The much-anticipated Advent Letter has arrived! It is hard to overemphasize the importance of the Archbishop’s letter to the Primates and to the rest of the Anglican Communion.
There is much to commend in this letter (The Rev. Canon Kendall Harmon’s analysis is very helpful). It reaffirms the Bible as our primary authority, reaffirms the traditional view of Christian sexual ethics (1998 Lambeth 1.10), and it acknowledges the hurt caused the Anglican Communion when one province acts without regard for the entire Communion.
However, what is not said in this letter may be its most important feature. History might say that this was one of the greatest missed opportunities of all time.
Archbishop Williams could have simply said, “With the advice of the Primates and for the sake of healing our Communion, I rescind the previous invitations to the July 2008 Lambeth Conference, and I hereby invite every bishop in the Anglican Communion who will agree (in writing) to the processes outlined in the Windsor Report and the Dar es Salaam Primates Communiqué, including their personal pledge to uphold 1998 Lambeth resolution 1.10 as the agreed upon standard of conduct for Anglicans worldwide.”
Instead, the Archbishop let stand the previous invitations to Lambeth which includes the attendance of bishops who supported and voted for Gene Robinson’s consecration against the advice of the Primates, and even allows for the possibility that Bishop Robinson himself will attend Lambeth 2008 with visitor status. The invitation list includes bishops who currently allow and sanction same-gender blessings, who ordain noncelibate gays and lesbians to holy orders, and who have said they will not stop these practices no matter what the rest of the Communion says. And the invitations specifically excludes all bishops ordained by Rwanda (AMiA), Nigeria (CANA), Uganda, etc. for U.S. oversight, no matter how loyal they are to the teaching of Anglicanism.
In his genteel English (Welsh) style, Rowan Williams does say that “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,” but such a wishy-washy reminder will clearly not deter revisionist bishops from attending. We have indeed become a church without boundaries. In case there’s any question about this, Williams goes on to say, “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.” The “let’s vote on what Anglicans believe this week” – the lowest common denominator approach – empties our Anglican heritage of any content.
In another miscalculation, Archbishop Williams has chosen to not convene a Primates meeting before Lambeth. Instead, he will “convene a small group of primates and others…to work on answering questions arising from the inconc> lusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans.” The Archbishop told the Primates at Dar es Salaam that he would consult them on invitations to Lambeth, which he did not do. He could have upheld the Windsor Report by inviting those who uphold the traditional values endorsed in the Windsor Report, but he did not. He could have revised the invitation list in the Advent Letter to support Windsor, but he chose not to do so. And the end result is the Windsor Report is rendered virtually meaningless, and the Windsor process has been exposed as a ploy to buy time. There could be very detrimental results from this Letter, including the disintegration of one of the Instruments of Unity (Lambeth Conference) and the diminution of the authority of another Instrument, the Primates Meeting. It looks to me like the man behind the curtain has been exposed.
The telling part will be how the Primates respond to the Advent Letter in the weeks to come.
In the meantime, Christ Church continues to maintain its strong gospel ministry and strong relationships with the healthy parts of the Communion, while working with Bishop Lillibridge for the realignment. Bishop Lillibridge has valiantly fought for the Windsor Report, and it is the Windsor bishops who are most hurt by these developments. I agree with Bishop Iker, the Episcopal Church is not going to turn back from its present course. That means that our future will be very interesting and challenging – and hopeful. I continue to think that it has never been more exciting to be a Bible-believing Anglican in America, and that God has prepared us for such a time as this!
–The Rev. Chuck Collins is rector of Christ Church, San Antonio, Texas
I agree.
I also agree. I will also remind the gentle reader of ++Rowan’s animadversion to TEC bishops who hide behind the General Convention while shirking their ecclesiastical responsibilities, just as the he hides behind the myriad processes he has set in motion to avoid using the power he holds in his hands right now.
I am not as pessimistic as Fr. Collins is about the Advent Letter. I find in it encouraging evidence that Canterbury will acquiesce and in the end side with the great majority of the AC. To paraphrase Kendall, I read the letter as “Truth, and no Consequences YET, and not from me.” But that ground has already been covered here at T19 over the last few days.
I’m struck by the strong tone of confidence and even enthusiasm in Fr. Collins’ last sentence. “I continue to think that it has never been more exciting to be a Bible-believing Anglican in America…” To which I say a hearty, “Amen!” We are privileged to live in the most crucial and momentous time for Anglicans since the 16th century Reformation. Whatever else may happen, and the future is certainly very unclear, it is beyond all doubt true that Anglicanism in North America will never be the same.
The status quo can never be restored now; the toothpaste is out of the tube. The Rubicon has been crossed. The die is cast. For better or worse, the New Reformation is now underway. And I do believe, as Fr. Collins seems to as well, that the best days of orthodox Anglicanism in North America are yet to come. Thanks be to God!
David Handy
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
We have indeed become a church without boundaries. Despite the fact that we read the Nicene Creed each Sunday, we seem to have forgotten that inclusiveness means to include everyone within the boundary, not to ignore the boundary and try to include everyone. The Early Church survived because it set boundaries that enclosed its members and excluded those whose beliefs differed. No social organization can survive over the long term without boundaries.
I was wondering when we were going to hear from Chuck again. His bishop is nowhere as near conservative as Chuck is and yet Chuck, in this letter, seems to seek to put his bishop in the same category as Iker.
In Matthew’s Gospel, the preaching of God’s kingdom must be joined together with doing acts signifying the reign of God’s kingdom. So my challenge to Chuck is to stop writing, pause from criticizing Williams, and, if you truly believe that CANA, Uganda, or Zimbabwe is the way to go, see if you can get your church to follow you there. Then your missives would carry a bit more weight. I strongly suspect, though, that neither your bishop nor your parish will allow you to lead where they don’t want to go. Christ Church had a recent history of that and it didn’t turn out well.
Heh.
RE: “His bishop is nowhere as near conservative as Chuck is and yet Chuck, in this letter, seems to seek to put his bishop in the same category as Iker.”
I’m sure that it must be vexing for someone like Smuggs to see Father Collins supporting his fellow reasserting bishop — you know, two people who actually share the same gospel standing with one another.
RE: “So my challenge to Chuck is to stop writing, pause from criticizing Williams, and, if you truly believe that CANA, Uganda, or Zimbabwe is the way to go, see if you can get your church to follow you there.”
Yep — very vexing. ; > )
Actually, my vexing blogger friend, it’s the exact opposite. Chuck C. no doubt wishes that his extreme viewpoint was more supported by his bishop and diocese, not the other way around.
Sarah- given that there are only rumors and innuendoes in Smuggs’s post, I don’t find it vexing at all. It represented for me the epitome of petulance.
The converse side of Smuggs’s petulant observations is that Smuggs insinuates that Bishop Lillibridge doesn’t have the ballast to respond in a preventative manner to one of his rectors. Smuggs is alleging that something is amiss in Christ Church’s leadership and that it is not supported by the diocese, and that if Collins+ gets out of line then repercussions will ensue. But empirically, we might note that in similar situations elsewhere in ecusa when a rector or bishop get too far ahead of their flocks, there are dissident posts on this site caustically criticizing those leaders. But, we see none here, and with Chuck’s prior top levels at T19, we have not seen any before. So, despite allegations of smoke and possibly fire at Christ Church, I would dismiss Smuggs’s allegations as being merely speculation.
Incidently Smuggs, your posts are not those of a dissident, but merely those of a [i]critic[/i].
I dunno, Smuggs . . .
RE: “Chuck C. no doubt wishes that his extreme viewpoint was more supported by his bishop and diocese, not the other way around.”
Chuck Collins does not seem so very “extreme” if he is willing to stand by and support his bishop.
It’s amusing to see revisionists shrill and trill about “extremist” priests and parishes who leave ECUSA, and then beg and plead for reasserters who are standing with their bishop to “live into their extremism” by leaving bishop and diocese. ; > )
Tom Roberts — good analysis. But I do think that the main reason is simpler. It bugs Smuggs to see a guy as orthodox as Father Collins stand together with his bishop. It’s “vexing” to him.
And oh yeh . . . it’s not just an expression of obscured vexation but is, shall we say, somewhat self-serving to beg for Father Collins to leave bishop and diocese. But . . . I can see why reappraisers would wish for that.
When I see a sentence like “History might say that ….,” I groan. What history will say of anything is way down the road and usually turns out to be not what we assume.
Sarah likes word like “trill” and “shrill.” She must sit close to the choir in church! 🙂
Rumors, Tom? How many statements have been made by Chuck on the clergy list serve of that diocese only to be retracted? Go ask him. How many statements have been made by his former associates on their clergy list serve only to be retracted? Go ask him. Where is the former rector of that parish? Go ask him. Will that congregation support the idea of leaving the Episcopal Church if the Diocese does not go (per chance in the third wave that Greg Griffith from SF alludes to)? Go ask him. ALL of our statements are speculation and I speculate that Chuck will continue to write missives but will not take Christ Church out of the Episcopal Church UNLESS the diocese goes first.
Smuggs:
In re: “his former associates “, this is a vague accusation without substance unless you name these anonymous associates.
But, your logic in:
“Will that congregation support the idea of leaving the Episcopal Church if the Diocese does not go (per chance in the third wave that Greg Griffith from SF alludes to)?”
exactly parallels that of Collins+ in:
“In the meantime, Christ Church continues to maintain its strong gospel ministry and strong relationships with the healthy parts of the Communion, while working with Bishop Lillibridge for the realignment. Bishop Lillibridge has valiantly fought for the Windsor Report, and it is the Windsor bishops who are most hurt by these developments.”
In this, I am glad to see that your uncited accusations in which you place the burden of proving your points [i]on me[/i] haven’t clouded your essential agreement with Collins+ on a central point.
Finally, your last sentence about how all this is speculation is incoherent, or meaningless, without anything than vague accusations to back it up. Collins+ in contrast specified precisely the basis for how he is working with his bishop. Your insinuations do nothing but say that in any group of people, some are content and some are not content with how their leaders are managing the organization.
[i] Please discuss the post, not each other. [/i]
Elf Lady
[blockquote] while working with Bishop Lillibridge for the realignment. [/blockquote]
Fine. I’d like Chuck to provide evidence to back up the above quote from his post. Where can he point to that proves that Lillibridge is working for a realligment of the Anglican Communion like Iker, Duncan, & Co.? If he can’t, he’s putting words in Lillibridge’s mouth.
RE: “I speculate that Chuck will continue to write missives but will not take Christ Church out of the Episcopal Church UNLESS the diocese goes first.”
And that’s a good thing. I see no problem with that.
RE: “Where can he point to that proves that Lillibridge is working for a realligment of the Anglican Communion like Iker, Duncan, & Co.? If he can’t, he’s putting words in Lillibridge’s mouth.”
No — it just means that folks don’t have to define the word “realignment” as “just like Iker, Duncan, & Co.”
Any reasserting lay peon I know in ECUSA hopes and works for realignment — in my own small way, I certainly do.
In fact, [as we all know] realignment will indeed happen. It’s not possible for the two competing gospels within ECUSA to remain “steady state” and they won’t. So there’s gonna be “realignment” — the only questions are how, when, and what kind.
The POST uses the words “Iker” and “realignment” in VERY close proximity to one another. Ergo, Chuck meant to imply that Lillibridge’s idea of realignment is just like Iker’s.
My challenge still stands. Chuck (not Sarah who does not live in Texas) should define what realignment Lillibridge is working for and back it up. Otherwise, he is just putting words or a word or, for Sarah’s sake, a concept into Lillibridge’s mouth.
RE: “The POST uses the words “Iker†and “realignment†in VERY close proximity to one another.”
LOL.
The post uses the word “Iker” and “maintain” “in VERY close proximity to one another.” The post uses the word “Lillibridge” and “strong” “in VERY close proximity to one another.” What secret coded messages might [i]that[/i] mean??? ; > )
Let’s ignore the actual sentence which uses Bishop Iker’s name: “I agree with Bishop Iker, the Episcopal Church is not going to turn back from its present course.” Much too simple reading there!
RE: “My challenge still stands. Chuck (not Sarah who does not live in Texas) should define what realignment Lillibridge is working for and back it up.”
I’m sure that Chuck will take your considered advice into account.
18. I certainly didn’t read Collins’ letter that way. God help me if my blog is ever parsed so critically. :^O
To make Smuggs’s job easier for him, there are manifest differences between +Lillibridge’s [url=http://www.episcopal-dwtx.org/news%20and%20info.htm#Thursday,%20September%2027,%202007]HOB message[/url] and this [url=http://www.cecsa.org/announcements/lillibridge.html]parochial letter of over a year ago[/url].
What is not at all clear is whether this contrast exists today, and if so, to what degree. Collins+ top level message doesn’t go into the history of such matters, and neither the diocesan nor the parish web sites illumine the situation either, beyond what the top level says already.
The Chuck Collins I knew from the Diocese of the Rio Grande was not an extremist and I haven’t seen anything since his being in San Antonio that suggests that he has morphed into one. Could the asserter please provide evidence?
Tony, Rio Grande isn’t known for it’s moderate stances. That’s like saying, “The Joe Smith I knew from Fort Worth wasn’t an extremist.” They may well exist and you may know who they are albeit I haven’t met one yet.
Chuck in previous communications has said that once the ABC offered a way out, Christ Church would leave the Episcopal Church, including the Diocese of West Texas. That is an extremist statement and one that had to be hemmed and hawed over once it was made public.
The only part of Chuck’s statement that I have a quibble with is that last part where he insinuates that Bishop Lillibridge and he are working hand in hand for the realignment of the Anglican Communion. I doubt that statement to the nth degree. Lillibridge is a moderate conservative and a very, very good man. But he is not looking to take the Diocese of West Texas out of the Episcopal Church and, I believe, if Chuck ever tried to take Christ Church out, he would find himself gone. So my quibble is either Chuck is trying to assure his parish that he and the Bishop are completely on the same page or he’s trying to assure his bishop and he and the bishop are completely on the same page. Either way, knowing the history of the parish and knowing it now, the statement does not sit right. Now Tom may argue the other way and Sarah may argue the other way but, as of yet, Chuck (whom I am certain is reading the comments here to his latest published piece) has remained silent.
RE: “The only part of Chuck’s statement that I have a quibble with is that last part where he insinuates that Bishop Lillibridge and he are working hand in hand for the realignment of the Anglican Communion. . . . But he is not looking to take the Diocese of West Texas out of the Episcopal Church . . . ”
Same red herring conflation as above in the comments so very long ago — working for realignment does not necessarily mean leaving the Episcopal church or in fact, anything else that Smuggs can dream up.
But Smuggs is determined to state that Chuck Collins is an “extremist” and — of course — that Bishop Lillibridge and Father Collins are not therefore able to work together — an obsession that in itself yields fruitful reflection as to why that is so important to a guy named Smuggs to proclaim.
I’m sure that Chuck Collins is Terribly Concerned that some guy out there in cyberspace named “Smuggs” is saying that Chuck Collins and Bishop Lillibridge are not able to work together [roll eyes] because Chuck Collins is an “extremist.” He’ll rush right over and correct the Important Critique of Smuggs just as soon as he finds the time, and in the meantime we’ll all wait with bated breath. Any minute now . . .
Yep . . .
He’ll be right over soon, I’m sure.
We just have to wait expectantly.
Any day now, he’ll come and respond to Smuggs.
. . . just as soon as he finds time.
Smuggs – It’s because of the lack of simple charity in your entries that I don’t follow blogs more closely.
Why is it unbelievable that different churches in different situations will have different responses to the dysfunction in TEC?
Those who leave for other jurisdictions are faithful, of course, but so are those of us who struggle every day with good and faithful bishops who likewise are struggling to do right.
I can’t add more than what I’ve said publicly, the corpse in the living room is dead, therefore, the answer for us lies outside in an coalition approved and guided by the Primates that is just now coming together. Christ Church San Antonio has declared that we will join such a group. In the meantime, we are meeting regularly with our bishop, growing a friendship with this sincerely Christian man, and hoping to have a positive influence on him and the people of the Diocese of West Texas. Will he ever leave TEC? You will have to ask him yourself, but he told us in a parish meeting that his highest priority is to remain a constituent member of the Anglican Communion. All I know for sure is that he is a faithful bishop and friend who is doing his very best to lead a diverse diocese, and he has bent over backwards to hear our concerns. What more can we ask for as we wait and pray?
My thanks to you, Chuck, for replying although you must realize that, by doing so, you have keenly disappointed Sarah’s predictions. Ah, well, she’ll bounce back stronger than ever!
This is my last response on this thread. As I mentioned before, the issue that I have with your piece is your last paragraph whereby you imply that you and the bishop are completely on the same page. By aligning yourself with Iker, and by putting Iker and Lillibridge in such close context, you convey that the two are similar. I do not believe that you and the bishop do share opinions to the same degree and I do not believe that Iker and Lillibridge are similar. If I recall from the two services that I attended, Iker wasn’t even present when your two bishops were consecrated.
You stated in post that Christ Church will join such a group that is approved by the primates. I believe that Christ Church will do no such thing without the bishop’s permission or leadership. West Texas is not Kansas. There will be no selling of individual church property. What is done by the diocese will be done by the diocese as a whole. Thus if you are seeking to convey the message that Christ Church has the power to do exactly what you are proposing, time will tell if you or I are correct.
Your letter doesn’t state an opinion different from others and you do write well. But my argument with your last paragraph remains. So we will wait and pray together.