I fully agree, I think it’s paramount, not just in a time of judgment but always, that we need to be hardest on ourselves! We can do the most about our sins. If we are truly orthodox we’d see God’s holiness and thus our rebellion.
Unfortunately, the tape went off before we learned what the alternatives might be to the Common Cause Partnership and ACI positions. I agree with the criticism of the CCP and I can certainly understand the criticism of the ACI, but I have trouble seeing an option beside the “inside strategy” and the “outside strategy.”
The most recent statements from ACI do seem to seek “differentiation” from the General Convention majority, through the building of a strong coalition of dioceses that can maintain their relationship with the Communion without taking unilateral action that lacks authorization from the Communion. The problem, of course, is the lack of any determined leadership (particularly among the episcopate) apparently willing to execute that plan. The most vocal of the Network bishops have retired or joined the CCP, while the silence of the other Windsor Bishops has been deafening.
ACI cannot do it on their own, because they are committed to the rejection of unilateralism; they see that—and the individualism that the Vatican once condemned as “Americanism”—as too much a part of the problem to serve as its solution. If the only alternative to living with the problem and suffering from its consequences is to became a part of the problem, they are willing to suffer. Faithfulness to the idea of Anglicanism may involve enduring its passion to the bitter end, with suffering as the obvious “differentiator” from those who surrender or split.
Is there a way out of the box, to save the village without destroying it? At the moment, the CCP approach seems to be to aimed at creating a new province within a new Communion. What about those of us who are looking for ways to save what is worth saving within the existing Communion, including its order along with its faith? I would be interested in hearing about some way forward.
Thank you, Kendall, for your critiques of the Common Cause. I have some of the same concerns as a CANA priest about the number of bishops. I want to be optimistic about the CCP, I really want it to work, but I have some of the reservations that you have mentioned.
I thought your analysis of the truthful history leading to the present crisis in TEC, the Communion, and the Common Cause was profoundly insightful and painfully truthful. I have come to expect nothing less of what you both write and say. I did find, however, the following statement to be a little confusing in the light of what transpired between the Diocese of San Joaquin and the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone a week ago last Saturday:
“What I’m saying to you is that to want structural relief is great, and to know that the province won’t provide it is also correct. What is unfortunately also the case is that in the short term, the communion wont provide it either. They don’t want to. Rowan doesn’t want to. So on both sides there’s death that needs to happen, and there’s problems that have to be honestly faced.â€
Could you clarify if there was any mention concerning something of the nature of this kind of short-term provision extended by the Southern Cone to San Joaquin and possibly others to follow after you turned off the recording, or is that still to sensitive in nature? And thank you again for all your hard work for and fidelity to our Lord and this measure of his bride.
I fully agree, I think it’s paramount, not just in a time of judgment but always, that we need to be hardest on ourselves! We can do the most about our sins. If we are truly orthodox we’d see God’s holiness and thus our rebellion.
Unfortunately, the tape went off before we learned what the alternatives might be to the Common Cause Partnership and ACI positions. I agree with the criticism of the CCP and I can certainly understand the criticism of the ACI, but I have trouble seeing an option beside the “inside strategy” and the “outside strategy.”
The most recent statements from ACI do seem to seek “differentiation” from the General Convention majority, through the building of a strong coalition of dioceses that can maintain their relationship with the Communion without taking unilateral action that lacks authorization from the Communion. The problem, of course, is the lack of any determined leadership (particularly among the episcopate) apparently willing to execute that plan. The most vocal of the Network bishops have retired or joined the CCP, while the silence of the other Windsor Bishops has been deafening.
ACI cannot do it on their own, because they are committed to the rejection of unilateralism; they see that—and the individualism that the Vatican once condemned as “Americanism”—as too much a part of the problem to serve as its solution. If the only alternative to living with the problem and suffering from its consequences is to became a part of the problem, they are willing to suffer. Faithfulness to the idea of Anglicanism may involve enduring its passion to the bitter end, with suffering as the obvious “differentiator” from those who surrender or split.
Is there a way out of the box, to save the village without destroying it? At the moment, the CCP approach seems to be to aimed at creating a new province within a new Communion. What about those of us who are looking for ways to save what is worth saving within the existing Communion, including its order along with its faith? I would be interested in hearing about some way forward.
Thank you, Kendall, for your critiques of the Common Cause. I have some of the same concerns as a CANA priest about the number of bishops. I want to be optimistic about the CCP, I really want it to work, but I have some of the reservations that you have mentioned.
Kendall,
I thought your analysis of the truthful history leading to the present crisis in TEC, the Communion, and the Common Cause was profoundly insightful and painfully truthful. I have come to expect nothing less of what you both write and say. I did find, however, the following statement to be a little confusing in the light of what transpired between the Diocese of San Joaquin and the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone a week ago last Saturday:
“What I’m saying to you is that to want structural relief is great, and to know that the province won’t provide it is also correct. What is unfortunately also the case is that in the short term, the communion wont provide it either. They don’t want to. Rowan doesn’t want to. So on both sides there’s death that needs to happen, and there’s problems that have to be honestly faced.â€
Could you clarify if there was any mention concerning something of the nature of this kind of short-term provision extended by the Southern Cone to San Joaquin and possibly others to follow after you turned off the recording, or is that still to sensitive in nature? And thank you again for all your hard work for and fidelity to our Lord and this measure of his bride.
Jafer
This is the beginning of what is real and will really matter. Thank you.