The debates about sexuality, significant as they may be, are symptoms of our confusion about these basic principles of recognition. It is too easy to make the debate a standoff between those who are ‘for’ and those who are ‘against’ the welcoming of homosexual people in the Church. The Instruments of Communion have consistently and very strongly repeated that it is part of our Christian and Anglican discipleship to condemn homophobic prejudice and violence, to defend the human rights and civil liberties of homosexual people and to offer them the same pastoral care and loving service that we owe to all in Christ’s name. But the deeper question is about what we believe we are free to do, if we seek to be recognisably faithful to Scripture and the moral tradition of the wider Church, with respect to blessing and sanctioning in the name of the Church certain personal decisions about what constitutes an acceptable Christian lifestyle. Insofar as there is currently any consensus in the Communion about this, it is not in favour of change in our discipline or our interpretation of the Bible.
This is why the episcopal ordination of a person in a same-sex union or a claim to the freedom to make liturgical declarations about the character of same-sex unions inevitably raises the question of whether a local church is still fully recognisable within the one family of practice and reflection. Where one part of the family makes a decisive move that plainly implies a new understanding of Scripture that has not been received and agreed by the wider Church, it is not surprising that others find a problem in knowing how far they are still speaking the same language. And because what one local church says is naturally taken as representative of what others might say, we have the painful situation of some communities being associated with views and actions which they deplore or which they simply have not considered.
Where such a situation arises, it becomes important to clarify that the Communion as a whole is not committed to receiving the new interpretation and that there must be ways in which others can appropriately distance themselves from decisions and policies which they have not agreed. This is important in our relations with our own local contexts and equally in our ecumenical (and interfaith) encounters, to avoid confusion and deep misunderstanding.
The desire to establish this distance has led some to conclude that, since the first condition of recognisability (a common reading and understanding of Scripture) is not met, the whole structure of mission and ministry has failed in a local church that commits itself to a new reading of the Bible. Hence the willingness of some to provide supplementary ministerial care through the adoption of parishes in distant provinces or the ordination of ministers for distant provinces.
I;ve “read it all”, and I’ll read it again.. BUT, one thing hit me hard.
paraphrase:
not coming to Lambeth is refusal of the cross, and therefore also the resurrection?
I’m truly shocked, that he would say such a thing.
Gloria
Executive summary:
Let’s have more meetings.
“not coming to Lambeth is refusal of the cross, and therefore also the resurrection?
I’m truly shocked, that he would say such a thing.”
Doesn’t this mean that if they aren’t willing to put forth effort they can’t expect to benefit?
From my reading the ABC continues to make the unity of the Anglican Communion the over-riding consideration at the expense of the truth of the Gospel. Again the ball is kicked further down the street to Lambeth, which will then kick it to GC 2009, with no end in sight. By now all parties have a more than adequate understanding of the positions of others and it is time for a clear decision…not more meetings/discussions/”reconciliation”. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
This is a very serious, thoughtful and thorough reflection on the current situation in AC that bears rereading and considered reflection by all of us. I hope that commenters will avoid rapid responses. Kendall, please keep this one near the top for the next few days so that when we have a chance to “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” the Letter, we can give similarly thoughtful responses.
[i]A somewhat complicating factor in the New Orleans statement has been the provision that any kind of moratorium is in place until General Convention provides otherwise. Since the matters at issue are those in which the bishops have a decisive voice as a House of Bishops in General Convention, puzzlement has been expressed as to why the House should apparently bind itself to future direction from the Convention. If that is indeed what this means, it is in itself a decision of some significance. It raises a major ecclesiological issue, not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege but about the understanding in The Episcopal Church of the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards. Once again, there seems to be a gap between what some in The Episcopal Church understand about the ministry of bishops and what is held elsewhere in the Communion, and this needs to be addressed.[/i]
You can at least say of this letter that the Archbishop is engaging with the ecclesiological dispute that the recent unpleasantness has thrown into sharp relief, even if he carefully refrains froim expressing a personal opinion.
But then you have to wonder about this:
The matter is further complicated by the fact that several within The Episcopal Church, including a significant number of bishops and some diocesan conventions, have clearly distanced themselves from the prevailing view in their province as expressed in its public policies and declarations . . . . Without elaborating on the practical implications of this or the complicated and diverse politics of the situation, it is obvious that such dioceses and bishops cannot be regarded as deficient in recognisable faithfulness to the common deposit and the common language and practice of the Communion. If their faith and practice are recognised by other churches in the Communion as representing the common mind of the Anglican Church, they are clearly in fellowship with the Communion. The practical challenge then becomes to find ways of working out a fruitful, sustainable and honest relation for them both with their own province and with the wider Communion.
What pray does this mean in the long term, not just for San Joaquin and Pittsburgh, but also for CANA and AMIA? How many other churches have to recognize them as reflecting the common mind of the Communion before they are viewed as “in fellowship?” Is Rowan Williams implicitly conceding that Canterbury does not ultimately determine who is and is not “in Communion?”
Bob from Boone, yes we’ll make this sticky or keep a link to it up top for the next few days to facilitate deeper discussion and reflection.
“From my reading the ABC continues to make the unity of the Anglican Communion the over-riding consideration at the expense of the truth of the Gospel. Again the ball is kicked further down the street to Lambeth, which will then kick it to GC 2009, with no end in sight. By now all parties have a more than adequate understanding of the positions of others and it is time for a clear decision…not more meetings/discussions/”reconciliation”. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. ”
I don’t get how it can be argued that TEC pushed things through without a careful consensus and decision on the one hand, and then complain that ABC is spending too much time trying to get a careful consensus and decision on the other.
This really crystallizes his view on Anglicanism – let’s just wait to see which way the wind blows it.
This matter will never come up for *real* discussion in the majority of the communion.
[i]comment edited[/i]
After reading the letter through once…I have some initial thoughts. I undoubtedly will have more after further prayer and reflection. Right now though, to paraphrase: One Church Under Therapy.
I have read this very quickly. I am astonished that it is so long and convoluted given the significance of the document. On a first read it gives me renewed hope about the ministry of Rowan Williams. Perhaps he is willing to use such office as he has left for the sake of the unity of the communion.
The Positives: he asserts the primacy of scripture and the significance of recognizable ministry and sacraments. He opposes unilateralism in changing scriptural interpretation. He recognizes the authority of the majority reading on sexual ethics both historically and globally. He recognizes that the dispute in the communion is not about homosexuality per se but about the authority of scripture, the nature of ministry, including the episcopacy and that the actions of TEC are communion breaking. He creates a rallying point for the communion at large around the covenant process by insisting that acceptance of a Lambeth invitation means acceptance of Windsor and pledges to personally interrogate bishops who have equivocated about their sincerity. He offers a rallying point which may revive the Camp Allen bishops as a group and thus create a larger remnant in TEC. He offers a personal intervention with TEC and the breaking away dioceses to secure Alternate Primatial Oversight more in keeping with Tanzania.
Negative points: The letter is overlong and written with such finesse that it is lacking in the clarity and brevity that is needed. There will be much reading of tea leaves associated with this letter. The letter seems insufficiently in touch with the pace of change on the ground in the United States and the bleeding away of the Anglican faithful which gives rise to the ministry of the Nigeria etc. The letter takes back much of what it says positively and much of what is entailed in the theology of the scripture and the church which it sets out when he says that he in essence cannot accept that the current disputes represent irreconcilable theologies.
Initial Conclusions: I wish the letter were more clear and more bold but it is the strongest statement from the ABC to date. In my Just War Theory inspired view of the crisis in the Anglican Communion this latest intervention by the established authority ought to be given every chance to work. There is a beginning here that could lead to a larger Windsor compliant remnant in TEC and to ultimate unity between those orthodox who have been pursuing inside and outside strategies. It pushes the covenant process forward and I believe that needs to happen as quickly as possible with as large a gathering of the communion and continuing Anglican bodies involved as possible.
I predict that this very modest drawing of a line and limit will produce further statements of intransigence from many bishops and dioceses in TEC and it will become more clear just how unilateralist and revisionist many dioceses of TEC are. It just may be that the ABC has taken an action that however modest it appears now has placed him irrevocably on the side of a unified Anglican Communion and against unilateral revisionism in faith and morals. I hope that those on the reasserter side will give this initiative some time to work. It could be the beginning of a basis for the widest possible orthodox Anglican consensus and the beginning of bringing into one fleet the current array of life boats.
Seems to me that he lives in the Wonderland, the AC’s crisis is getting bigger and bigger, this letter shows that he is a very weak leader.
Leander:
This is very well said and helpful. Thanks.
I read it as artfull inaction. The ABC is continuing has stratagy of doing nothing however he packages it. I am reminded of the ongoing gag of Charlie Brown and Lucy in Peanuts wher Charlie Brown always tries to kick the football and Lucy always pulls it away at the last minute. There is never a decision. The ABC is against anything that threatens unity, but never does anything to address or correct that which caused the breach in unity in the first place.
Thus he lumps the initial breach with the consequences of that breach. The letter does nothing for me. The ABC always holds out the carrot and just as reasserter hands close in around it, it is pulled away just as Lucy always pulls away the foot ball. This is no different.
What Rowan fails to understand is what it is really like in TEC for those who voice an alternative view to the reigning ethos. The terrorist tactics used against me and my own parish as a way to undermine and cut off funding to ACI were brutal.
That we were a target was made clear in a 2006 letter from Giswold to the HOB in which he accused the “Colorado based ACI” of disrupting the life of the church. And then very swiftly the attacks against began: unfounded charges against me, a conspiracy to disrupt our congregational life, an all out attack on the vestry, lawsuits then against the parish, and now against the members of the vestry and me personally.
Now, given that attack on a part of the body of Christ, how is that Rowan can say that seeking sanctuary and pastoral care from CANA is at all problematic–were we supposed to just let TEC destroy our parish family? Was the vestry not supposed to protect our common life and worship?
As one Primate recently said to me, being an Anglican is more than being friends with the resident of Lambeth Palace.
I am not as sanguine as some of the comments above. Yes, some of the passages are commendable. But then ++Rowan gravely underestimates TEC’s departure from the Faith and the resulting divisions. As a result, he gravely underestimates what the current situation calls for. His call for more “conversation†would be comical if it weren’t yet one more instance of his corrosive failure to lead.
I am fascinated by this piece. It starts so well with a restating of the authority of the Holy Scriptures and the necessity of understanding that the dispute is more than just about human sexuality. The ABC suggests that the solution, in part, lies in a facilitated series of counseling/arbitration meetings for those most at odds. Somehow he wants to re-examine the role of Lambeth and participation therein, while restating its authority. He trusts and attributes an integrity to some in this division which I for one believe has long since been abandoned.
This letter is extraordinarily interesting when read in conjunction with the Marilyn Mccord Adams lecture where she calls for “weeding” by which she clearly calls for the weeding out in the Church of those who resist, oppose or disagree with the radical agenda whose home is TEC, USA. I hear in her lecture what I hear from Mrs. Schori, Mrs. Anderson and others is a stated belief that I have no place in TEC, USA because I follow the teaching and faith that is held in common by the majority of the Communion. The lecture further calls for greater radical action in TEC, USA.
Such future promised action is now clearly the agenda of GC 2009 and is most likely to pass resoundingly. The ABC does reference that the decisions in New Orleans are provisional only until rescinded by GC. He does not seem to acknowledge that the next GC will likely do that. Meanwhile he calls for counseling or mediated arbitration and more study.
I suggest that it is far too late. The Titanic is sinking and I use the Titanic an a metaphor for the Anglican Communion. While seeking for four years to get an appropriate response from TEC, USA (he now understands that response as the best he can get and yet clearly inadequate) the damage has been irreparably done. There is no longer a Communion wide recognition of the validity of TEC, USA as a Christian Church. The leaders of TEC, USA are clearly committed to a further more radical set of decisions and are playing for time.
Does not the question revolve now about what might be a reconstituted Anglican Communion? I believe that we have seen the collapse of a global top heavy hierarchical system in favor of an emerging networked system or relationships and ministry. We have seen a shift in both influence and spirituality from the west to the global south. Will we in the west embrace the strong churches of the global south, even if it requires cutting ties with the western Church that has been our home for lifetimes? It is not that the churches of the west are stuck in the past (some are surely), it is that the churches of the west seem to be embracing such a radical reshaping and restating of their understanding of Christianity that they have de facto separated themselves from the historic family of the Apostolic Church which might maintain Apostolic Succession, but no longer the Apostolic Tradition.
We live in a new age for the Church. The challenge for me is to see where God is leading us through the Holy Spirit as confirmed by the Holy Scriptures. It is a new time of Reformation in which it is very hard emotionally as well as spiritually. I do not find overall that the ABC has answered my concerns. The hemorrhage will continue. The lawsuits will continue. The mutual distrust already present will make his proposals iffy at best. Yesterday my bishop asked his clergy: “What is the difference between a terrorist and a liturgist? Answer: You can negotiate with a terrorist!” I do not believe that negotiation is possible between the kind of radical agenda and canonical fundamentalism of the one side and the evangelical, biblical and evangelistic spirituality of the other. May God help us as we seek to find our place in this Church of the future in which Jesus is both head and lord.
Ian Montgomery +
PS. Thank you Leander for seeing some hope. My hope is rather more limited. I do serve under a “Windsor” bishop which means that I can hope for my congregation in a way that I could not if I were in other dioceses. My hope is not in the ABC but my Bishop to whom I am committed as he really is “under Christ.”
No consensus, so let’s kick the can down the road. Fully one third of the primates and two thirds of the ACC members did not respond. Thus, the biggest block are those that rejected the polling method.
So the lawsuits will continue, in fact, accelerate. The realignment will increase. That realignment will include moving the epicenter of Anglicanism away from Britain. Rowan Williams has now declared himself irrelevant.
#13 as modified by #17.
In other words, this would have been the perfect letter . . . in 2002.
Matt, #20:
“Quite the contrary, it seems he is simply suggesting that you must be willing to work within the limits of whatever covenant finally emerges. Anyone could say “yes†to this. +Bruno can say yes to this with full integrity”.
Not necessarily to +Bruno’s “yes” and bishops like him. It depends on what the Covenant says, but how long will it take to put that together?
Sadly I have had enough experience with the ABC to come to believe that his writings suggest just what he is feeling at the moment something is written. It would seem he seldom gives us statements we can “take to the bank.”
Dr. Harding, #13: Thank you for weighing in because I was hoping the PhD’s would start to.
“I predict that this very modest drawing of a line and limit will produce further statements of intransigence from many bishops and dioceses in TEC and it will become more clear just how unilateralist and revisionist many dioceses of TEC are”.
Bishop Bud Cederholm(MA), after the Windsor Report came out:
“We’re not telling anyone to stop doing blessings”.
And, they not only do blessings there, they solemnize gay “marriage”, too, despite the fact that Shaw asked them not to in a formal letter in ~2004. So, that’s what he’s got “on paper” to show the primates, but he doesn’t discipline the clergy when they do solemnize said “marriages”. God only knows how many of them Carter Heyward has done, without penalty.
If bishops like Shaw go to Lambeth, there’s certainly nothing I can do about it, but I will be thoroughly appalled. The two-faced behavior just REEKS…
This letter confirms for me that the Anglican Communion is antiquated and irrelevant, kind of like the King James Bible: one brings it out for historical and aesthetic reasons, but not as a relevant witness to the Gospel in our time.
Our time requires a view of theology and hermeneutics that encounters the postmodern shift realistically. A gospel couched in pre-modern (or modern) categories will eventually fail and the church that ascribes to this, will become irrelevant.
My vote is that in 2009 the GC moves to formally leave the communion. To continue trying to appease the premoderns will only fail, as they don’t have the modesty to admit they may be wrong.
Now, given that attack on a part of the body of Christ, how is that Rowan can say that seeking sanctuary and pastoral care from CANA is at all problematic–were we supposed to just let TEC destroy our parish family? Was the vestry not supposed to protect our common life and worship?
Don, you were supposed to martyr yourself for the sake of unity. Didn’t you get the memo? It is damaging to the Communion to make unilateral decisions about defending yourself. The Communion will protect you through the appropriate instruments (once they have been agreed upon), so if you have done your duty and submitted PR form 815-a for consideration of protection (and copied it to the relevant departments) be assured that help will come in due course.
Trust us. Your difficulty is at the very top of the agenda for the next meeting in which it will be decided what meetings will be held that will consider the apropriate pastoral responce to these problems.
Sincerely yours
Harry C, Loving
Undersecretary of Obfuscation
Lambeth Department for Circular Filing
Dear Matt # 20.
I do see a very modest drawing of a line that acceptance of a Lambeth invitation means acceptance of Windsor and acceptance of the principle of covenant and the rejection of unilateralism. Also a promise by the ABC to personally interrogate bishops who have made anti-covenant and anti-Windsor statements about their acceptance of these principles. He of course now has to actually have these conversations and withdraw some invitations or convince unilateralist bishops to withdraw on their own account. He has also made clear that the bishop of New Hampshire is not invited because he ipso facto violates Windsor. The ABC has put his own person and office in play in a way which he has heretofore avoided. If he does not follow through this glimmer of renewed credibility will be lost.
I also see a very modest drawing of a line by saying with great finesse and a regrettable lack of clarity that TEC’s refusal of the Tanzania APO is not accepted and must be revisited.
I am not very worried by the prospect of TEC signing a covenant with crossed fingers. Unilateralism is a non-negotiable for the majority of TEC bishops and the question of the actual content of a covenant is moot for them. This puts them in a place where they cannot be included in Lambeth under the terms of this letter. I continue to think that even this very modest brake on American Unilateralism will be met with righteous indignation on the revisionist side. This in itself could be very helpful and clarifying and perhaps revive the possibility of a truly helpful Lambeth Conference of those willing to engage seriously the covenant process.
Though it is commendable that the ABC is trying to impute the very best motives of the heart for all concerned, he has fallen prey to the most pernicious habit of our time: finding faithfulness through professional consultation with facilitators in dialogue! What this forfeits for the ABC is the notion that there is…in fact…any TRUTH that trumps feelings and needs and honoring all sides, etc., ad nauseum. Behaving less like the first among equal primates and more like a distressed school-marm hoping that either the school board or the superintendent will find a way forward—behaving that way, IMHO, discredits his value as a leader. He is not the “Arch-Facilitator”! He is the ABC!! [But, then again, my hunch is that- since he holds a heterdox theology on the presenting issue- he cannot find the Truth to defend, and must play the only string he can play…UNITY.] It’s tiresome to repeat it, but, UNITY with infidelity to TRUTH, is an ephemeral and unworthy form of unity.
[i] Please don’t turn to sarcasm on this thread. [/i]
-Elf Lady
Stranded in Iowa writes:
[blockquote] By now all parties have a more than adequate understanding of the positions of others and it is time for a clear decision…not more meetings/discussions/”reconciliation. [/blockquote] ”
Perhaps what the ABC is telling us here is that he does not have the capacity to make “a clear decision” for the communion. If we accept that position (and it may very well be true), we are left in one of two places: either 1) casting around for capacity, grasping at straws, etc. looking for a way for the “communion” to make “a clear decision”; or 2) accepting that the communion as currently constituted entirely to make a clear decision, and proceed with multilateral independent action.
…communion as currently constituted entirely [i]lacks the capacity[/i] to make a clear decision…
sorry about that. too quick on the draw.
Stuart, are you saying that TRUTH creates UNITY?
Wow…is that like in all those great Ecumenical Councils where they dealt with heresies dividing the church that they unified the church by a statement of belief…like in a CREED or something?
Is…is that an Anglican way of doing things? You’d never know by this letter.
I think you would have to believe that Truth is a knowable and eternal reality rather than a process.
It’s not been commented on here, but what also stands out to me is that the Primates are being isolated. “Let’s take this to subcommittee” is not a good response at this stage. In fact, it stinks. I get a strong sense that Rowan’s summary of the responses, while not technically incorrect, is spin for the purpose of stringing this out. Did he poll the Primates on whether or not they wanted to meet to resolve this? Yes or No? There’s no way he asked them that question–he wants to divide those opposed to TEC and wear down all whom he can.
Forget all the noise. The real money sentence is never stated– only assumed. Note well:
Theologically, GC does not matter, nor do diocesan conventions. If Lam98 is the only “voice of the whole Communion” then LAMBETH EQUALS THE ONLY PLACE TO DECLARE A PROVINCE OUT OF BOUNDS AND THEREFORE APPROVE INTERVENTIONS… AND BY LOGIC APPROVE A NEW PROVINCE.
This is a theological RPG into the bus of the local “[un]Holy Spirit doing a new thing” mantra…
Will the GS trust Rowan enough to show up and follow thru with Windsor-compliant bishops? Will Rowan (reluctantly perhaps) allow the inevitable practical results of these assumptions play out– OR do they fear he will simply use this to lure them there only to turn his back with political maneuvering and platitudes?
You have to show up at the table to run it. Is this a long, hard work of Christian leadership or a fool’s game?
CANA and AMiA, etc, are being asked to sit down and shut up until a place is made– and that means Lambeth. Or chaos.
OR the final shattering already has started… which will it be?
prodigal
I found the ABC’s letter more worrisome than comforting. It seemed to me that he was criticizing TEC more for acting without the consent of the rest of the AC rather than for acting contrary to Scripture.
I do not see how facilitation can ease this problem. I fear the facilitation may be that first practiced at The Rand Corporation and used, unfortunately, in recent diocesan meetings to silence the reasserting faithful. I think that all the ABC is doing is setting up a “well, I tried” justification for himself when the AC unravels in 2008. The reappraisers in TEC and Westminster have demonstrated, by “thought, word, and deed” they do not wish to recant their hereses. The reasserters have indicated (nods to Martin Luther) that they must stand for Scripture and The 39 Articles. The division between these groups makes the Grand Canyon look like a sidewalk crack.
For the sake of my family and in allegiance to my God, I cannot agree to a reappraisal that obviates the word of God. This is not a contract or labor negotiation. May God have mercy on us all, reasserter and reappraiser.
Deleted, uncalled for personal criticism of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and relentless negativity without any evidence to back up the claim-ed..
OK no sarcasm.
prodigal, I disagree that Rowan is promising that Lambeth will decide the communion status of TEC. To quote from his letter:
Rowan seems to be sending signals that Lambeth will be the beginning of a discussion but may not be a conclusive one. The best that one can say is that what you describe could be there implied in the letter. But is that a case of us seeing what we want to see?
I would like to judge the future by what I have actually seen, and that bodes ill for this Lambeth by this letter.
I understand the feelings of pent-up frustration that are being expressed towards +Rowan. However, my take of his letter, at a high level, is that he effectively sucker punched the hierarchy of TEC.
He noted, in so many words:
1) TEC and Canada are promoting a [i]new[/i] understanding of scripture, not in accord with the most of the Church (most Anglicans, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox).
2) The statement from New Orleans was mud clear, with the implication that the rest of the Church (see above) can go take a hike while TEC will continue go “forward” with its [i]new[/i] understanding of scripture. TEC will do this under the radar while [i]officially[/i] not confirm a gay/lesbian in a relationship as a bishop. He recognizes this document for what it is, weasel words.
3) The invitations to Lambeth are both a carrot and a stick.
4) The office of bishop carries certain responsibilities to be carried out in conjunction with all other bishops in the Church (see above). Some (many) TEC bishops are reaching — or have gone beyond — the recognized boundaries of a bishop that have served the universal church for two thousand years. There is an accounting for this yet to be made.
+Rowan wrote his letter in careful, measured, English academic prose, and as a result can be exegeted to different results. I would rather focus more on the thrust of the letter, which to me, seems to be quite critical of TEC.
All hat and no cattle.
++Rowan is analogous to a legislature that writes perfect, beautiful, eloquent and just laws…and then fails to establish a police force to enforce them. As has been remarked here, events have already overtaken this missive and are accelerating. Far too little, far too late.
I agree with Virgil in that I hope GC2009 does leave the communion – but I will not hold my breath. I think he is wrong in that we must accept post-modern theology – the post moderns already have a religion – it is called secular humanism – Western civ will have to soldier on with at least two religions.
My first child is due to arrive in April. Perhaps by the time she heads off for college (God willing), all this will have been sorted out (also God willing).
After one read, and a few subsequent re-reads of several paragraphs, I am alternating between hope and disappointment.
Quick impressions:
1. Too long.
2. Too murky and impenetrable and subject to multiple conflicting interpretations — one of the very criticisms he makes!
3. Reflects a profound lack of consideration for the Church Persecuted in ECUSA. I don’t think persecution is too strong a word.
4. Ignores the San Joaquin situation, and issues brought up in his letter to Bp. Howe, about catholic understanding that the dicocese and Bishop are the fundamental component of Anglicanism, rather than the province and its political structures. He does mention the ministry of bishops obliquely.
I see some hope in his statement that attempting to elicit future statements from ECUSA will not be constructive or useful, but I am disappointed that he will be consulting with the JSC. The JSC is obviously and skillfully manipulated by ECUSA.
From my posting at SF:
Re- (+++Rowan on his interpretation of any bishop’s refusal to come to his Lambeth Meeting):
“And this is also why I have said that the refusal to meet can be a refusal of the cross – and so of the resurrection.â€
This is perhaps the MOST OFFENSIVE STATEMENT I have read so far on this crisis.
So, +++Rowan is now placing his Lambeth Invitation at par, or above the Invitation to the Cross – No Lambeth, No Salvation.
I think +++Rowan thinks that writing thousands of words (that amount to little or nothing) may somehow make this matter disappear.
In this letter, the Archbishop seems to be attempting to throw a little beat of some red meat to each faction, and by so doing may buy more time – till he retires.
The idea of some “professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understandingâ€
is a another attempt at keeping the endless talking going on and on like the energizer battery.
Pray for Truth, Conviction, and Courage for the gentleman.
Fr. Kingsley+
Arlington, TX
Could there be, please, more interaction with the actual content of the letter. It is useful if you quote parts of it and say you agree or disagree and why.
After reading it through once, I feel like I need to read it again. However, my initial reaction is that it is a plea for the Church to act as a Church and not as a secular political society. Part of that is a need to recognize the tension between a fruitful diversity and the need for limits. As Anglicans historically have, the Archbishop calls for a “both/and” solution to the degree that is possible, rather than taking the easy road of an “either/or.”
Any solution to the present problem (like the one suggested by many in TEC) that favors diversity over mutuality is as bad as a solution (like the one suggested by many in the Global South) that would draw limits to eliminate diversity. The problem with absolutely privileging diversity is that it makes it impossible to define any limits for the mutual recognition of mission and ministry (indeed it regards the drawing of any limits as an illegitimate exercise). Anybody can call himself an Anglican theologian and nobody can disagree.
The problem with absolutely privileging boundary-setting is that it is impossible to find any consensus place to draw the lines short of excluding all those who regard diversity as legitimate. Today it is Lambeth I.10, but tomorrow it would (not just could) be women’s ordination; see the recent discussion on T19. The day after it could be a rematch of the High Church/Low Church wars in the 19th century or a demand for the uniform treatment of charismatic gifts or remarriage after divorce. Schism would follow schism as fast as one month follows another.
The only real alternative (as groups like Fulcrum, the ACI, and the Covenant authors recognize) is to come up with some way to define agreed limits of diversity without excluding anyone who falls within those limits. In the fuzzy areas along and across the boundaries, there must be some way to preserve the maximum degree of communion (mutual recognition of mission and ministry) possible, as well as ways to pursue joint ministries where that is consistent with integrity. The Windsor Report and the subsequent ACC and Primate discussions have been directed towards those goals, and in particular the definition of an Anglican Covenant to implement those goals.
Anybody who is willing to participate in that process will be welcome at Lambeth. There are some, however, whose very presence would represent either the triumph of diversity over mutuality (e.g., Bp. Robinson) or the triumph of unilateral line-drawing over mutuality (e.g., the AMiA and CANA bishops). Others will either self-select or be filtered out because they cannot conscientiously choose mutuality over either diversity (e.g., some in TEC) or exclusivity (e.g., some in the Global South). That is a tragedy, because it represents an unwillingness to take up the cross of self-denial (if not a greater Cross), but it may be a tragedy that the health and even survival of the Anglican Communion demands.
So, as we might have expected, Archbishop Williams has refused to take one of the easy ways out. I haven’t checked any of the reappraiser web sites yet, but I imagine that both are hot with criticism that the Archbishop has not taken their side, but has chosen to continue his middle course. Certainly that is what I am hearing here.
There is nothing here that hasn’t been said about the Windsor report etc. This is Lucy pulling away the football again. It’s all about inaction. TEC will continue to act and the ABC will continue to do nothing and offer imprecise words.
Brilliant! True and sound. I give up hope only by the negatives I read here. The allergy to serious thought and genuine, necessary nuance among so many orthodox is toxic to our desperate situation.
Leander Harding said it very well. This is not a perfect letter, but it offers some real hope to the orthodox throughout the world. The WORST THING that could happen right now would be for the Global South and the orthodox bishops to boycott Lambeth. There WILL BE a Covenant Document produced at Lambeth. It has the POTENTIAL to decisively place the gnostics of 815 beyond the Pale of orthodox Anglican Christianity.
As I said on Stand Firm, the very simple fact of the matter is (in the words of Jim Morrison) that, “they’ve got the guns, but we’ve got the numbers…”
There is no good reason to boycott Lambeth.
Every orthodox bishop should attend, and, once there, should heed the Biblical admonition to “CONTEND for the faith once and for all handed down to the saints.”
The analysis of the Archbishop’s motives being one reasonable response to this article, I WISH I could find the link to a story 3 or 4 years ago which purported to describe describe a meeting between The Queen and ++Williams. She supposedly told him that she did not wish the Anglican Communion desolved/dismembered on her watch. If the report is true ABC’s conduct becomes much clearer.
Has anyone/anyelf with a better memory/search skills than mine the link?
I am, to say the least, perplexed as to why so many people think that the Queen has influence over the CoE or the Communion. Is there some concrete reason to believe that the Queen does not exercise her Supreme Headship On Earth Of The Church In England exactly as Gordon Brown advises?
The man wants unity. The meetings of the Primates have proved to be instruments of division as far as he is concerned. The news here is that alternatives to another primates meeting are offered. Power is taken out of the hands of the primates – power some say they never have had. Because his recommendations [read intentions] don’t lend themselves to abbreviation I give an extensive quotation:
There will never be unity between constituent member churches when some members believe it is a blessed event when a man “marries” another man.
If Rowan Williams thinks he can keep the church together under the circumstances described above then he has an incredibly high opinion of himself. All he is doing now is delaying the inevitable, but at the moment doing so quite masterfully.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
After previously raising the hopes of the “orthodox†by stating:
[/“The common acknowledgment that we stand under the authority of Scripture as ‘the rule and ultimate standard of faith’, in the words of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral; as the gift shaped by the Holy Spirit which decisively interprets God to the community of believers and the community of believers to itself and opens our hearts to the living and eternal Word that is Christ,â€]
the ABC then dashes that hope of the “orthodox†for Lambeth to be used as a disciplinary tool by further stating:
[/“This is why I have repeatedly said that an invitation to Lambeth does not constitute a certificate of orthodoxy but simply a challenge to pray seriously together and to seek a resolution that will be as widely owned as may be.â€]
It appears that the ABC has chosen to opt out of the disciplinary process by seeking to find another “resolution†that will resolve the obvious violation of the 1888 resolution.
It is also very apparent that any referencing to the Creeds (those wonderful instruments of conformity to correct biblical interpretation, as witnessed to by the framers of the 1888 Lambeth Quadrilateral) has been avoided, since orthodoxy need not be certificated.
However, after witnessing the lack of resolve by the western civilization oriented members of the Communion to resolve the violated resolution, it is now easy to see why the 1888 Lambeth weakened the resolve by replacing the stronger more conservative language stating:
[/But furthermore, we do hereby affirm that the Christian unity… can be restored only by the return of all Christian communions to the principles of unity exemplified by the undivided Catholic Church during the first ages of its existence, which principles we believe to be the substantial deposit of Christian Faith and Order committed by Christ and his Apostles to the Church unto the end of the world, and therefore incapable of compromise or surrender by those who have been ordained to be its stewards and trustees for the common and equal benefit of all men.]
And, they substituted:
[/That, in the opinion of this Conference, the following Articles supply a basis on which approach may be by God’s blessing made towards Home Reunion:]
“There is no good reason to boycott Lambeth.” Unfortunately attendance will also mean flip flopping for many of the Primates. It will undermine their credibility.
Waiting for some non-binding Covenant 20-30 years down the pike is illusory and self deception at best. Look, we have been at this for 15 years and Lambeth 1.10 still has not been enforced.
But go ahead and talk. Discuss this until the cows come home. At the end of the day nothing will be done.
Ed the Roman, Yes– there are some VERY CONCRETE reasons for believing that Her Majesty functions quite autonomously, in her role as Defender of the Faith. As a matter of fact, as regards church affairs in the UK (and she is, in fact, not just the “head” of the Church of England, but also the “head” of the Church of Scotland–the Kirk– in which capacity she functions quite differently than she does as the “head” of the C of E) the respective roles of the Queen and her Prime Minister are the precise REVERSE of their roles in the secular affairs of state. In other words, her Prime Minister has the right to be advised of her wishes, and he has the right to offer his own opinions. That’s it. At least, that’s it in theory. In practice– as it is in secular affairs of state– the process is a bit more complex, and there are a number of considerations (historical, constitutional, legal, etc.) that weigh into the balance. As a matter of policy– and as an expression of their appreciation for the complexity of the issues embodied in most decisions about the Church– the last several monarchs have deferred to the preferences of their Prime Ministers, regarding the Church. But the British constitution– unwritten though it may be– is quite clear that the Queen can do whatever she jolly well pleases, as far as the Church of England goes, and there is NOTHING that anybody can legally do about it.
Ed the Roman, P.S. This means that she could SACK Rowan Williams, if he does not accede to her wishes.
[blockquote]But go ahead and talk. Discuss this until the cows come home. At the end of the day nothing will be done.[/blockquote]
Evidence for this is in ++Rowan’s letter where he points out that a number of Primates agreed with the JSC’s assessment of TEC’s compliance to DeS just to attempt to put the issue behind them. They were willing to lie to themselves and their flocks for expediency’s sake.
My brothers and sisters, we need to recover the virtue of Patience. Remember that it took over 60 years (Nicea in 325 to Constaninople in 387) for the Church to first formalize what it believed regarding the Trinity and then to remove most of the Arians from positions of authority. It was a very chaotic time and bishops (such as Athanasius) would perform episcopal acts in the territory of other bishops. Where is our faith? My faith is not in TEC or Rowan Williams or the Anglican Communion. My faith is in Jesus Christ and in the Holy Trinity to resolve this mess and I trust that God – the Three in One – will resolve it to His glory. I trust He will resolve it through and inspite of the Instruments of Unity and that, in the end, we will all look back (either from the Church Militant or Church Triumphant) and say “Of course! It had to be that way!”
I am not counseling unguarded optimism but faith in God and in His providence to keep the Church for Himself.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
thanks dbaird, dale rye, bob from boone and especially leander harding. i have really enjoyed and generally agreed with your careful and discerning comments. i too see some hope for us. i know that many of us would like to think that ABC spends all his time thinking about our situation and that he should know who is being persecuted, but somehow i think that he may also have many other things to attend to as well. just because he doesn’t act as quickly or brashly as americans are accustomed to doesn’t necessarily mean he has no intention to take action or make decisions. truth is, we just don’t know, but it seems that something may start to happen now. i pray for it anyway.
just my little ol’ 2p…
The key sentences for me are these: “The desire to establish this distance has led some to conclude that, since the first condition of recognisability (a common reading and understanding of Scripture) is not met, the whole structure of mission and ministry has failed in a local church that commits itself to a new reading of the Bible. Hence the willingness of some to provide supplementary ministerial care through the adoption of parishes in distant provinces or the ordination of ministers for distant provinces.”
Rowan+ recognizes that this is about a “new reading” of Scripture. TEC isn’t basing its decisions on the Scriptural Tradition of the Church. However, for Rowan the realignment in Anglicanism is about “supplementary ministerial care.” This is wishful thinking. We all realize that for those who have gone on to places of spiritual vitality there is no going back to the ministerial care of The Episcopal (non)Church.
61, this was said before every Primates meetng. Dar was supposed to accomplish something. Now everyone is on about the next meeting and the ABC will line up the next football. Phil, you are in a safe place you can afford to wait. Others who are not, will leave, but then we don’t count and have never counted. We are simple lay people.
But I have said enough. I leave you all to it.
This letter won’t bring any hope or solution, just a blind can’t see that Rowan sided with the TEC, he just don’t have the courage to admit it. Just wait for the for Akinola advent letter. Using a expression used quite a lot by the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition “HE SHOULD RISIGN NOW”.
My hope first is in Christ, second in Akinola.
This is quite a letter to wade through. My impression of the first few pages is that Rowan’s comments could be taken several ways. He makes the point that a majority of primates were prepared to accept the JSC’s response, but then admitted that a significantly large enough block were not so prepared. Much of what he said seemed reasonable to me as a description of things, but was short on “what now”.
His specific recommendations are very interesting. It remains to be seen, of course, whether he acts on them, and what happens if the necessary parties refuse to cooperate. Let us consider them:
First, he would like to
[blockquote]
pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding. Such meetings will not seek any predetermined outcome but will attempt to ease tensions and clarify options. They may also clarify ideas about the future pattern of liaison between TEC and other parts of the Communion.
[/blockquote]
I have repeatedly suggested (check back on my comments) that RW’s preferred option at this point would be to arrive at a negotiated settlement between the parties. I believe that this is precisely what RW is calling for. What’s more, the lead up to these settlements can be found very nicely organized in the first few pages of this letter. Basically:
1) TEC needs to accept that its new interpretations of Scripture have placed it outside the agreed upon bounds of Communion; and
2) That unilateral solutions to TEC’s actions are not the solution.
I have little doubt that the conservatives will be happy to join any sort of realistic negotiations. The big question is – will TEC join such negotiations? To do so in good faith would require them to hold back on their scorced earth litigation policy. The next big question then, will be – what does RW do when TEC blows off negotiations?
Second, Rowan says he intends
[blockquote]
to convene a small group of primates and others, whose task will be, in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group, to work on the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth. This will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process; I suggest that it will also have to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies. Its responsibility will be to weigh current developments in the light of the clear recommendations of Windsor and of the subsequent statements from the ACC and the Primates’ Meeting; it will thus also be bound to consider the exact status of bishops ordained by one province for ministry in another.
[/blockquote]
These are some pretty heady issues this group will be dealing with! The obvious first question is who will be on this committee, who will chair it, and what will its timeframe be? But if you look back at his first recommendation (negotiations), then this committee could prove a very useful tool indeed to motivate a recalcitrant TEC to come to the negotiating table.
So, this letter COULD be a very good development. Then again, it could also be a lot of hot air. Time will tell.
Not a great letter. But then quit reading it as a reasserter. Put on your revisionist hat and then read it. And do you think it made you angry or disappointed as an orthodox soul? This becomes from that perspective an outright rejection of all you’ve been doing. It contains an accusation that you even misrepresented the ABC. It gives NO hope at all that you will remain somehow part of the Communion. It is, in all its fuzziness, also a deterrent to other provinces and a warning about their Anglican credibility if they follow you. And it even suggests you might not really be Anglican. I know this letter is deficient in many respects. But please do read it as if you were named Schori, or Bruno, or Chane, or Sauls. And it is a very jolting letter.
Indeed, 67, there is a lot of rhetorical support for orthodox Anglican belief in ++Rowan’s letter. I’m sure it was a bitter pill for the revisionistas to read the ABC’s rejection of their innovations. But their frowns quickly become smiles when they keep reading and see that while their heresies are not fooling anyone, precisely nothing is going to be done about it. Lawsuits will proceed apace, SSB’s will be imposed on any and all, partnered gays will rule the clergy.
By the time ++Rowan’s Covenant is in place, the orthodox will be driven from TEC or so marginalized as to be a curiosity to be analyzed in yet another 10,000 word ACI paper.
Dear Folks,
I read the ABCs letter expecting another grave disappointment. Certainly it did not deliver everything that I could have hoped for. It is clear, however, on the Bible, on the minstry of the church (and especially on the ministry of Bihsops), and on our mission being damaged if we (the Anglican Communion don’t get this whole thing right. His letter is not simply addressing a local dispute, but a dispute which will have consequences for millennia (should the lord tarry, as it used to be said). The key issue now, it seems to me, is 1. to encouarge those parts of the Communion who have said that they would not go to Lambeth that it is in the best interests of the church and the gospel that they do go; and 2. to encourage the bishops of the Church worldwide not to sign any Covenant unless proper discipline of the US and Canada happen first.
Grant LeMarquand
“acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference’s agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant”.
Is that truly IN the Lambeth Invite? If so, how can some of the TEC Bishops truly accept the invitation and attend?
Just ask’n
Gloria in SC
Br. Michael – Yes, I am in a “safe” (for now) diocese and in a “safe” parish. But remember that where two or three are gathered toghether, Jesus is with them. If your diocese is not “safe” find a “safe” congregation. If there is not a “safe” congregation find a “safe” priest and a few conservatives and form (even if it is under the radar) a safe congregation where you can all build each other up and strengthen each other for the fight – for this is a fight.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
#68 Jeffersonian, I sadly and firmly agree with your post. There is no place left for the orthodox in TEC. The ABC has shut the door on us, and remained ‘inside’ with the TEC money and slippery New Agers who have taken over.
On first (and quick) reading, I am encouraged. I cannot see how anyone could say the ABC is giving TEC a pass. He is also re-stating the Communion mind on cross-provincial rescue operations, however painful we re-asserters may find it. By upholding Windsor and the Anglican Covenant as the way forward and as the precondition for being welcome to Lambeth, he has upped the ante for TEC. I believe they are incapable of abiding this Advent letter. If Crew thought Windsor was a “monstrous intrusion” I am loath to hear his rant about this. Furthermore many TEC bishops’ public statements will have to be retracted before they can attend. Stacy Sauls recent brief on the imperative of GC 09 approved same-sex liturgies comes to mind. I will be interested in how the ABC will apply this stated qualification of acceptance to Lambeth.
In light of this letter and the initial observations outlined above, I hope the Global South Bishops attend Lambeth and bring the Covenant process to a timely conclusion.
Thank you Rowan for this early Christmas gift.
JamesW has picked out two paragraphs that are compressed but potentially crucial. Leander and Grant give good assessments. This is as far from an endorsement–in theological principle–of reigning TEC thinking as one can imagine. Scripture reading/standing under the anglican centre; recognisability — obviously sacramentally in question given TEC’s autonomy. Also, a serious query placed before TEC’s understanding of the charism of a Bishop, if they are only hostage (by convenience) to General Convention, but not, equally, for the purposes of legal advocacy and engagement. There will be no change in moral teaching without the entire Communion’s say-so, so TEC has a question mark over it.
I also believe +RDW intimates that he will be making inquiry of specific Bishops to determine–perhaps in the light of their stinging public statements, to which he adverts earlier in the letter–whether there is any good reason for them to attend Lambeth Conference if they are so intransigent.
Much will hang on who is chosen to work through the work +RDW indicates must transpire in the JamesW highlighted paragraphs.
This letter betrays a serious case of squirreliness. Consider two examples:
— “Slightly more than half of the replies received signalled a willingness to accept the Joint Standing Committee’s analysis of the New Orleans statement”
Under this phrasing, anything other than explicit unwillingness counts as “willingness.” Having helped itself to a squishy standard, the Lambeth secretariat makes its own tally, announces results consistent with its own inclinations, and withholds the actual responses. It also announces the tally before receiving responses from some Global South provinces.
— “Most if not all of the bishops present in New Orleans were seeking in all honesty to find a way of meeting the requests of the primates”
This statement is extraordinary. It so egregiously contracts the facts that on other lips it would come close to being a Big Lie. Most of the bishops in New Orleans were looking for a way to squeak by yet again by couching their defiance as compliance. A significant minority inclined towards outright defiance. If “most if not all” of ECUSA’s bishops were in good faith seeking to comply with the primates, then Robert Mugabe is an exemplar of good government.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
“I also intend to convene a small group of primates and others, whose task will be, in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group, to work on the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth”
Sounds like more of the same dithering gamesmanship.
Does Abp. Williams plan to include Marilyn McCord Adams and Ian Douglas (again)? And why exclude the Panel of Deference from this web of consultation?
I found this section to be very interesting, and I think the good people of San Joaquin might find it vindicating, as well, with all of the spin that’s been released lately regarding +++Rowan’s thoughts on the Southern Cone action.
“The matter is further complicated by the fact that several within The Episcopal Church, including a significant number of bishops and some diocesan conventions, have clearly distanced themselves from the prevailing view in their province as expressed in its public policies and declarations. The practical challenge then becomes to find ways of working out a fruitful, sustainable and honest relation for them both with their own province and with the wider Communion. ”
For one thing, this will go a long way when/if TEC tries to insist that the bishop, the clergy, and the laity have abandoned the Communion. Secondly, he acknowledges their faithfulness and membership in the Anglican Church.
I agree with him, too, about attending Lambeth. If we want to be heard, if we want to work for change, then the leaders who carry our cause must quash their bitterness, guile, pride, whatever, and attend Lambeth. Sitting on the sidelines in righteous indignation and then continuing to complain and criticize is not helpful. So, yes, they need to carry the Cross to — and of — Lambeth.
Canon Harmon, if it’s possible, could you provide your own commentary on and analysis of this letter? I’m sure many of us would love to know what you think.
Yikes, something happened to my cut and paste! Here’s the quote. Sorry!
“The matter is further complicated by the fact that several within The Episcopal Church, including a significant number of bishops and some diocesan conventions, have clearly distanced themselves from the prevailing view in their province as expressed in its public policies and declarations. This includes the bishops who have committed themselves to the proposals of the Windsor Report in their Camp Allen conference, as well as others who have looked for more radical solutions. Without elaborating on the practical implications of this or the complicated and diverse politics of the situation, it is obvious that such dioceses and bishops cannot be regarded as deficient in recognisable faithfulness to the common deposit and the common language and practice of the Communion. If their faith and practice are recognised by other churches in the Communion as representing the common mind of the Anglican Church, they are clearly in fellowship with the Communion.”
#66 This large block that isn’t happy with the TEC’s HOB response, represent the majority of the Anglican Communion, first of all, the CofE doesn’t have 24.000.000 members, this is the number of baptized, what is a very big lie, as to say that TEC has 2.400.000 or 2.200.000 is other lie, CofE has less than 1.000.000 regular Sunday worshipers in a population of 50.000.000(just England), The biggest church in England is the RC, with the Polish emigrants the Roman Church is booming(1.000.000 Polish people live in England). Williams should spend more time trying to sort out the problems of CofE. If he can’t sort out the problems of CofE, how will he sort out the problems of the Anglican Communion?
Three quotes first.
[blockquote] we have no single central executive authority [/blockquote]
[blockquote] The Communion is a voluntary association of provinces and dioceses; and so its unity depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments. To put it in slightly different terms, local churches acknowledge the same ‘constitutive elements’ in one another. [/blockquote]
[blockquote] At the moment, the question of ‘who speaks for the Communion?’ is surrounded by much unclarity and urgently needs resolution; the people of the Communion need to be sure that they are not placed in unsustainable and damaging positions by any vagueness as to what the Communion as a whole believes and endorses, and so the issue of who represents the Communion cannot be evaded. [/blockquote]
I sense that +RW is attempting to preserve the unity of the Communion without changing the nature of the Communion. I agree with those who have said that had he acted decisively his action would have been rejected by some on both sides of the crisis. The Lambeth Conference is the place to decide who speaks for the communion. I expect that the answer will be the Primates, acting as a Vestry acts for the Annual Meeting of parishioners.
Lambeth is the meeting that matters. The past agendas of Lambeth Meetings underwent dramatic change once the meeting started. It is a gathering of bishops after all. It is their meeting. I pray that all orthodox bishops who have been invited attend and make this meeting memorable and decisive.
The response to the JSC: 1/3 agreed sycophantically. 1/3 disagreed in uncertain terms. 1/3 rejected the ridiculous process.
The primates can answer questions directly. The filtering of the process through the JSC report should be condemned by all as the sham that it is.
Wow; this is quite a letter, and there’s a lot to think about here. From a reappraising perspective, I have to agree with some of the above comments — +++Rowan is not in favor of the direction of TEC.
There’s much to say, but one thing stood out for me. Consider this part:
…and a bit later on this (emphasis added):
This suggests that he’s standing by his statement in the +Howe letter about the diocese being the fundamental unit of the church; and furthermore he seems to be implying that the Communion could piecemeal recognize some dioceses and bishops, and refuse to recognize others, based on their willingness to conform to the “expressed mind” of the Communion.
If he can’t stay in communion with all of TEC, he seems to be willing to accept staying in communion with parts of it. I think that’s a change from his previous stance, which was less than warm towards any solution that didn’t deal with TEC as a whole; but this might be related to his recognition that their is no greater consensus to be drawn from TEC than that expressed in New Orleans.
“I also believe +RDW intimates that he will be making inquiry of specific Bishops to determine–perhaps in the light of their stinging public statements, to which he adverts earlier in the letter–whether there is any good reason for them to attend Lambeth Conference if they are so intransigent”.
Yes, and based on that I hope he starts with Shaw, who, in NO, didn’t hesitate to tell +++RW to his face that he had “dishonored our(TEC’s) prophetic discernment”.
As if Shaw has any right to determine what does or does not constitute “prophetic discernment”…
Thank you all Rev. Dr. Harding, Prodigal, Dale Rye, Albany, Blue Narrative, Phil Snyder & jamesw. I agree with much of your sentiments. I also believe that DBaird and VA Anglican have hit it out of the park.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. There is little or nothing that the revisionist bishops, clergy or 815 types should like about this letter. Probably closer to nothing than little.
Between the lines – Dear ECUSA, when it comes to the Anglican Communion its NOT all about you & your agenda. It is about scripture, the Word, Good News as understood by the Communion and the communion of saints.
I can’t imagine the “he’s really on our side crowd” isn’t truly sucker punched just like DBAIRD said. I doubt any “clarification” is forthcoming. He knew he had one shot. He took it. It scored. Whether it scored a knockout, only time will tell.
I remember the complaints by some reasserters about the Dar Communique. I was baffled. As I said then over at StandFirm, today the little stone bridge is won. Celebrate & enjoy the hard fought battle. Given that instruments of Communion are holding the line, let’s see what happens at Lambeth regarding the points raised in the Dar Communique and on the Anglican Covenant issue.
And the “distinctive charism of bishops” line & line following – precious, just precious. While your opionions on ECUSA may vary, to me this letter clearly shows nobody has hijacked the Anglican Communion or the person of the AoC.
[i]Lord, bless your servant +Rowan and continue to grant him the strength and courage to be a witness to your Word, in truth, with charity for all. Also, bless all of us who have read his words this day that we may do your will as we discern that will for us and our place in your earthly Church and in your eternal kingdom.[/i]
Peace to ALL,
In other words Jeffersonian, if anyone of us is looking to the ABC to help solve ANYTHING here, then we are mad. This letter is a farce, the ABC is a farce, and so is the Anglican “Communion”.
#76 my initial thoughts are posted now on a separate blog thread.
Seitz also nails it.
“This is as far from an endorsement–in theological principle–of reigning TEC thinking as one can imagine.”
Peace,
And those who are not anywhere near a CANA, AMiA, etc., congregation? Goners, that’s what. TEC and the AC will hardly miss us, but we enriched (in prayer, $$ and action) all of you.
We’re simply not important enough for the ABC, HOB, GC, etc., etc. to notice.
For those of us who are bloody WEARY of all the fal-da-rol: Let’s see now, what was the phone number of that booming Christian (of whatever denom) Church nearby???
Before scanning the letter for “hot buttons” and “what happens next”, let’s try to look at the whole letter, what it tells us about ++Rowan’s understanding of the issues and his analysis of the situation on the ground, and in what direction he believes resolution lies. Let’s give ‘im a fair trial first, boys, then hang ‘im.
I found this letter much better than I had anticipated. Notice “dissatisfaction with our present channels of discussion and communication” — he understands the GS’ distrust of the ACO.
Echoes of his excellent “Reflections” of a year ago:
Recognition that the underlying problem is one of trust and Scriptural authority:
Recognition that ECUSA is responsible for this loss of trust, and that the boundary crossings were a direct result of the loss of trust:
Implication that our HoB — and ECUSA generally — has been engaging in legalistic pettifoggery:
Most importantly, he is now explicitly mentioning this deviance as a characteristic of the Province, and raising the possibility of discipline for ECUSA as a whole. I have been emphasizing that simply excluding the most obnoxiously apostate Episcopal bishops won’t help us much; what we need is a solution that puts ECUSA out and then lets the Windsor/CC dioceses back in through some DeS-type arrangement (possibly the Southern Cone?):
Given the division of opinion in the Archbishop’s own CoE, and his own view of the ABC’s proper role in the conciliar structure of the Communion, I find this letter enormously hopeful.
While the M.M. Adams essay was as longwinded as this letter from the ABC, its direction was much more clear and its threat more patent. When she spoke about “weeding,” she wrote as one writing ex cathedra, one declaring from a position of power. Her comments in the matter of the necessity of majority to exercise its power, in the context of “weeding,” makes it clear that she believes that the TEC view has passed a cultural threshhold,. that its homophile agenda is now so widely accepted in our collective cultures, that debate can now be supplanted by enforcement.
The ABC’s letter fails to attend to the problems established by the Adams letter. She may be, after all, quite right. The game may have gotten out of hand for her opposition; they are too far behind ever to catch up, and so can be treated now as disposable. The ABC’s letter, qualified with qualifiers qualifying qualifications, lacks clarity and force, as others have noted above. Seen in the light of the Adams letter, the ABC looks weak, because hesitant, and compromised, because unwilling to render a decision.
Accordingly, the rest of Anglicanism, if it is in any way to combat the decision to turn to enforcement, must unify around someone other than the ABC. We must remember that what we do should be of sufficient strength and clarity to set off reverberations in the culture at large. That we can do so can be clearly seen in the coverage of San J.’s decision to leave TEC. The spread of homosexuality as normative -and this is what has happened – is symptomatic of a far greater disease: the excision of the past, its continuities, standards and significances, from an entire ethos, so that a new model of what “human” means may be constructed on grounds that need no referent other than the wishes and desires of the inventors. This is a new Dr. Frankenstein and a new Faust; and Adams has said in essence, “We now have the power to remove those who would inhibit our invention of the new mankind.” The ABC does not grasp this at all, but we must, and so we must find a leader around whom we can organize. For my part, I cannot think of a time so filled with danger for mankind: Science and technology are providing the means, and the liberal establishment is providing the goals, the vision and the mission.
The ABC has said repeatedly, that this should not be seen as “us” and “them.” I am now convinced he is fatally wrong. This opposition is precisely how the conflict must be seen. We cannot hide our heads any longer because the stakes are so high and we have no powerful players in this game. LM
Hooray! Thank you, Canon Harmon! Off to read! 🙂
Chris Seitz (#74) seems to commend Jamesw (#66) on his choice of key paragraphs from the letter. Since Dr. Seitz has been waiting for RW’s response, I wonder if he agrees with Jamesw’s conclusion?
[blockquote]So, this letter COULD be a very good development. Then again, it could also be a lot of hot air. Time will tell.[/blockquote] Does he believe RW is looking for a negotiated settlement, or rather a Hegelian synthesis? Does he think this letter carries out the intention of the Dar es Salaam Communique, or does it subvert it?
Larry Morse: Odd, I agreed with you until you tipped your hand with that cant about ‘the liberal establishment providing the goals, the vision and the mission’. The many fascist regimes and totalitarian states around this globe are also providing goals, vision and mission — sin is plentiful on both the left AND the right of the political/cultural and yes, theological spectrum.
It’s a sad day. Let’s leave the predictable canards that some people post here about liberals out of it, shall we please? Thanks. There is plenty of ‘danger for mankind’ coming from both the left AND the right these days.
Thanks, Dr Harmon, for posting the entire letter of the ABC.
It sounds like TWO people actually wrote this letter. The archbishop wrote the first draft. Then Kearon or somebody came in behind him to edit in counterpoint on behalf of TEC. The “let’s talk some more” conclusion was designed to keep TEC’s money in the game.
w.w.
Several observations:
How many times does he say “I” in this letter — it seemed very unusual to be so personalized, and yet when he came to something delicate, he slipped into passive voice. There are many reasons for the ABC to be conflicted — duty, theology, ideology, money, friendships, reputation, and historical legacy to name a few — hence the tortured syntax is easily understandable. But this is precisely when clear leadership is needed.
I doubt this letter is going to please anyone, but it is highly symbolic of the current crisis we are in.
“It sounds like TWO people actually wrote this letter. The archbishop wrote the first draft. Then Kearon or somebody came in behind him to edit in counterpoint on behalf of TEC” —WW [#93]
Very plausible. Or perhaps a redactor conflated two different letters, one by Abp. Williams and one by Abp. Kearon.
Sad to think in terms of ecclesiastical kremlinology.
#92: What you say about the right is true enough in a general way, but the present context, the ABC and Adams, is a specific conte xt and I still submit the vision and t he mission are coming from the far left. This is no predictable canard, no idle stereotyping. If y ou think so, you did not read what I said. I mean this to be taken literally, precisely because of the attitude toward excising our past allows the New Human could be constructed without any residuum of prior existence. This is what science and technology are undertaking even now, and the Adamses of the world are using this reconstruction of mankind as the fortuitous means, a serendipidity, as the technical framework on which they intend to build the flesh of the Liberal Image of Man; and that the weeding out of the Old Human could now be undertaken f rom a position of power. Read Brave New World again and consider how the New Human in THAT world was remanufactured and how kept from sliding back into the past. You should be able to see the simularities right away.
You message suggests that there is no such thing as a liberal vision and that it does not presently control American culture. That I should argue thus does not mean that I am blind to the Hitlerian vision and t he New Human he thought he could build. He was wrong and he failed, but that does not mean the left will fail, and Adams essay suggests t hat she thinks they hav e crossed the threshhold to success. Can you see this? Your posting, by its tone suggests that you are well on the left yourself and therefore are unwilling to credit my argument because it contradicts y our own view. Is that the case?
And so I conclude that the ABC, as his letter clearly shows, lacks the insight and the strength to provide a equal and more than equal countervailing force. Kendall’s subsequent posting praises the ABC as you have read, but I see the ABC’s words as the articulation of a patient, tired, ineffectuality, the work of a man for whom words have taken the place of action, a theological Willy Loman; and you and I are watching the Death of a Salesman. Larry
Someone accurately described the letter as Truth, but no Consequences. In the language used among people in recovery from various addictions, the leadership of the Episcopal Church has not yet hit bottom. And Archbishop Williams proposal of further talks enables the addiction to self-righteousness. A better response is to detach with love.
To convince me, the Archbishop would have to follow through on his idea of talking to individual bishops who have publicly indicated they either actively or passively intend to allow continued same-sex blessings in their diocese. If he, in the next few weeks, publicly rescinds Lambeth invitations for Ingham, Michael Curry, Chane, and the other bishops who have publicly state their support for same-sex blessings, then this letter might be a way forward.
Otherwise, here’s the situation. Lambeth ’98 clearly expressed the sense of the Communion. Since then, extensive efforts have been made to bring the dissenters around to accepting the Communion decision, to no avail. Are we now to work on a Covenant, with the full participation of those bishops who won’t accept the discipline of living in Communion? They break the existing rules, and still get to help write the next set of rules? This is unworkable.
Steve Noll–ACI will prepare a response. I have already provided my own assessment for our work. I have also made my views known repeatedly and not much in +RDW’s letter was a surprise given communications. I think he has said that TEC has given all it can, not in a convincing way, but in a conclusive way, and so now it is a matter–not of getting more information–but of figuring out what to do so as to be fair and comprehensive and consistent with anglicanism’s polity as a global reality. The reactions on the ‘left’ tell the story — they are incandescent. We have described a method of adjudication and a way for a non-juridical phalanx to remain in TEC, with a strong Communion linkage and identity, not unlike the ‘shadow cabinet’ notion for those familiar with opposition politics. Giving not one inch. Seeing to the development of this within the logic of what +RDW has expressed will require vigilance and prayer. Lots of very strong conservatives are simply not going to join with the intervention strategies, for lots of reasons; this is not the place to go over that ground again. If you thought you were going to explicitly or implicitly endorse and carry out SSB agendas, and also do so with life in the Communion unchanged, this Advent letter puts paid to that notion. The day when TEC thought it could act ‘prophetically’ and not bear any consequences for that is over. The moral teaching of scripture, tradition, and ecumenical constraint is clear and not to be ‘prophetically’ corrected by the adventures of a TEC majority.
+RDW also puts a serious question mark by the equivocation techniques of the HOB-General Convention tap dance: if one is a Bishop, that actually means something, unconstrained by fantasies of american liberal democracy parading as Church.
It will be crucial that leadership from Camp Allen play a major role in determining the means by which a Dar type scheme is the proper outcome of their communion compliance — Dallas, W Texas, W Louisiana, CFL, Albany, and others are not going to wish to be folded into the verdict falling now for 815. It is clear others believe the best way forward is to form ‘separate ecclesiastical jurisdictions’ and so there is a meeting in the region of my own diocese next week to firm this up — such is the time in which we are living. ACI and its Board is not pursuing this kind of strategy and in that sense believes that +RDW’s Advent letter discloses bad news for TEC adventures. We will continue to do what we can to see that a conciliarly regulated communion emerges from the season of judgment, and of cleansing/pruning, we are now is. I have benefited from long conversations with the provincial secretary of Tanzania this semester at Wycliffe — born on Zanzibar with a 90% muslim population. I know how much the furtherance of this Communion means to him as a Christian disciple and leader.
[blockquote] a non-juridical phalanx [/blockquote]
Prof. Seitz, could you explain briefly what this means? I haven’t a clue.
The rest of your comment is quite helpful, although other parts are unclear to me; it’s as if you and I do not speak the same dialect of English, e.g. “strong Communion linkage and identity”, “puts paid to that notion”, “we are now is”, etc.
EVERYONE: READ Larry Morse’s #97. He is sooo right. RW is just a mirror reflection of TEC. Having just looked in over ya’lls shoulders for the past year or so-and link after link( RW’s endorsement of some revisionist Bible,etc., etc., etc.); you are way to thick in the forest and cannot see the trees (demons). This should have been STOPPED in 1998! You either have to take your Church back now, or dust off your feet and continue “A New Anglican Communion”. RW is waaaaay too lost for ya’ll to hope in now. Truly, you guys would not believe what I have seen and read. This makes my knees weak and my heart fall to the pit of my stomach. You have to see, this has gone way too far-way to far-way to far! This is it. Continuing in this (game?) is too dangerous for too many souls.; even for people like me. And it is for people like me that you must survive! Rose
Re #100—Thank you, Dr. Seitz. Those who think this letter gives aid and comfort to the General Convention majority clearly have not read the responses it has elicited from that majority and their supporters. “Incandescent” is an understatement. I read the letter as an endorsement of precisely the strategy ACI has been pursuing. The question now is whether reasonableness can prevail over the anger on both sides to preserve a recognizably Anglican alternative for the majority of us in the face of ardently held, but inadequate, ecclesiologies that privilege private judgment over collective discernment.
#98, Tom Rightmyer, the phrase truth but no consequences is mine from my analysis posted on a separate thread.
Let me point out that going ballistic is SOP [standard operating procedure] for the theological left, going way back to the “Koinonia” statement of 1979. They always go incandescent and then inch their agenda forward. They know they can do this because the theological center in TEC does not have solid ground to stand on. So the left will rant and rave and we get B033 and New Orleans. What a victory!
Having said this, I do think they have overstretched this time. They have already utterly alienated 8-10 provinces with the majority membership in the Communion. They may inch their way through Lambeth 08, with an assist from the ABC and his facilitators, but by 2009 we shall almost certainly have GLBT bishops and SSB rites in TEC. At that point, I think they will be cut free to walk apart, perhaps voluntarily.
In the meantime, they are permitted to wreak havoc in the Communion and perhaps cripple it as a “gift” to global Christianity.
I wish to finally weigh in after abstaining so far. I find myself fully in agreement with the positive take on this long-awaited Advent Letter and that entertains great hopes for Lambeth 2008, IF the GS attends in force and bends the Conference to their will.
That is, to cite a few examples above, I am largely in agreement with Leander Harding (#13 etc.), Va Anglican (#67), Prof. LeMarquand (#69), and Craig Goodrich (#88). But I’m particularly happy to say that in this case I am pleased to find myself in basic (not total) agreement with Prof. Chris Seitz. I still support the CCP and the so-called “outside strategy,” but I too see this letter as a stunning rebuke of the Left. Witness the yelps of pain and anger coming from Integrity, Fr. Jake etc.
The real question, as far as I’m concerned, is whether or not Tom Rightmyer ir correct in his bleak assessment (#98). Tom invokes a parallel with addiction and co-dependency and sums up the ABC’s letter as “Truth, but no Consequences.” Well, I guess for once I’m a little more optimistic than that. I see it as a case of “Truth, but no Consequences YET, and not from me.”
My take on it is that ++Cantaur just doesn’t have the heart (or imagines he doesn’t have the right) to impose those momentous and decisive consequences himself. And in the end, I think that’s probably a good thing. He wouldn’t do it as forcefully and with as much credibility as the whole Lambeth assembly of bishops would. Of course, that assumes that CAPA can be persuaded to come after all, maybe by assurances that once the world’s bishops gather in Kent, they can them invite the CANA bishops to join them, likewise +Atwood and +Guernsey etc.
But I’d like to take Tom Rightmyer’s analogy a little farther. In the 12 step movement there is a saying about co-dependency that seems apt. Al-Anon and similar groups teach people that there is this crazy dance that couples caught in the grip of addiction go through. It’s usuall summed up something like this:
The addict pays no attention to the co-dependent’s words, only her actions. Whereas the co-dependent pays no attention to the addict’s actions, only to his words.
Quite a well-choreographed dance! They are both beautifully in step. And it’s so sick…
For too long now, the rest of the AC has paid attention only to TEC’s deceitful words. But the charade is over. The AC is tired of this useless dance. Now it’s time for the AC to act, and act forcefully. Canterbury is unable or unwilling to act alone. So be it.
But I’m very hopeful now about Lambeth 2008. Our liberal foes should be dreading its approach. They may get their teeth kicked in. The game is up. Their lies and manipulation are exposed. Even the ABC can’t save them. I hope that the GS appears at Lambeth in force and just crushes the liberal minority, dragging the ever- obstructionist AGO kicking and screaming behind them.
A new day is dawning. Perhaps Lambeth 2008 may even mark a decisive milestone in the progress of the New Reformation. That is now my hope and earnest prayer. After all, Advent is a season of hope and great anticipation. So let us turn to the Lord, and ask him to renew our sense of hope (see Romans 15:13).
David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
More supportive than ever of the New Reformation
This is a power grab. The ABC is often referred to as “First among equals”. This letter shows he considers himself “Head among equals”…a phrase often used to describe the Roman Pope. And after closer reading it appears he does not consider some Primates or Bishops Diocesan his equal at all.
#96 Larry Morse: More of you ad hominem attacks, surprise, surprise! Though it means descending to your level, let my reply:
My politics may be of the fascist stripe or maybe I’m a caucus leader for Mr. Huckabee, or I may be a raving Socialist or even an Anarchist. SO WHAT???? That has NOTHING to do with my post #92, which I reaffirm. You avoided my overall question and veered off into mud-slinging, and it needs to STOP.
Your propensity for ad hominem mud-slinging is well-known and lowers the level of discussion on this blog.