In the Advent Letter there is no call for TEC to repent or even do better, but rather for all of us to accept that they are locked into their iniquity and we have to accept that as it is. They stay at the table, and the orthodox have the burden of trying to figure out how to live with them. Additionally, it is clear that the AMiA, CANA, Kenya and Uganda USA bishops are not only unwelcome or unworthy to sit with Dr. Williams, but he questions their LEGITIMACY. In one quote he says, “And while ”¦ I understand and respect the good faith of those who have felt called to provide additional episcopal oversight in the USA, there can be no doubt that these ordinations have not been encouraged or legitimized by the Communion overall.” It is finally not those few of us that he is really attacking, but our Primates: Akinola, Orombi, Nzimbi, and Kolini. The actions of Primate Venables really upset his sense of order as well, because now Canadian and American bishops and one entire diocese have changed provinces and moved to the Southern Cone.
Dr. Williams announces in his letter that he is seizing yet more power and initiative, principally to punish the orthodox, by several new actions. He is launching “professionally facilitated conversations” between TEC and those they are most in dispute with to see if there is any better level of mutual understanding. What part of the last ten years does he not understand? The TEC revisionists do understand us and fear us. That is why, like pharaoh, they are trying to prevent our multiplying. And we do understand the revisionists, and we are determined not to go to hell with them, no matter what the cost of our resistance. In launching this new action, he also announces that he knows who he will pick to do it. This is not collegial. This is power.
He also intends to convene a small group of Primates, hand picked by himself, to work supposedly with other groups to decide “whether”¦it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion {does he mean boundary crossings or adherence to Lambeth 1.10?} to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies.” This means that those Primates who have done the morally right thing could be kicked off of Communion boards and bodies for their “disruptive actions.” Then concerning those of us who are US Anglican bishops answering to overseas Primates, this hand-picked group of primates “will thus also be bound to consider the exact status of bishops ordained by one province for ministry in another.”
Deleted, does not advance the conversation.
I would appreciate a link to any report/commentary by Bishop Anderson that is not negative. I don’t know this man, I openly admit. And, I acknowledge that perhaps the press (mainstream and otherwise) has not been fair to him. But, every time I have seen an interview with him or read any interview of/by him – he just seems incredibly angry – always. I’m certain that he didn’t get to his position by always being mad – so I’d appreciate someone directing me to something by him which doesn’t come across like he’s just furious with the world.
Despite our opinions on things, Christianity is about “good” news and we all need to remember this! Converts to Christianity aren’t going to line up if we can’t demonstrate that the “peace which passeth all understanding” abides in our hearts.
Deleted, does not advance the conversation.
Rowan is not a conservative or orthodox Anglican, but a liberal, he was and he still in favor of gay marriage. He voted for it in the House of the Lords. He just want to keep the AC together. He won’t just to preside over the END of the AC, but also the END of the CofE.
Mark Johnson
Good luck with that. Every time he writes or is on TV he is very negative/critical. He is the reason that the AAC has become irrelevant
When one is offering critical analysis, one should expect to see some criticism. #2 and #5 offer comments of resignation toward the new bishop is like complaining that film critics don’t always like films. What matters in Bishop Anderson’s commentary is that he backs up what he’s saying using direct quotes from the letter – and he makes some very astute observations.
David Anderson is right when he writes,
This is entirely correct. We are not just looking at Rowan Williams letter theologically, but most importantly at this time, politically. He is outlining a process that seeks to exhaust the opposition – and if that doesn’t work – turning the opposition onto themselves. That’s a political maneuver and one we all see played out over and over again as the primaries continue for the upcoming nominations from the two parties for President of the United States. This is how it’s done and for many who are not engaged in politics, this is very helpful, especially to the laity who do not always get to see how the inner-workings of the government of the church bodies actually works.
I do recommend that we read Bishop Anderson’s commentary carefully. At least we won’t be able to say we weren’t warned.
bb
ok, let us please not have this become a thread about david anderson as a person. If you have concerns and questions there, I am sure he would be pleased to respond if you contact him directly.
I am hoping for a thread on Dr. Williams arguments and David Anderson’s response.
Would Paul have laboured over parsing RW’s letter for the “meanings there-in”. I don’t think so. Yes, what would Paul have done even after 1998? I don’t think he would be ruminating about going to Lambert to sit down and “discuss things” with Lucifer either. It’s in the Bible. Follow Paul. Rose
[blockquote]I would appreciate a link to any report/commentary by Bishop Anderson that is not negative. I don’t know this man, I openly admit.[/blockquote]
I would appreciate a link to any report/commentary by this Prophet Jeremiah guy that is not negative.
Ask Bp Anderson about the state of CANA or the global South and he will say that they are doing wonderfully. Ask him about the TEC or the AC, in general, and he will say they are going to heck in a hand basket.
Prophets don’t win popularity contest.
#2 and #5 don’t like what +Anderson is saying so they try to diminsh what he’s written by commenting he’s “angry”. And just how did he express anger…where’s the “proof” of that? We pray others reading this thread will see through this ploy.
We L2 met and heard +Anderson in person and found him to be kind and gracious. Have read quite a bit of what he’s written and said – still don’t get the “angry” diminishment comment.
We felt +Anderson has hit on some very valid points. And found him again putting to paper what we have been thinking. He doesn’t agree with what TEC is doing and how it’s being handled. Neither do we.
[blockquote]He is outlining a process that seeks to exhaust the opposition – and if that doesn’t work – turning the opposition onto themselves.[/blockquote]
++Rowan is no fool. He knows this is a consequence to his dilatory tactics. He give a pinprick to TEC and its revisionists, which they dutifully respond to with plangent wails of pain, while cutting off the orthodox at the knees through inaction and green-lighting the revisionist purges and lawsuits. +Anderson is spot-on.
I’m more than willing to stand corrected! Just asking for proof. Please send me a link – a quick Google search provided a number of things, but didn’t find any that weren’t a tirade against TEC.
Kendall – I took your suggestion and wrote him a nice email asking him some questions. I look forward to a benevolent reply.
[i] Edited by elf. [/i]
“He is launching “professionally facilitated conversations†between TEC and those they are most in dispute with…..”
At the same time Rowan says we can’t expect TEC to make any new concessions or pronouncements – what we see is all we are going to have, no more.
So, me thinks David Anderson is right to expect nothing from this. Conversation between two “sides”, one of which won’t move. It’s not difficult to work out. Rowan wants more conversation so that the orthodox can move….
Heaven help us all if the Global South fall for this tactic.
#12 – You have taken yet several more swipes at +Anderson. Yet, still, where in THIS, +Anderson’s response to +Rowan’s Advent Letter, was +Anderson angry? Where? How?
#6 BabyBlue – Well said. Time’s running out. It will be interesting to see who’s left in TEC after GC2009 is over.
Being “Anglican” may have had its roots in being tied to the See of Canterbury, Anglicanism goes well beyond that. Indeed, one does not have to go through Canterbury to be a Christian, nor be in the Anglican Communion to be a Christian. The individuals walking out the door of the Episcopal Church have been making that decision for years. But it is just a name. Revelance is in actions, not names and labels.
Anderson interprets the portions of the letter he addresses correctly and he does so clearly. I, for one, am happy he’s right.
My question about David’s latest diatribe, however, is about why he’s so livid about the Archbishop of Canterbury—the historic link between autonomous national churches forming the Anglican Communion—“assuming†more power and yet seemingly happy as a clam to cede power to to the Primates when there is absolutely no historical or traditional for their exercise of authority outside their provinces.
[i] Comment edited by elf. [/i]
[blockquote]My question for about David’s latest diatribe, however, is about why he’s so livid about the Archbishop of Canterbury—the historic link between autonomous national churches forming the Anglican Communion—“assuming†more power and yet seemingly happy as a clam to cede power to to the Primates when there is absolutely no historical or traditional for their exercise of authority outside their provinces. [/blockquote]
Possibly because, while ++Rowan pays lip service to orthodox Christian and Anglican belief, he steadfastly refuses to exercise the power he does have in declaring heretical clergy out of communion with Canterbury. I don’t see this as a ceding of power to the Primates so much as listening to them and actually acting in line with their, and ostensibly his, view of Anglican thought.
While I have the greatest respect for David+ (now +David), and I understand his frustration, I do think he’s gone off the deep end on this one. Given the complexity of the current (very different) situations in both TEC and the CoE, the number of plates in the air at the moment, and so on, it’s not particularly surprising that ++Rowan is annoyed at any action that further complicates the situation. As I noted [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/8374/#158477 ]here[/url], I find much encouragement in the letter, though the proposed course of action is sufficiently vague that a more pessimistic (or realistic — but I repeat myself) reader might well predict more delay, obfuscation, and process manipulation.
The major legitimate criticism of ++Rowan’s otherwise excellent summary of the TEC vs. the Communion situation is that he greatly underestimates the sense of desperation and urgency that has motivated (and still motivates) many parishes and dioceses in their secession from TEC. Being principally an academic (like most of his fellow CoE bishops, and unlike, say, our ACI) with little parish experience, this oversight is understandable though unfortunate. Hopefully +Duncan’s visits with CoE bishops will inspire some of them to pass the word on to the ABC. Time is running out.
We’ll have to wait and see (do we have a choice?). I do think, though, that +David’s accusation of abuse of power against the ABC is at the very least premature (though against the ACO it would be justified in spades). I’m somewhat bemused to read many of the comments here accusing ++Rowan of vacillation, weakness, and lack of leadership, and then this piece accusing him of seeking power. Let’s at least make up our minds on the [url=http://ecusania.blogspot.com/ ]Party Line[/url]…
I’d agree, Craig, about the “abuse of power” accusation. It’s more an abuse of [i]process[/i] given the endless, and ultimately useless, convocations that have assembled so far. The irony is that, while ++Rowan chides TEC bishops for hiding behind the General Convention on the issue of SSB’s, he himself refuses to exercise the power he does have in declaring certain clergy in impaired or broken communion with Canterbury. He admits they are, in fact, practicing heresy…what’s he waiting for?
Susan, many are concerned that Rowan can’t resolve the conflict becasue he is conflicted himself. In this case, he should remove himself from office, not attempt to grab more power.
I think Rowan is panicking. Imagine being the Archbishop that presided over the AC’s demise. Desperate men do desperate things.
If only, #21. I’d like him to so [i]something[/i], for Pete’s sake. To cite The Bard:
[i]Agamemnon, how if he had boils, full, all over, generally? … And those boils did run? Say so: did not the general run? Were not that a botchy core? … Then there would come some matter from him: I see none now.[/i]
Excellent letter!
I’m glad we now have bishops like David Anderson. We need them.
“What should the Anglican Communion do with those in high or low positions who always ask others but weigh their own thumbs?”
Lapidary words: so pointedly apt we should carve them in stone.
Like Susan Russell+ and Michael Hopkins+, who are suspect because they are pushing an agenda that affects themselves, personally, +David Anderson seems angry with the ABofC because his lack of an invitation to Lambeth 2008 affects him, personally, as well as +Rowan’s comment that +David and others similar to him are not “legitimate” bishops within the AC (and no one but the AbofC can make that claim). As a litigation attorney, I view credibility for a jury all the time. And juries often do not believe witnesses, whose personal interests are at stake in their own testimonies.
Nevertheless, my review of +Rowan’s letter is one of fairly even-handedness. Without the continued border crossings, his job would be much easier and he could more easily take TEC to task. Additionally, with the abandonment of TEC by so many conservatives, the much larger reasserting minority could be applying more pressure within TEC. Clearly +Rowan’s says that the theological innovations of TEC are out of line because they are half-cocked out on their own – not a part of the worldwide communion or even world-wide Christian theology. But clearly he says for the rest of the communion to stop picking the carcass of TEC and allow him to deal with it through the Windsor process and the Covenant. And, by the way, he says, come to Lambeth 2008 and help him write the covenant; don’t boycott. He makes more sense than the fiery speeches we are hearing on both sides, and the talking past each other, which are getting us no where but farther apart and closer to a split in the AC.
This latest statement (and many others) by David Anderson is a perfect example of how one can be completely right and still be completely wrong.
That is ridiculous #26. You quote Paul and yet Paul gave the Corinthians double earfuls for the wayward ways. He did not mince words and neither does Bp Anderson. Paul, himself, reviled opponents of the faith but eschewed revilers of the faith. Big difference.
[blockquote]O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived;
you overpowered me and prevailed.
I am ridiculed all day long;
everyone mocks me.
Whenever I speak, I cry out
proclaiming violence and destruction.
So the word of the LORD has brought me
insult and reproach all day long.
But if I say, “I will not mention him
or speak any more in his name,”
his word is in my heart like a fire,
a fire shut up in my bones.
I am weary of holding it in;
indeed, I cannot. [/blockquote]