The Archbishop himself acknowledges the need to find a way for those within TEC who support the direction marked out by the Windsor Report to differentiate themselves from the present leadership of their church. At present both they and the Communion are faced with a bad choice, namely, between the forces represented by the National Headquarters of TEC and those represented by Common Cause Partners. The clear implication of the Advent Letter and the Dar es Salaam Communiqué is that a solution to the issue of differentiation internal to TEC is the proper way forward. It is urgent that an American solution to an American problem be found. It is our hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishops of TEC and the leaders of the Windsor Bishops will devote their energies to this issue and find a mutually acceptable solution with all deliberate speed. We fear that if no such action is taken both TEC and the Communion as a whole will be faced with a battle between opposing forces that may well simply tear fabric of our communion apart.
The Anglican Communion Institute is frequently criticized for providing no ”˜practical solution’ for those struggling at this time. We take this opportunity””in the context of an Advent Pastoral that seriously confronts the problems with TEC as a recognizable family member in Communion””to underscore that work continues unabated on our part to see to the emergence of a meaningful, Communion aligned, Windsor alliance of Anglican Bishops in Communion. We believe the Advent Pastoral underscores the necessity of such work and the hopefulness that should attend it. We pledge our continued work to this end, in cooperation with others, and contend that a recognizable Communion presence is indeed available for encouragement in connection with the wider Anglican family, especially at this present moment when TEC as a whole is undergoing such a tremendous challenge of identity and Communion forbearance.
One may grant that it has been dreadfully difficult for orthodox Episcopalians to enter into conversations with those who exercise power in TEC. In part the cause of this is that the powerful, driven by their own conviction that they possess a new revelation from God vouchsafed by the action of a majority in General Convention, see no way forward because the sort of concessions asked of them would in their view compromise their integrity (no pun intended.)
On the other hand those who have represented orthodox Episcopalians have been limited because they have no common voice, no common strategy, in some cases have invested themselves in previously crafted unilateral solutions from which there is no easy return, and have not trusted the Establishment.
I have lamented before the lack of leadership given by our bishops and particularly those of a more moderate position who it seems have exercised a stricter differentiation between themselves and more radical orthodox bishops than they have between themselves and Establishment liberals.
No doubt these realities have exasperated the Archbishop of Canterbury and continue so to do. Christianity is a faith of miracles in which lives and even churches are transformed when all seems lost. One may only hope and pray that orthodox Episcopalians and particularly those who lead by virtue of their Office will find a way to come together and then respond to the Archbishop’s invitation to engage in facilitated conversation and participate in what will be the crucial meeting of the Lambeth Conference.
I tried to read this and found I did not have the fortitude to get past the first page. It is so tendentious it is ridiculous. Just look at the first line of the third paragraph. Does anybody really think that anything in the ABC’s letter is [i]trenchant[/i]? Not according to any of the definitions given in the OED. Then at the bottrom of the first page there is the solecism of using [i]precipitous[/i] when the word the writer(s) should have used is [i]precipitate[/i]. Our language, which was once trenchant like a rapier is being devolved into a club. Bah!
TEC’s mandarins know ++Rowan doesn’t have the stomach to discipline it in any meaningful fashion. He’ll wag his finger and issue clucking missives off and on, but the upshot is that TEC will continue as it has: inhibiting, deposing, trumping up charges and suing dioceses, parishes, vestries and even parishoners who fail to toe its line. Then ACI’s role in all this is to make sure as many reasserters as possible present a stable, fixed target for TEC.
[i] Link deleted. Unnecessary attack. [/i]
#2 (Mathematicus on precipitous):
This charge has been levelled here against Radner as well. But it should be qualified. Long before “Our language . . . was . . . trenchant like a rapier”, there was no such distinction, as even the second edition of [i]The dictionary of modern English usage[/i] admits: “Formerly, [i]-ous[/i] was freely used where we now always say [i]-ate[/i]” (470; though of course we don’t [i]always![/i]). Williams’ use of precipitous is as old as any in the current [i]OED[/i], dating, as it does, back to 1646, the year of the first recorded use of it also in its other main sense. Interestingly, it is to the very same work, Sir Thomas Browne’s [i]Pseudodoxia Epidemica[/i], that the [i]OED[/i] appeals in both cases. The comparable use of precipitate appears of course a century earlier, but that, it seems to me, is a bit beside the point, given that precipitate was also used in the sense now proper to precipitous as early as 1614, 32 years before the latter was apparently first used in the sense now reserved for the former alone!
Again, Williams’ use is as [i]old[/i] (and that’s the [i]only[/i] claim I would make!) as any in the [i]OED.[/i]
[i] Let’s return to a discussion of the post. [/i]
If the ABC’s stratagy to hold the AC together is to continue talking and meeting but never to reach a decision one way or the other, what then? Dar es Salaam was supposed to be the make or break point and the ABC pulled out the rug from under it. He now wants further discussion. The ABC knows that a final decision to discipline, or not to discipline, TEC will mean a break in the communion. His solution, which is born out by his past actions, is to never reach a decision. It is process without conclusion. It seems to me that, by their own admission, the ACI accepts this. They desperately want a communion wide decision, which the ABC is determined to prevent. All that is left is endless discussion without resolution while the TEC continues on its way. At what point does the ACI say enough discussion. We must have a decision?
Good grief, 2,881 words in response to +++Rowan’s 4,500+!
[blockquote] The Anglican Communion Institute is frequently criticized for providing no ‘practical solution’ for those struggling at this time. [/blockquote]
To which ACI’s most useful reply is: “a solution to the issue of differentiation internal to TEC is the proper way forward. It is urgent that an American solution to an American problem be found. It is our hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishops of TEC and the leaders of the Windsor Bishops will devote their energies to this issue and find a mutually acceptable solution with all deliberate speed. We fear that if no such action is taken both TEC and the Communion as a whole will be faced with a battle between opposing forces that may well simply tear fabric of our communion apart.”
Because, earlier, the ACI states “The Archbishop himself acknowledges the need to find a way for those within
TEC who support the direction marked out by the Windsor Report to differentiate themselves from the present leadership of their church. At present both they and the Communion are faced with a bad choice, namely, between the forces represented by the National Headquarters of TEC and those represented by Common Cause Partners.”
“Presiding Bishops”? Is there someone else in addition to Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori??
“Windsor” is still alive?
Doctors Seitz, Turner, and Radner, CCP is a “bad choice” because… Why? Because it is not a wholly “American solution”?
I, in my ignorant [i] undoctorate [/i]state, do not yet discern ACI’s offering of a possible, practical solution, unless, of course, referring to CCP as “bad” is a solution. Color me confused with ACI’s rhetoric.
Whatever happened to clear, concise communication, anyway?
[blockquote] They desperately want a communion wide decision, which the ABC is determined to prevent. All that is left is endless discussion without resolution while the TEC continues on its way. [/blockquote]
That’s called a non-terminating loop.
Elves, the issue of language here is entirely relevant. HOW you say what you mean, in this case, is in a real sense what you mean. The language here is tendentious, inflated, convoluted, stilted, and verbose. This entire essay could be easily cut in half and lose nothing. In essence it has used words to obscure, not clarify. We have seen this again and again from everyone TEC connected. So often, indeed, we have every cause to believe that this is a standard, a deliberate, practice.
But why? Who here is deceived? But this is not written for us, not written for the critic. It is marshmallow fluff for the standard American reader, who, reading this, may well conclude that this is so carefully wrought, so very deep, so nice in its distinctions, that the he will conclude that it is truly substantive, though he himself may not understand it well, and that he does not is the very proof that his judgment about this essay is sound. The assumption behind this pretentious prose is that the reader is incapable of seeing it for what it is. And such a supposition is probably well grounded. LM
[blockquote]Link deleted. Unnecessary attack. [/blockquote]
The necessity is debatable, but you can’t deny it’s funny (and accurate).
[i] Mocking anyone can endanger your posting privileges.
Consider yourself warned [/i]
The more obscure, obtuse, unclear and cluttered a presentation is, the more suspect it is. This paper just shows me that the authors do not know what they are writing about. If they did they could explain it.
[blockquote]Mocking anyone can endanger your posting privileges.
Consider yourself warned [/blockquote]
Refusing to call things by their proper names has already put the AC at the brink of implosion in the name of a wrong-headed gentility. Revisionists wail about repression and exclusion at the hands of mean ol’ reasserters who bridle at the innovations they force on the Church. Lampooning foolish ideas has the entirely salutory effect of undermining these innovations while denying those that spout them what they crave most: martyrdom.
Not all refutations come in turgid, 5,000 word monographs.
[blockquote]Its rich theological content and wise procedural protocols will place it, along with the Windsor Report and the Communiqué from Dar es Salaam,[/blockquote]
No, Windsor is dead or moot because the deadline for it is long passed. It’s lack of precise language was exploited to maximal effect by the imperious TEC. The Dar es Salaam communique had more precise language, but it is also dead, felled by the ABC himself with plotting and subversive help of some members of the HoB and JSC. What we have left is this overly long casuistic letter of the ABC.
[blockquote]The reaction to this inadequacy by various provinces, dioceses, and parishes both within and without the U.S. is, however, further complicating and wrong. This is because their actions run in a direction quite contrary to the principles upon which communion rests. Ad hoc border crossings on the part of external Provinces and Dioceses and similarly ad hoc disaffiliations on the part of parishes and dioceses within the U.S. have been undertaken without reference to a principle on the basis of which one might judge an entire ministry defective. They are consequently contrary to a basic principle of communion that gives advanced credit to all to whom one is bound in Christ, namely, trust that the gospel is being faithfully communicated and faithfully lived out.[/blockquote]
To be honest, I have read this several times, and I am still scratching my head. Ad hoc border crossings and disaffiliations have come to be because parishes and dioceses have made desperate choices and have chosen life rather than dwindling deaths. As such, they were recognized by the unanimously ratified DeS communique.
[blockquote]Actions of the sort in question should be undertaken, the Archbishop insists, [b]only if it is determined that the ministry of an entire Province is defective.[/b][/blockquote] What is this Abrahamic bargaining a la Genesis 18? [i]Peradventure ten righteous men shall be found in the TEC. I will not destroy it for ten’s sake.[/i]
[blockquote]They have also, in contradistinction to the clear admonishment of the Primates, led to lawsuits.[/blockquote]
This reminds me of enabling parents who give their adult son money to buy drugs so that he won’t steal and bring disgrace to the family.
[blockquote]His chief guideline is that attendance must imply a willingness to work with those aspects of the Lambeth Conference that relate to the implementing of the Windsor Report, including the proposed covenant.[/blockquote]
The ABC’s guidelines are so soft that they pose no difficulty to admission by Bruno, Sisk, Chane, Jefferts-Schori, Ingham of New Westminster. My criticism of ACI is that always give the ABC a free pass. The GS primates have stated that they will not participate in Lambeth if the participants in the ordination of VGR participate. The ABC clearly states that Lambeth resolution 1.10 on sexuality to be the only point of reference clearly agreed by an overwhelming majority in the Communion. How about asking the ABC to state that admission to Lambeth require proper deference to that standard teaching?
[blockquote]He will call a professionally facilitated meeting between the leaders of TEC and “those with whom they are most in dispute, both internally and externally.â€[/blockquote]
Professionally facilitated meetings? How very Delphi technique-ish! This reads so much from a Delphi technique play book that it is scary: “The goal of the Delphi technique is to lead a targeted group of people to a predetermined outcome, while giving the illusion of taking public input and under the pretext of being accountable to the public.”
[blockquote]the issue of differentiation internal to TEC is the proper way forward.[/blockquote]
I wrote this about “internal differentiation” on another thread: Bp Schofield saw the impending dead end in the road. For San Joaquin, it occurred earlier. In some sense that is a blessing for DoSJ not shared by other dioceses where the “bridge is out” is further down the road. Claims of differentiation are short sighted. One is dooming if not one’s children then one’s grandchildren to the fate of diocese of San Diego where a liberal bishop was placed and is now persecuting honest Christians. People of South Carolina, imagine a Bp Andrew Smith at your helm, locking faithful out of their churches. This is your future. And come GC 2009, there will be no escaping that future.
I commend ACI for stating so bluntly that these are the only two choices now available. Given only these two options, is it any wonder that those in non-CCP dioceses would want to leave a diocese that even ACI now admits is “represented by the National Headquarters of TEC�
I admire their tenacity in the face of long odds, much criticism and repeated disappointments. I hope they are successful with their goal of “differentiation internal to TEC.†The problem they face is twofold. First, the Dar communiqué represented the minimum people like me would accept, yet it was rejected out of hand by the ECUSA bishops, who appear willing to consider caving on the gay agenda but won’t tolerate one teeny, tiny toe on their turf. So “internal to TEC†is going to be a challenge.
Equally challenging, however, is “differentiation†by non-CCP bishops. This seems precisely what they are unwilling to do. Apparently they cannot even bring themselves to vote “no†in the HOB on a resolution that even Rowan Williams recognizes to be inadequate (or if one credits the several bishops who claim the sole audible “no,†to differentiate in anything other than a whisper). And how is pleading with the ABC to relent and invite Gene Robinson to Lambeth “differentiation� To date, “differentiation†seems to be the exclusive preserve of those bishops who walked out in New Orleans, who happen to be of course the CCP bishops.
Of these two challenges, the second is probably the tougher. One suspects that National Headquarters might be more flexible if it were faced with a more formidable opposition.
Along with the semantic and thematic evanescence cited above, I’m trying to figure out what the concluding punchline means with:
“…when TEC as a whole is undergoing such a tremendous challenge of identity and Communion forbearance.”
How is [i]Communion forbearance[/i] a [i]challenge[/i], let alone a “tremendous” one? Alternately, is “TEC undergoing … Communion forebearance”? The latter alternative makes about as much prose sense as ‘living into’ has in ecusa’s newspeak.
Undergoing (verbal/gerund) challenge (object of v) identity (objective genitive) forbearance (objective genitive).
“It is a challenge to live within (forbear) Communion expectations.”
Basic grammar I have taught all my life. But blog challenges like these require a different kind of forbearance! Blessed Advent 4 and a very Merry Christmas.
I would not call that “basic grammar”. In my opinion, your reconstruction made great sense as a replacement to that whole last line, but your original went over the heads of almost all of the readers. In addition, your reconstruction doesn’t illuminate how “… of identity and…” ties into the succinct “It is a challenge to live within Communion expectations.â€
Tom–glad the crib helped you with basic grammar challenges. Merry Christmas. BTW, don’t assume you speak for what you call ‘almost all readers’ — they may not struggle as much as you think.
Father Seitz- how do you put Christmas greetings into an obviously condescending riposte? What do not understand with my caveat “In my opinion….”.
Your post, taken with your non response to the other critical postings above, brings me to question your good faith in writing the original. Instead you pick on what you perceive to be my lack of grammatical education. This will be the last missive of ACI’s I will ever attempt to understand, thank you sir!
I will only add that we all have our logs in our own eyes.
Tom–I do indeed hope you have a Merry Christmas, and I also hope that your claim of speaking for ‘all readers will be leavened by a more proportional sense of your own criticism. God bless. Advent 4 blessings.
Elves–I would also add that this essay was not written for T19, but insofar as it has been picked up, it would be good if its content could be engaged and not other things. Our writing is of course for those seeking to engage the communion health at a level of decision making and change. We are pleased with the recent clarification of the ABC and wish to build on that in all ways. If people want to take issue with not being able to follow the language, I hope that is not taken to be decisive for the statement’s actual work in communion affairs. Blogs are important in their own way, but one must always be aware of the proportion of this form of communication.
[i] Thank you. This elf hopes that the commenters will
return to addressing the content of the post. [/i]
#21 The post not bring nothing knew, the ACI has showed that it is irrelevant. Does any primate from the Global South cares about the people from the Evangelical Center(ACI, Fulcrum or Radner himself) write or think?
No. 22 – They should care.
I, for one, would like to see the deleted links from Jeffersonian. They would, no doubt, be far more enlightening and stimulating than most anything the ACI ever wrote.
My own (very subjective and probably somewhat inconsistent) reaction to this article by the ACI is that, overall, it’s not a bad bit of reasoning, as far as it goes.
Arguing about grammar is childish, in my opinion.
Just for the record, I did not think that Rowan Cantuar’s Advent letter was as bad as I expected it to be. So maybe it’s not surprising that I am prepared to give the ACI a pass on their interpretation of the Advent letter.
I am a member of an AMiA parish. Obviously, I have already gone at least one step beyond CCP, and, in that sense, I am probably way beyond the pale, as far as the ACI is concerned.
But my departure from TEC was NOT something that I undertook lightly or enthusiastically. I have personally been on the receiving end of some of TEC’s most aggressive and brutal attempts to smash any and all opposition to their sub-Christian “new gospel.”
I was, literally, forced into the AMiA– where I live there are no CANA churches; the “continuing Anglicans” in this area are absurdly fussy and rigid and so particular about their Anglo-Catholicism that it would have been foolish for me to try to find common ground with them; I cannot in good conscience swim the Tiber (though, I suppose, it may come to that eventually, if things get substantially worse than they are at present within the Anglican fold); neither can I see my way towards whole-heartedly embracing Lutheranism or some other alternate Protestant Church, at this time.
What I do not think the ACI is coming to terms with, in any or all of their position papers and monographs, is how thoroughly and aggressively TEC is going after their opponents. I cannot help but feel that the ACI is, somehow, beset with a pathological inability to recognize the hideous and brutal REALITY of what is happening– on the ground, every day, day in and day out– for people within TEC who simply try to adhere to “the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints.” To use plain language, the good people of the ACI are in a state of rather incredible denial. As far as this goes, I suspect that Rowan Williams is also in denial.
Nobody, as far as I know, has compiled and collated all of the FACTS about the pre-emptive strikes that were staged against orthodox parish priests and lay people in the first few weeks and months after VGR was consecrated.
I know for a fact– from many phone calls that I made to the Network offices during those early days of the current crisis– that the Network lacked the ability to document and investigate even a fraction of the thousands of outrageous attacks by 815 on the orthodox faithful.
The offensive by 815 was obviously well-planned in advance. And it was an offensive that was executed with supreme skill and daring. In fact, this assault by the sub-Christian powers in control of 815 was completely unexpected by ANYBODY on the orthodox side– at that point, I think we were ALL in denial. It all happened so fast and took place over so broad a front, that there was NOTHING that anybody in Pittsburgh (or anywhere else) could do stop it or to help the orthodox faithful on the front lines when 815 struck.
I don’t know much about the people at the ACI, except what I casually glean from the blogosphere. I suppose they are good, well-intentioned people who are trying to be faithful in the midst of very trying times. But I wish that they– and a LOT of OTHER orthodox Anglicans who have not done much to help those of us who have borne the full brunt of 815’s fury– would at least TRY to acknowledge what has happened to a lot of very simple Christians who have been driven out of their churches by 815.
This has been a rambling and rather convoluted comment, I know. It’s late and I am tired. Merry Christmas, one and all who read this. And may God have mercy on us all.
Again, some of the comments are out of line. Disagree fine (and I do). It is one thing to send out a one line zinger at Brian or Susan Russell (I don’t think they care one whit), but, I think that it is inappropriate for the ACI-ers. I certainly believe Chris Seitz when he states he bears many scars in this battle with the revisionistas. (Academic political in-fighting can use the most reprehensible means. He probably has had many knives in the back for his beliefs.) Unfortunately, comments like 16 and 18 serve his organization poorly.
I would be interested to know to whom this missive was directed since Chris Seitz states that it was not for our consumption. It is posted on their site for all the world to see. There was another posting on their website which, indeed, was much more readable. It can be found here, [url=http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/124/1/ ]“We Know What Hour It Isâ€: A Comment on the Advent Pastoral and Common Cause[/url]. Perhaps, that would have been more appropriate for this “forum.” However, the gist of that essay is that the Advent pastoral letter is the cat’s meow and don’t follow CCP but rather look forward to the “facilitated discussions.” (Can you say Delphi?)
It kind of irks me that the ACI does not acknowledge is that the ABC would not have sent out the letter with any hopeful turns of phrases if not for the dramatic actions of foreign interventions and the disaffiliation of San Joaquin. Actually, it doesn’t kind of irk me, it irks me a lot. The ordination of VGR, SSUB’s of New Westminster could have been followed by more revisions and outrages, and the old ditherer would still have have been dithering. Of course, he doesn’t like the interventions and disaffiliations. Not because they complicate things, but because they force him to act even just a little which is apparently antithetical to his makeup.
ACI’s obsession with the CCP has distorted their ability to have a very balanced perspective and resulting plan. The lack of potential for their own plan, if you can call sitting still in the face of a rapidly diminishing situation a plan, can be seen in the lack of positive response they have had here among relative friends.
Any plan that has as its corner stone an Archbishop who won’t act (and who managed to shot himself in the foot over something so simple as Christmas) and the Windsor Bishops (the guts of which have or are leaving, and the rest of whom can’t manage even a minority report) doesn’t seem to be a plan that inspires much of a following or hope among thinking people.
If the ACI guys could temper their personal contempt for those of us who have taken a route other than the one they have chosen they might be able to envision a scenario that is adapted to the current realities of which they are seemingly in denial, a plan having potential for success and support, unlike what they have been proposing over the last several months.
What I find curious is that the ABC and ACI describes TEC as “a recognizable family member in Communion”, yet most of the Global South Primates say they are not in communion with TEC at all. We cannot continue to have it both ways.
I suppose I can understand the prose in the document about as well as Tom Roberts. What I read is no surprise. It is what I have come to expect from the ACI’s careful analysis. However, it, like other ACI documents I have seen, seems to describe a situation that is divorced from the reality in which I and most orthodox Anglicans I know live.
If our Truro parish had not disaffiliated, formed another division of Anglican congregations and asked for alternative ecclesiastical connection, we would have hemorrhaged parishioners at an ever-accelerating rate – as we had already been doing since 2003. In fact, if we had not gone through the division from the Diocese of Virginia, my wife and I, and every person in the small group with which we met during the period of discernment would have left – for another already separated Anglican church, or for a Southern Baptist, conservative Presbyterian, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic congregation, or other orthodox church. Our inability to do Great Commission work in the Diocese of Virginia without spending most of our effort explaining away the apostate essence of TEC made it impossible to stay connected to it.
I know churches in multiple states where this same lethal incompatibility existed, so Truro and its neighboring CANA and Ugandan parishes were not unique.
This is why I say that this current ACI document, and perhaps some part of the ABC’s Advent letter, seem to me to be divorced from reality. What they are proposing, or supporting from the ABC’s letter, 1) has no end point for the faithful flocks, 2) assumes good faith functioning on the part of TEC bishops who have not merely acted contrary to historic orthodoxy but have been duplicitous about their actions and the actions of those under their authority within their dioceses, and 3) is silent about the hemorrhaging of membership that I mention above and the attacks mentioned in #25. by bluenarrative.
I have previously been taken to task by Christopher Seitz when I said that Ephraim Radner appeared to be writing about a parallel universe in which neither my parish nor any of which I was aware resided. Chris accused me then of saying that Ephraim lived in a parallel universe, which is not what I said then and is not what I am saying or meaning now. What I am saying is this – the process they are describing (I call it a “process”, not a “solution”, since as stated above, it appears to be an endless loop.) does not seem to describe any real parish of which I am aware, nor any alternative episcopal division that has arisen since 2003, nor does it describe very well the duplicitous and aggressive behavior of many TEC bishops and other TEC leaders.
[blockquote]It is urgent that an American solution to an American problem be found.[/blockquote]
An American solution has been found, consistent with American history and character. The parishes and Diocese who can no longer abide life with TEC are leaving and joining other orthodox Provinces. The orthodox Anglicans are throwing off the chains of oppression from TEC and creating a new future for themselves. That TEC does not like it is of no consequence, any more than the fact that George III did not like it when the American colonies decided to declare independence. Yes, there are battles yet to be fought, but that will not change the decision to depart TEC.
TEC will never, never, never agree to anything that Orthodox Anglicans will find acceptable. It is like wishing that those Arabs and Jews in the Middle East could solve their problems like good Christians. For any kind of negotiated solution to be possible, both sides have got to see benefit to their side in negotiations.
TEC as an organization has as its primary mission a secular, left wing, political agenda. To allow any Diocese or parish to leave with the property to join an orthodox Province is a repudiation of this agenda. Despite all of the happy talk of diversity, tolerance, inclusion, etc this repudiation of their secular ideology can never be allowed.
[blockquote]We fear that if no such action is taken both TEC and the Communion as a whole will be faced with a battle between opposing forces that may well simply tear fabric of our communion apart.[/blockquote]
The battle is here. This battle is not something that can be prevented in the future, because the battle has already begun. Orthodox Anglicans are leaving and will continue to leave TEC. The fabric of the communion is torn. TEC has proven that a negotiated solution is not possible. The only solution that will allow the possibility of TEC to co-exist in Communion without completing the tearing of the fabric of the AC is a radical rethinking of the way that the AC is organized.
The AC is currently organized around geographical Provinces. There is no Biblical reason that this should be so, particularly in today’s modern society of instant communication and travel by jet. Recognition that parishes and diocese need to be allowed to associate with Provinces with whom they are in theological agreement rather than geographical proximity is the only way to keep the AC together, and even this solution may not be successful.
Radical rethinking and willingness to change the organizational structure when the old paradigms no longer work is part of the American tradition. Hoping that some magical, Gandolph like professional facilitator can find a mutually acceptable negotiated solution will continue to be the exercise in futility in the future that it has proven to be in the past.
I find it interesting that Mark McCall (a definite comm-con kind of guy) #14 finds “internal differentiation” to be problematic as a strategy for orthodox in America. I thought Kendall’s Colorado lectures were great up to his rejection of CCP and calls for internal differentiation as well. Mere gestures were suggested. I am not sure that the non-CCP bishops like Howe, MacPherson or Stanton would even wear black ribbons at the HoB meetings because that would strain their precious collegiality.
How’s this for differentiation? Invitations to Mark Lawrence’s ordination only to those not participating in lawsuits. This would exclude the PB, herself. In fact, I would argue that if the PB is allowed to attend and preside, then internal differentiation is truly a sham.
It’s a busy Advent 4 so I need to sign off. #28–no, exactly the opposite. #25–childish, I agree. #27–‘personal contempt’? you raise a good point. I have seen naked contempt for AMiA on display from certain persons, and shades of contempt for ‘purple fever’ and new bishops; but nothing in this statement demonstrates ‘personal contempt.’ As for blogs. The elves could be helpful here. I suspect of 300 or so reading these, about 50 register to comment, and 20 are on all the time, here on T19 often doing double duty at SF. Is this a good indication of who is reading? I doubt it (those first with hands up, and raising their voices in lectures, are never a good sample). That said, statements like these go into contexts were people are making decisions, as the statement indicated.
May Advent 4 remind us again of the King who sent his most dear Son, to rescue us, to enter a world of sin and bitterness and contempt, and to win a Victory for us and for the whole world, to enjoy forever and ever.
No. 29 – What do you mean when you mention “Southern Baptist, Conservative Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or other orthodox churches”? And No. 30 – I guess you mena than one who remains in TEC cannot be orthodox. I find you ecclesiology very unorthodox.
Sigh — no answer to my questions in #7, nor any riposte to my #8. I guess my being a mere under-educated rube must be showing, or is it because I wasn’t among the intended audience?
One last question, where is true hope in all of this?
I did not say that one who remains in TEC cannot be orthodox. I said that TEC as an organization is primarily concerned with its left wing, secular, socialist, agenda, not a Biblical Christ centered mission.
Individuals who are orthodox can and will stay within TEC for all sorts of reasons, historical ties, married in the church, grandparents buried there. Eventually, given TEC current trajectory, people will vote with their feet one way or another, and few orthodox will be left.
33. rob k wrote:
[blockquote] No. 29 – What do you mean when you mention “Southern Baptist, Conservative Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or other orthodox churchesâ€?[/blockquote]
Sorry if this was not clear. It was not my intent to create some theological grouping with this list, except to say that in any such nearby congregation that was largely committed to orthodox Christianity I could find myself in closer fellowship than with TEC run by its apostate leaders. In any such congregation, I would look to see if the sentence following the excerpt you quoted was possible and encouraged:
[blockquote] … would have left – for another already separated Anglican church, or for a Southern Baptist, conservative Presbyterian, Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic congregation, or other orthodox church. Our inability to do Great Commission work in the Diocese of Virginia without spending most of our effort explaining away the apostate essence of TEC made it impossible to stay connected to it.[/blockquote]
My [i]preference[/i] would have been “another already separated Anglican church”, with two actually nearby, but my [i]requirement[/i] would have been the ability to do Great Commission work without having to explain away the apostate TEC leadership.
The ACI writes:
“It is urgent that an American solution to an American problem be found.’
There is a good example of why they are clearly smarting at being viewed as impractical and out of touch. Such a solution has not been found and will not been found because of the intransigence of TEC’s leadership. A similar situation occurs in a family with an alcoholic which is why outside intervention is needed.
The fact that ACI does not see something this clear at this late a date says a lot about their analytical skills.
#32— to your point about contempt: if it is not contempt for those leaving, what is it that causes what seems to be the general critique on this thread, that ACI simply is in denial about or blind to the reality on the ground–saying wait when people are actively walking out the doors, saying wait while TEC is full speed ahead, calling for patience to wait on an immobilized Windsor Bishops–if not contempt, then what is it that keeps ACI from putting these factors into the model?
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
I’m not sure if this is one of those “Aha!” moments or if I am just misunderstanding this document by ACI, but here is what I just realized, or at least think I realized.
I have been reading this document as if it were a scholarly addition to the discussion about TEC, the ABC, Lambeth, etc. I think I am incorrect in that interpretation. It seems to me (again – I could be wrong) that this is not a scholarly paper. It seems to fit more closely another definition: An opinion piece by three scholarly individuals. As I looked again at the document I realized 1) it had no scriptural references, 2) it had no references to actual Anglican historical documents, 3) it had no references to anything whatsoever other than the ABC letter. So the document appears to be an opinion piece by three highly trained Anglican theologians about a letter by the ABC. As such, it is an interesting entry into the mix of ideas about the current Anglican troubles, but it carries no more weight than any statement by any other Anglicans about our troubles with TEC.
I do not say this to in any way minimize its value as an part of the mix of ideas. It is a thoughtful perspective, but, if my interpretation is correct, it carries no more weight than any other thoughtful opinion piece by anyone else on the topic.
It genuinely grieves me to read this thread for there is an antagonistic spirit here that doesn’t allow for intelligent discussion of the Archbishop’s Advent letter and the response of the ACI. Rather than considering what has been said the thread quickly degenerates into personal attack and innuendo. In response to the unfaithfulness of 2003 those who claim orthodoxy do not seem to want to think and talk orthodoxly. There has been a pitiful fragmentation, oceans of unwarranted self-righteousness, and a lack of the biblical humility that circumstances demand. I do not exclude myself from this judgment, for we are all at fault.
Abp Williams may not be everyone’s cup of tea, and North American impatience may not like what it interprets as foot-dragging, but he is attempting to make the kind of suggestions that will move things forward rather than blow them apart. Thus, they need to be considered with humble care, even if we don’t like them, and if we don’t then we need to present thoughtful, workable alternatives rather than just attack.
Having said these words, it is likely that I will be written off by those among us who think I have gone soft or sold out. Whether I have or not is immaterial, this is the way in which those who disagree with me discount what I have said rather that being willing to listen prayerfully and carefully to all the voices in the debate.
For the record, however, since I entered seminary nearly 43 years ago I have been a convinced Anglican and a committed evangelical. Jesus is my Lord, I stand under the shadow of the Cross, I believe the Scriptures to be God’s Word written, and I seek to live under their authority and within the discipline of historic Anglicanism. Anglican Christianity by its very nature is generous, but I see little generosity here.
Richard Kew,
I have tried very hard to understand comments like yours. It is my impression that, if I agreed with the ACI analysis of the ABC’s Advent Letter, or agreed with the advent letter itself, you would not object.
I do not agree with most that appears in either. I feel strongly that bishops and especially archbishops have vowed to defend the faith and defend their flocks. I have found the ABC wanting on both accounts and I have found the seemingly interminable processes recommended by the ACI to be supporting this same non-defense of the faith and of the flocks. Perhaps you read that as personal attack. It is not. I think that the ACI is discussing an unrealistic set of actions that do not appear to acknowledge the eternal and ever-in-the-present facts that souls are in mortal danger and that the Gospel is being brought into derision constantly by the apostate leaders in TEC.
It is my opinion that CCP and the GS Provinces who are providing rescue for these souls and for the Gospel message are an absolute necessity now, that the leaders involved from CCP and the GS are taking correct action, and that ACI is recommending dithering, which has been the ABC’s continuing pattern throughout this whole mess. Both ACI and ABC seem to be saying the CCP and the GS rescuers are not helpful and should stop. I do not agree with that position.
All of this is not a personal attack on either the ABC or the scholars of the ACI. It is a statement that I think they are wrong, and that, if we followed the ACI instead of the CCP leaders and GS rescuers, more souls would be lost and the Gospel would continue to be debased by those in TEC and elsewhere who are actively apostate and need to be opposed, not listened to.
You briefly address another topic, the supposed “pitiful fragmentation”. I frankly do not find myself part of any such fragment. I am in a CANA church that is, through CCP, building close cooperation with groups of Anglicans who have been separated from the Anglican Communion for extended periods, some since 1873. That is the opposite of fragmentation. That is rebuilding and strengthening Anglican orthodoxy in North America. I am under an Archbishop who can state the Gospel clearly, can and does defend the faith once received, and can and does defend the faithful. Those are kingdom-building actions, not “pitiful fragmentation”. I was to be pitied when I was under the apostate Bishop Lee of TEC. I and my fellow Anglicans are no longer to be pitied, except those who still seek rescue and have not yet found it.
So I have tried to understand your comments, but I am unable to really comprehend the basis for them.
#42 Bill Cool has summarized quite well indeed my sense of Archbishop Williams’ lack of fortitude to provide substantive, upward-looking, gospel-centered leadership in the midst of the Anglican Crisis, and ACI’s position papers’ inability to strongly and unequivocally provide for and undergird the defense of the faith once delivered. What Abp. Williams and ACI seem to desire above all else is a narrowly perceived institutional preservation of the growingly nebulous chimera called the Anglican Communion. CCP, on the other hand, seems more focused on the gospel and less on broken structures.
[blockquote]43. Athanasius Returns:
What Abp. Williams and ACI seem to desire above all else is a narrowly perceived institutional preservation of the growingly nebulous chimera called the Anglican Communion. CCP, on the other hand, seems more focused on the gospel and less on broken structures.
[/blockquote]
The gospel-focus and Great Commission obedience of CCP seems equally true for the just announced [url=http://www.gafcon.org/]2008 Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON)[/url].
[blockquote] As Archbishop Gregory Venables has said: “While there are many calls for shared mission, it clearly must rise from common shared faith. Our pastoral responsibility to the people we lead is now to provide the opportunity to come together around the central and unchanging tenets of the central and unchanging historic Anglican faith. Rather than being subject to the continued chaos and compromise that have dramatically impeded Anglican mission, GAFCON will seek to clarify God’s call at this time and build a network of cooperation for Global mission.â€
GAFCON is a call to vision and action for mission based firmly on the “faith once delivered to the saints†and revealed in Scripture, to reform the church and transform persons, communities and societies through the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. African Bishops had this focus at their Lagos 2004 conference. The Episcopal church’s agenda has recently overshadowed it. We now need to develop this gospel agenda for all like-minded in the communion.
It is to outline the mission imperatives for the next 25 years and how to begin to respond to them. [/blockquote]
All of this reminds me of [i]The Weight of Glory[/i] by C. S. Lewis.
[blockquote]
It may be possible for each of us to think too much of his own potential glory hereafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbour. The load, or weight, or burden, of my neighbour’s glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you may talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and corruption such as you now meet if at all only in a nightmare.
All day long we are in some degree helping each other to one or the other of these destinations. It is in light of these overwhelming possibilities it is with awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never met a mere mortal, Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations, these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit — immortal horrors or ever lasting splendours.[/blockquote]
+++Rowan and the ACI seem to act and write as if this were not true every day for every single person for whom the Anglican expression of Christianity could and should make a difference.
Maybe more souls are in danger from the Protestantation of the Church that Archbishop Williams is trying to prevent.
I have been involved in transatlantic travel for the last several days and only now am able to pick this thread up. Firstly, this whole issue is far more nuanced than those contributing would like to think, which results in this simplistic notion that there is a clear right and a clear wrong way of proceeding. I personally have sympathies (and friends) on every side of this debate, which is one of the reasons I find it so difficult.
The strength of Abp Rowan’s letter is that it recognizes the breadth of the complexities and seeks to work within the parameters that the circumstances on the ground have set. It is his responsibility to find the right way forward not just for the benefit of one group or another, but for all who are or have been part of the Anglican Communion. Some of the things he sometimes either does, says, or writes do not square with where I happen to be, but I am not sitting where he is and can have luxuries of expressing my opinion that are not open to him.
Another factor is that a whole series of doctrinal and ecclesiological issues come into play in the situation in which we find ourselves. They vie with one another for precedence. Those of us who have real problems with actions that might be interpreted as schismatic tend in these circumstances to be portrayed as compromisers and doctrinally soft. Most of the time that is untrue. It is more likely that as we look at the complexity of the situation and sought to understand it within a biblical framework that we have a different hierarchy of theological and ecclesiastical importance. This whole thing is about a great deal more than what has been the presenting issue and if we are to be faithful we cannot avoid looking at all the angles within the wider context.
A final point, which is what got me into this thread in the first place, is the manner in which we conduct this debate, for debate it is with perhaps none of us having a clear picture of what is the right way forward. I am increasingly appalled at the angry and belligerent manner in which it is being conducted, including the tendency to character assassination. If we claim to be biblical and followers of Jesus Christ, then let us act and speak in such a way. What Scripture says about the nature of God and the nature of truth contains within it also the nature of faithful behavior, especially toward one another.
Being faithful to Scripture regarding sexuality does not give us permission to turn our backs on the whole tenor and tone of what Jesus says in the Sermon on the Mount. The reason I raise this issue is that I, personally, struggle with the mandate for faithful personal behavior, especially in disagreement, that our Lord presents to us in this most demanding of dominical teachings. The fallen me doesn’t want to turn the other cheek but to sock my contestant in the jaw. As I read this thread I was seeing socking of jaws, not careful and hearty discussion of a vital topic being carried out by faithful individuals who want to put Christ first in all things and who can disagree with one another in a red-blooded but godly manner.
[blockquote] The strength of Abp Rowan’s letter is that it recognizes the breadth of the complexities and seeks to work within the parameters that the circumstances on the ground have set. It is his responsibility to find the right way forward not just for the benefit of one group or another, but for all who are or have been part of the Anglican Communion. Some of the things he sometimes either does, says, or writes do not square with where I happen to be, but I am not sitting where he is and can have luxuries of expressing my opinion that are not open to him. [/blockquote]
Then, Abp. Williams, therefore, doesn’t understand his own statements; e.g. “the fabric of the Communion will be torn at its deepest level.” The Episcopal Church tore the fabric despite rather mild protestations such as the “fabric tearing” missive, yet it (TEC) stands and will likely remain without discipline because the AbC is terrified into inaction as to discipline TEC would mean having to set aside his own non-biblical, leftist-leaning, misinformed worldview! Abp. Williams own acts (of omission and commission) have irreparably compromised his office and his leadership.
I think Richard Kew makes some good points– especially, regarding the overall tenor and tone of the debate. Reading his comments made me aware of all the times and all of the ways that I have personally fallen short of Christian ideals.
Having said that, however, I must also say that it is not necessarily “character assassination” to “call a spade, a spade” and to correctly identify glaring defects of character at work in those who are on the opposite side of this debate– especially when those defects of character are the root of actions that go far beyond any sort of definition of “debate.”
There are, obviously, people who are clearly on the “revisionist” side of this struggle who are sincerely struggling to live out their Christian faith, as they understand it. But only somebody who is in serious denial or suffers from incredible delusions cannot recognize that there are OTHERS in the “revisionist” camp who have no Christian faith at all– who are, in fact, patent sub-Christians, gnostics, and/or post-modern universalists– and who see this struggle as a wonderful opportunity to secure control of a prestigious institution, in order to further their political, ideological, and/or sexual agenda, without reference to anything that could even begin to be called “Christian ethics.”
To identify those facets of the personality and character of our opponents that lead to such things such as lawsuits, criminal proceedings against the orthodox faithful, theft and pillaging of endowments and trust funds, unwarranted slander, etc. is simply to sound a warning call to good-willed people who might not otherwise be aware of the extremes to which are opponents are prepared to go, in order to retain firm control of TEC and to proceed with their revisionist agenda.
I tend to cut the Archbishop of Canterbury a LOT of slack. But I think it would be foolish to not recognize that it was his character and personality– not his theology; not his intentions– that allowed this situation to spin out of control; and which provided “cover” for people who were intentionally attempting to gain control of a Christian Church for reasons that have little or nothing to do doctrine and theology.
I also have a LOT of friends in the various camps now engaged in this struggle. I count among some of my VERY BEST FRIENDS people who are among the ideological extremists in the “revisionist” leadership. They are charming people. They are sincere. They are funny, warm, and generous at times. As a matter of fact, I find their company to be, in many ways, much more congenial than the company of many of my orthodox cadres. But I do not delude myself into thinking that ALL of the “revisionists” can be characterized thus. There are some people among the “revisionists” that I USED TO CONSIDER TO BE MY FRIENDS. But I have watched them turn on me, personally, and to derive substantial pleasure and glee from silencing my voice and driving me from the Church that has nurtured me spiritually since I was a child. I have had face-to-face encounters with SOME of the major players on the “revisionist” side, and I have seen them reveal in these encounters aspects of their character that I can only describe as being demonic. The fact of the matter is, there are SOME people at 815 who flagrant and self-avowed enemies of Jesus– and who make little or no attempt to disguise this fact, when pressed or cornered.
Yes, there are a LOT of grey areas in the current conflict, as far as foundational theological and doctrinal issues go. And there is no uniformity– on either side– as far as tactics and strategies are concerned. There are a LOT of people who have been caught-up in this thing against their will– like the Archbishop of Canterbury, John Howe, and others– who should, by default, be accorded a measure of respect and deference, at least as far as their good intentions are beyond dispute. But– make no mistake about this– there are others who are utterly lacking in anything that could possibly be construed as “good intentions,” by even the most generous of standards. And these people SHOULD BE identified as such.
In Nazi Germany, there were MANY Germans who were not DIRECTLY connected with any of the worst atrocities of the Nazi regime who could have– and should have– seen what was going on, and acted accordingly. For all sorts of reasons– some good; some bad– they CHOSE not to see what was really going on; they turned a blind eye to some very strange things that were going on right under their very noses; they refused to ask questions; they were in serious denial; they worked really hard at concocting all sorts of convoluted and lame excuses for their apathy and indifference to things that were going on all around them; they chose not to speak up.
Behaving like this, in the face of pure evil, is, if nothing else, a serious DEFECT OF CHARACTER.
Are such people, to some degree, at least, culpable for what went on in the name of the German people, even though they played no direct part? Do they bear some responsibility for the millions of innocent people who were systematically slaughtered by the Nazis?
I think that they do… And I also think that if others had chosen “to call a spade, a spade”– if others who saw and knew what was going on– had loudly and forcefully CHALLENGED THE CHARACTER of these passive accomplices of the Nazis, then it is possible that some of them, at least, might have been forced to rethink their position; they might have re-examined their character; and they MIGHT have behaved differently…
bad typing: “…of the extremes to which are opponents are prepared to go…” should, of course, be, “…our opponents…”