I’ve been reluctant to comment on the Advent letter, but since Anglican Mainstream has made an important point, I will weigh in. The Archbishop’s letter seems very sad to me, particularly in the tone of anger and frustration that it embodies. It does nothing in particular but complain. And yet it does not reveal any recognition of the lack of trust that the author has generated by his own actions. The Archbishop has failed to pursue the panel of reference that was to be a “matter of urgency”. The Archbishop has ignored and failed to implement the Dromantine and Dar es Salaam communiques of the primates. He refuses to have another primates meeting, as near as can be told, in order to not have another primates’ communique to ignore. He strongly condemns the extra-territorial efforts by some primates, though he has overridden the views the primates just expressed at Dar es Salaam. Are primates meetings not an instrument of communion? Much of this would be just talk but for this, the most troubling part of the letter:
[blockquote]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.[/blockquote]
So, those who decline his invitation to Lambeth are not Christian. That is untrue and beneath him to say. I’m sure the primates are appalled, but too polite, to do other than ignore it. I won’t. Given his own refusal to meet with the primates before Lambeth, his own refusal to invite a number of bishops to Lambeth leading to their fellow bishops likely choosing not to attend, and his breaking of trust by failing to implement past decisions by the primates, I would suggest that he is in no position to complain about nonattendance at Lambeth or the reasons therefor. If he wants to see who is responsible, I’m sure a mirror is available. To make such decisions, and then accuse those with whom you have unapologetically broken trust of not being Christian for wanting to meet with you in one manner but not that of your choosing is ridiculous.
No small number of people (including his predecessor) suggested the Archbishop invite all the bishops, and let them show up and really make a decision in council at Lambeth. But TEC might not like that. So he didn’t (though rumor is rife that Robinson will receive a nonvoting invitation anyway). And he has now dared the primates of the global south to not show up. If the ABC says they are not Christian, then, I suppose the Archbishop will have made his decision about who is in the Anglican Communion.
Frankly, I suspect that the global south primates, since the Archbishop has chosen not to implement Dar es Salaam, will proceed to do something like it on their own. I did not think those primates would actually resign or say they are leaving the communion. But I now think that it is possible that the Archbishop, or a number of the western bishops at Lambeth, will throw them out.
“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”
I believe that the ABC’s remark has been misunderstood. It is reasonable to understand that he means those who refuse the work of Lambeth (the cross) also refuse the resurrection (the result of the work). Just a guess.
Pendennis88, I cannot understand what it is in this letter– or, for that matter, in any of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s postures throughout the current crisis within the Anglican Communion– that seems to suggest that the he has any desire to “throw out” the primates of the global south. Has there been a woeful lack of true leadership from Lambeth Palace? The answer is, undoubtedly, “yes.” Has the Archbishop of Canterbury been unduly accomodating to the gnostics now in control of TEC? Again, the answer is “yes.” But he has also consistently shown that he has fundamental problems with the revisionist policies of TEC. And this particular letter, if nothing else, suggests a genuine desire to give some kind of voice to those who are scandalized by the outrageous innovations of 815.
Yes, there is the usual sort of Rowanesque waffling and hedging. Yes, he is studiously avoiding taking a clear-cut stance. Yes, he is expressing an unwillingness to make hard decisions and to initiate stern disciplinary measures. But all of this is to be expected. We have all known for some time that this man lacks the gumption necessary to be a true leader in times of crisis. In spite of his personal convictions (and I do not think that anybody seriously questions the integrity or the sincerity of his faith), the Archbishop appears to simply be VERY shy of conflict– of any sort; with anybody. He appears to be no less scared of upsetting Archbishop Peter Akinola than he is of upsetting the priestess currently in charge of 815.
The sad thing is, this is simply NOT going to work any longer. Something will have to give. I cannot envision him “throwing out” anybody. But it is fairly easy for me to envision certain primates in the global south telling Rowan Williams, in no uncertain terms (and in language bracketed with appropriate Biblical citations), that he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and his ever-so-polite Lambeth Conference have now become completely irrelevant… Irrelevant, that is, to the very serious business of proclaiming the authentic Gospel to a world steeped in darkness and sin.
Frankly, I was surprised to note in Rowan Cantuar’s Advent letter an unmistakeable tilt towards the orthodox position within the Communion. But I fear that it is too little and too late.
I know Rowan Williams has angered a LOT of the orthodox faithful with his endless waffling and his transparent attempts to appease the gnostics controlling 815. But I actually sort of like the guy. His Christmas letter– which makes absolutely no reference at all to the current crisis– was pretty good, I thought.
It’s all very sad. I have no idea how all of this is going to turn out, in the end. The only thing that I am fairly confident about is this: several years down the road, the Anglican Communion is going to look VERY DIFFERENT than it does today. I am not sure that this will be such a bad thing, even though, personally, losing what has been so precious to me– and so familiar to me– has been a very painful experience.
I suspect that our African brothers and sisters in Christ probably have some rather incisive perspectives on the Gospel. I look forward to learning from them.
#4, I agree with most of your letter, but I read the jarring sentence quoted and see a statement that if one does not attend Lambeth, one is not a Christian, and that would seem to put one squarely outside the communion. I suspect many others read it the same way, and are just too appalled to dignify the remark by a response. If he didn’t mean it that way, well, that is how it will be taken. It will just be words or it won’t. But the leadership of TEC would be happy to vote the global south out of the communion for their border crossing at Lambeth, if they have the votes.
I’ve been reluctant to comment on the Advent letter, but since Anglican Mainstream has made an important point, I will weigh in. The Archbishop’s letter seems very sad to me, particularly in the tone of anger and frustration that it embodies. It does nothing in particular but complain. And yet it does not reveal any recognition of the lack of trust that the author has generated by his own actions. The Archbishop has failed to pursue the panel of reference that was to be a “matter of urgency”. The Archbishop has ignored and failed to implement the Dromantine and Dar es Salaam communiques of the primates. He refuses to have another primates meeting, as near as can be told, in order to not have another primates’ communique to ignore. He strongly condemns the extra-territorial efforts by some primates, though he has overridden the views the primates just expressed at Dar es Salaam. Are primates meetings not an instrument of communion? Much of this would be just talk but for this, the most troubling part of the letter:
[blockquote]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.[/blockquote]
So, those who decline his invitation to Lambeth are not Christian. That is untrue and beneath him to say. I’m sure the primates are appalled, but too polite, to do other than ignore it. I won’t. Given his own refusal to meet with the primates before Lambeth, his own refusal to invite a number of bishops to Lambeth leading to their fellow bishops likely choosing not to attend, and his breaking of trust by failing to implement past decisions by the primates, I would suggest that he is in no position to complain about nonattendance at Lambeth or the reasons therefor. If he wants to see who is responsible, I’m sure a mirror is available. To make such decisions, and then accuse those with whom you have unapologetically broken trust of not being Christian for wanting to meet with you in one manner but not that of your choosing is ridiculous.
No small number of people (including his predecessor) suggested the Archbishop invite all the bishops, and let them show up and really make a decision in council at Lambeth. But TEC might not like that. So he didn’t (though rumor is rife that Robinson will receive a nonvoting invitation anyway). And he has now dared the primates of the global south to not show up. If the ABC says they are not Christian, then, I suppose the Archbishop will have made his decision about who is in the Anglican Communion.
Frankly, I suspect that the global south primates, since the Archbishop has chosen not to implement Dar es Salaam, will proceed to do something like it on their own. I did not think those primates would actually resign or say they are leaving the communion. But I now think that it is possible that the Archbishop, or a number of the western bishops at Lambeth, will throw them out.
“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”
I believe that the ABC’s remark has been misunderstood. It is reasonable to understand that he means those who refuse the work of Lambeth (the cross) also refuse the resurrection (the result of the work). Just a guess.
Jeff,
Then why didn’t he spell it out? That’s what I see others objecting to: his lack of clarity and decisiveness.
Pendennis88, I cannot understand what it is in this letter– or, for that matter, in any of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s postures throughout the current crisis within the Anglican Communion– that seems to suggest that the he has any desire to “throw out” the primates of the global south. Has there been a woeful lack of true leadership from Lambeth Palace? The answer is, undoubtedly, “yes.” Has the Archbishop of Canterbury been unduly accomodating to the gnostics now in control of TEC? Again, the answer is “yes.” But he has also consistently shown that he has fundamental problems with the revisionist policies of TEC. And this particular letter, if nothing else, suggests a genuine desire to give some kind of voice to those who are scandalized by the outrageous innovations of 815.
Yes, there is the usual sort of Rowanesque waffling and hedging. Yes, he is studiously avoiding taking a clear-cut stance. Yes, he is expressing an unwillingness to make hard decisions and to initiate stern disciplinary measures. But all of this is to be expected. We have all known for some time that this man lacks the gumption necessary to be a true leader in times of crisis. In spite of his personal convictions (and I do not think that anybody seriously questions the integrity or the sincerity of his faith), the Archbishop appears to simply be VERY shy of conflict– of any sort; with anybody. He appears to be no less scared of upsetting Archbishop Peter Akinola than he is of upsetting the priestess currently in charge of 815.
The sad thing is, this is simply NOT going to work any longer. Something will have to give. I cannot envision him “throwing out” anybody. But it is fairly easy for me to envision certain primates in the global south telling Rowan Williams, in no uncertain terms (and in language bracketed with appropriate Biblical citations), that he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) and his ever-so-polite Lambeth Conference have now become completely irrelevant… Irrelevant, that is, to the very serious business of proclaiming the authentic Gospel to a world steeped in darkness and sin.
Frankly, I was surprised to note in Rowan Cantuar’s Advent letter an unmistakeable tilt towards the orthodox position within the Communion. But I fear that it is too little and too late.
I know Rowan Williams has angered a LOT of the orthodox faithful with his endless waffling and his transparent attempts to appease the gnostics controlling 815. But I actually sort of like the guy. His Christmas letter– which makes absolutely no reference at all to the current crisis– was pretty good, I thought.
It’s all very sad. I have no idea how all of this is going to turn out, in the end. The only thing that I am fairly confident about is this: several years down the road, the Anglican Communion is going to look VERY DIFFERENT than it does today. I am not sure that this will be such a bad thing, even though, personally, losing what has been so precious to me– and so familiar to me– has been a very painful experience.
I suspect that our African brothers and sisters in Christ probably have some rather incisive perspectives on the Gospel. I look forward to learning from them.
#4, I agree with most of your letter, but I read the jarring sentence quoted and see a statement that if one does not attend Lambeth, one is not a Christian, and that would seem to put one squarely outside the communion. I suspect many others read it the same way, and are just too appalled to dignify the remark by a response. If he didn’t mean it that way, well, that is how it will be taken. It will just be words or it won’t. But the leadership of TEC would be happy to vote the global south out of the communion for their border crossing at Lambeth, if they have the votes.
Pendennis88, Yes, they would be happy to do it. But they do not have the votes.