
I teach in my local parish and I keep my teaching in line with what the Church has taught for 2000 years. I am currently teaching on Paul’s letters to the Corinthians and did not hold back when it came to I Cor 6 (the whole chapter).
I work in prison to bring those who need to hear the message of God’s reconciliation through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
One of the biggest problems with TECUSA is not the clergy as they are formed in seminary. It is how the laity are not formed in the parishes. If you send a person who has been grounded in the faith and understands Scripture and Prayer and Tradition to seminary (even one where the Faith is not taught), that seminary can deepen the relationship with God (it can be good to know what the “enemy” teaches and how to counter it) and it will be very hard for that seminary to mar that relationship. However, if you send an unformed Christian to a place where the Gospel is not taught and where Scripture is studied in a way that does not recognize the divine nature of it, then how can that person fail to be mal-formed by the experience? Parish level catechesis is the key to long term renewal of the Church.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Br. Michael (#6)
I have already found (or rather been found by) the perfect lifeboat. That lifeboat is Jesus Christ and my faith and trust is in Him, not in any bishop or institution. I do not trust TECUSA or the Diosese of Dallas or Bishop Stanton or even myself for my salvation or to save me from a sinking ship.
But God has placed me in TECUSA with Bishop Stanton in the Diocese of Dallas and told me to work and let Him worry about the holes in the hull and here I will work and do what God has set before me. If I go down with the ship, I go down doing my duty to God.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
13: Phil, thank you for your response, I commend you for the work that you do. Had there been more of it done in the last 40 years, TEC and the AC would no be at the present crisis. My question dealt with the matter of “working” towards a catholic solution. I’m still in the dark about that.
Phil, be glad, as I would guess you are, that you have the Diocese of Dallas and Bp. Stanton. Most of us are not that fortunate, thus, we have accepted our life boats and are navigating on a different provincial sea while keeping an eye on the storms that come our way from pecusa and still trying to maintain a steadfast witness to Jesus Christ in our present locales.
I believe that Fr. Armstrong puts it right when he sees it as a question of priority: catholic order or catholic truth. For many of us waiting on catholic order meant sacrificing catholic truth and evangelical mission.
Jeff (#14) – Since I don’t move at the communion level, I don’t know what is going on there. I am working towards catholic order and catholic truth within the Diocese. As part of the COM, I share in the awesome responsibility of helping to select the future clergy of the Diocese. As a deacon in my parish, I have the awesome responsibility of teaching people the Faith and of leading them into ministry. Both of these responsibilities lead towards a catholic response to the issue at hand.
Tony – Yes, I am very thankful that God has placed me in the Diocese of Dallas and that I am under the authority of a godly Bishop and true Apostle. I know that others are not so fortunate and thus the lifeboats. I would caution you, however, to not try and separate catholic order from catholic truth. You cannot save catholic truth by rejecting catholic order nor can you save catholic order by rejecting catholic truth. The two are two sides of the same coin. But given that many dioseses reject both catholic order and catholic truth, I will not gainsay the consciences of anyone in that situation. The problems comes, then, down to who determines catholic truth and catholic order and I believe that is up to the Church catholic and not to individuals.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Thirty-one years ago today I was ordained by Bishop Gaskell in Milwaukee. In early December, the anniversary of the formation of the Evangelical Catholic Mission will slip by unnoticed by all but a few who remember its founding at the Church of the Ascension in Chicago. It was meant to be a “church within the church”, and its primary concern was WO. I was there; I have waited and waited. I was involved in the next organization too–the ESA–which became FIFNA. And then the Network. More waiting with a flavor not unlike that of Dr. Seitz’ lecture. Bishops & dioceses, priests, parishes, isolated congregations and individuals together, hoping for a little respect; getting none.
I’m in the Diocese of Louisiana, and I’m currently waiting on the thin thread of hope that RW’s letter to Howe holds out. My bishop is my long-time friend and seminary classmate; he is waiting and hoping too.
Meantime, week by week, people in my parish are leaving TEC because they are tired of explaining to their family, friends, and co-workers why they belong to and support “the church with the gay bishop.” These folks aren’t bigots or hotheads; but they also don’t want a theology of waiting any more. Our Vestry is clearly on record for orthodoxy since the presenting events of 2003, but being in a safe parish doesn’t work for these good people any long. The nuances of waiting on the instruments of unity are not useful or encouraging to them. They are fed up and are moving on. Perhaps it is the American Way, as Dr. Seitz suggests. But, I’ve seen thirty years of continuous erosion, and, though I am still waiting, I’m not expecting deliverance. I’m used to it. This is waiting for Godot.
I fully understand this pronounced catholic ecclesiology, and I agree with it. But, it’s hard to not lose patience with what looks like +++RW’s(and others’) repeatedly kicking the can down the street.
Plus, we should all take a good look at the concept of judgment. Were Dr. Seitz to spend any significant time in my former diocese, the Diocese of Massachusetts, then he, too, might be very tempted to run screaming from the room and into one of Archbishop Nzimbi’s Kenyan Anglican Churches as quickly as possible. Remember, if one is traditional in theology and Scripturally-based in both that and your ecclesiology, then “getting out” is truly your only option. Many sermons in that diocese sound like calls to radical political rallies instead of the transforming Gospel of Christ. And, by the way, I’m talking about getting out of academia, too, where debate is a norm, and into the parishes themselves. FYI, those two worlds can be very different. I really don’t need to go to church every Sunday and hear devolved, secularized trash like the Bible is no different than anyone else’s “story”, it’s all “culturally-conditioned’, anyway; God loves all Creation so if you are “created” a sinner(as we all are) then that’s perfectly ok, and so on.
I was blessed to be able to move to a Network diocese so I’m still in TEC, but had I not been able to move I would no longer be in TEC. Interesting, too, that I’ve also been pinged on for “staying” by at least one prominent orthodox blogger. But, what he doesn’t seem to realize is that those of us who aren’t living off the in-laws or a family trust need to care about certain things like pension and health insurance for children with special needs; so sometimes, it’s not so cut-and-dried as “just get out”, as is our case since my spouse is a church employee.
It’s true I have digressed here, but, in reality, Dr. Seitz, what would truly enable all of us with a catholic ecclesiology to continue fulfilling it would be some significant action on the part of the AB of C, the primates, or both. They should all be able to see with their own eyes what they’re dealing with–American dioceses in legislated direct violation of the Windsor Report and the Dar Communique; a “primate” who, without a second thought, went back on her word to the other primates; the same “primate” who is still busily threatening and litigating the orthodox remnant in this country, etc. ad nauseum.
The powers-that-be, smart men all, can easily see what they’ve got here. The million-dollar question is, though, just when are they planning on doing anything about it?
Food for thought–
GID
Chris Seitz argues against leaving. Major factions have [i]left[/i], past tense. Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, and San Joaquin (Quincy?) are being forced out (intentionally I believe) by the aggressive posturing of 815. The orthodox remnant position will be increasingly untenable. Similar to the Jews in Germany after Kristallnacht. Folks, just wait, it is really going to get ugly after the loss of these bastions of orthodoxy exit. There is talk of “staying but differentiating.” The tolerant church simply will not tolerate any meaningful acts, e.g., non-participation in General Convention. The inhibition papers for “Abandonment of Communion” are probably already drawn up at 815 for such insubordination.
We still have not heard an explanation of what went so very wrong in the September meeting with the Camp Allen bishops. I think that such an explanation should forthcoming if one is asking the orthodox to hold tight and wait under some organization based on these same bishops.
For example, many of these bishops have been named as potential visitor bishops. There seems to some talk of these visitors being used for oversight in dioceses whose bishops are deposed by 815. [b]We have not heard any disavowal of the visitor plan[/b] from those named (even though the plan is worse than rehashed DEPO). Their silence in this matter is [b]very disturbing[/b].
Brien #17
Your comment broke my heart. How many people have been lost in the last 30 years of waiting?
Phil, I can’t argue with your post at 13. God bless you. Pax.
Mark, it isn’t all as bleak as it seems. While waiting, I’ve been teaching and praying just as Phil has written above. I have resolved to do the best I can in the circumstances that are mine. Institutional satisfaction is no longer one of my goals. St. Paul describes the situation of many priests, and I’ve been thinking about this passage today:
“Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation. 3 We put no obstacle in any one’s way, so that no fault may be found with our ministry, 4 but as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: through great endurance, in afflictions, hardships, calamities, 5 beatings, imprisonments, tumults, labors, watching, hunger; 6 by purity, knowledge, forbearance, kindness, the Holy Spirit, genuine love, 7 truthful speech, and the power of God; with the weapons of righteousness for the right hand and for the left; 8 in honor and dishonor, in ill repute and good repute. We are treated as impostors, and yet are true; 9 as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold we live; as punished, and yet not killed; 10 as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing everything. ” 2 Cor 6:2-10 (RSV)
Who needs more? Pray, Mark, for the thousands upon thousands who have left TEC, but who have not found their way to any other church! Brien+
Regarding catholic order and catholic truth – one of the problems that I see in Rowan Williams’ dithering is that he is undermining the Anglican Communion’s claim to have any catholic order at all. Remember that as TEC continues to go undisciplined, a precedent is being set – and that precedent is that there are no rules in the Communion. It is sort of like the legal doctrine of laches – if Rowan Williams consistently refuses to discipline a Province for ignoring Anglican doctrine and order (as is happening with TEC), then there is no longer catholic order to be had. There is no less catholic order in Pittsburgh’s realignment with the Southern Cone then in Central Florida’s continuation with TEC.
I don’t think that Seitz and the ACI address this issue sufficiently in their argumentation. There either is catholic order or there isn’t. To date, Rowan Williams has given no assurances that there is any. Perhaps that might change, but I will say that if Rowan Williams is going to act, he’d better act soon, or he has lost the Communion. The future of catholic order within the Anglican Communion will be determined by Rowan Williams ALONE, and Pittsburgh’s, San Joaquin’s, Common Cause’s and anyone else’s actions are only following the norms Rowan Williams is establishing.
If the ACI isn’t careful, they are going to do for “waiting” what the other side has done for “listening.”
Chris,
Appreciate your call and reminder that holding to the Word of God will finally be the only foundation upon which we can make any claims whatsoever. And the Word of God will eventually be seen as the path out of chaos.
“Ecclesial chaos” — I’m sure you know — will not only be at the provincial level. Departure as a parish or as a mission will (and has) cause ecclesial chaos in the sense of division, some of which will be confusion. I see the devil’s work in that. The moral requirements for those who “depart” include the mitigation of that local chaos by doing what they can and should do in pastoral care for those who choose — which might mean “led” to — not to depart. Even if the departing group takes with it no assets, there is still a biblical responsibility. The group not departing will invariably be a mix of wheat and tares. The simplistic categorization of who is left behind will not be valid, and thus should not be engaged. Those who are departing are required not to villify but to pray for and assist those in the fray. Any other response is not Christian.
Unfortunately, we probably will not be able to see the extent of the need for pastoral care, nor the extent of how the walls of the non-departing wheat should be rebuilt, until the chaos actually exists. Out of chaos…..
But I think you would agree with all that.
The “Associates” concept reminds me of a good cop, bad cop routine, when compared to how Athanasius went about his ministry. I’m not demeaning the concept; I think it is right. However, since we are self-obliterating a catholic nature of “all in, until we are in All”, the possibility of another Athanasian bishop without fear of recourse is slim. I am, however, a firm believer in this, “Glory to God whose power, working in us, can do infinitely more than we can ask or imagine..”
Athanasius is no longer with us. The “Associates” (as much as that sounds like a Sicilian group) being the Good Cop arm, will need the Bad Cop arm to present a balanced attack. We need the Prophet as well, in TECusa, and throughout the Anglican Communion.
Where is the Prophet (and all that the Prophet brings)?
Apostles and Prophets, apostles and prophets, apostles AND prophets.
RGEaton
Waiting, in a time of appraisal.
Br Michael (#21) defer taking exception to Phil (#13) but perhaps I might. Phil (of whom I a big fan) rightly points out the captain of ship is our Good Lord and laudably expresses self-sacrificial character. However, Phil and others are officers on this sinking ship and the reason why captains and other officers “go down with the ship” is to save more passengers, i.e., the laity.
Thus, the question is not what is personally sound but rather what is pastorally sound. The response letters of Bp Duncan and Iker show rightly this is what is prime concern to these godly men.
The reality is that the orthodox laity has been told to wait open-endedly and this process has not been spiritually healthy. They have seen their orthodox pastors leave/retire/forced out which has left laity reeling. The reality is also that the remaining orthodox clergy has lost trust with the laity. It frustrates me personally that there has been no acknowledgment that they were the ones that have allowed the ship to be boarded and pirated. I point out again the ACI proposed Camp Allen centered organization is silent to the fact that these same bishops/captains were the ones that ran the white flag up the mast in September and ignores the sailors mutinous rumblings.
The actions of Bps Duncan and Iker are loud statements that the previous navigation of the ship has been disastrous, and it is time to chart a course for different waters.
Can we say, “Aye, aye matey”?
This thread may have become inactive by now, but I’d like to call attention to one of Prof. Seitz’s reservations above. He prefers to continue to wait on the Instruments of Communion to finally act, and he imagines that a Communion-wide solution that includes a leading role for Canterbury is still possible. Like other commenters above, I find that completely unrealistic. Let me suggest two reasons why.
First, it is naive to expect that a consensus-based approach (such as the Windsor Report process and the proposed Anglican Covenant process) can ever exercise adequate discipline on determined wayward western provinces. Even if Canterbury were suddenly to bit the bullet and withdraw some invitations to Lambeth 2008, I believe it would have virtually no effect on many TEC bishops and dioceses. They’d just take the slap on the wrist and continue on their merry way, even basking in the glory of suffering “persecution” for their “prophetic” stand. Much sterner measures are needed.
Second, I think the ACI leaders underestimate the potential of even just four dioceses leaving TEC and realigning with a Global South province like the Southern Cone. I do believe the New Reformation is already underway. AFter all, when Luther uttered his famous words at the Diet of Worms, “Here I stand. I can do no other,” he stood virtually alone against the combined power of the Papacy and the Holy Roman Emperor. Bishop Duncan’s marvelous invoking of those brave, historic words suggests to me that those of us pursuing the outside strategy have much better prospects for success than Luther had then. “Let goods and kindred go…”
David Handy+