AAC: Why do you think there is disillusionment with Canterbury and the Anglican System?
++Venables: It’s not personalised but it is definitely to do with the Anglican system and the whole procedural set up. So much has been done such as Lambeth 1:10, several very clear communiques, the Windsor report and even some crucial and concrete decisions taken, yet nothing seems to have really changed and it’s hard not to read this negatively. It’s as if every time you have to start from scratch and people have just got tired. The latest disillusionment is that there won’t be another primates’ meeting, which is a tragedy because it was there that everything was developed. In the real world you don’t dismiss the medical team before the operation is completed.
From reading the CofE’s response to the Draft Covenant Statement one does get the clear impression that any proposed action is fully vulnerable to being processed to death.
I guess this is bad news and good news.
The bad news is that the situation in the Anglican Communion really is as stupid and confusing and frustrating as it appears. And that the primates are as frustrated as the rest of us.
The good news is that some primates are going to do the work of Jesus Christ regardless.
Ball is back in the court of the ABoC- will he act?
[blockquote] Ball is back in the court of the ABoC- will he act?[/blockquote]
Is that even a question anymore? 🙁
With apologies to William S:
“To Lambeth or not to Lambeth.
That is the question.”
I am thoroughly confused. I pray that those who actually have to make this choice are guided by God’s wisdom.
[blockquote] In the real world you don’t dismiss the medical team before the operation is completed. [/blockquote]
You do if you are dreadfully afraid the medical team will do something you don’t want them to do. RW is above all else trying to make sure that neither side achieves victory. He wants no winner, for then there must be a loser. That is why nothing ever seems to really change. Nothing is supposed to change. If something changes, then people will have to make choices. All the ambiguities which allow the Communion to continue functioning in its current manner will be exposed. RW wants stasis. It’s a futile hope. But it’s the only hope he has.
carl
#1: I concur.
At the end of the day, it is a heart issue. There are those in power who do not desire to submit to the authority of the Head of the Church (and I do not refer to the ABC.)
Over the years of this conflict, I have repeatedly reflected on the person of the rich young ruler, who sadly walked away from Christ. That is, [i]walking apart[/i] is a tragedy only when it means [i]walking apart from Christ.[/i] And, as ++Venables says here: “…we have to get on with the really important ministry of the Church, which is to do with salvation and eternal life, and that this can only be done with those who share the historic biblical faith.”
Some of the reasserting primates are coming to the belief that no amount of AC (as constituted) process, covenants, communiques, etc. will foster the right recipe for repentence, when TEC does not want to repent (or think it should), and the ABC is unwilling to take the difficult, but biblical action required. Beyond his manifest unwillingness, he is now characterizing those who will not engage in endless, undisciplined process as [url=http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/index.php/2008/01/03/plans-for-pre-lambeth-meeting-for-conservatives-do-not-signal-disloyalty-archbishop-of-canterbury/]”walking away from the cross.”[/url] That is pretty harsh, coming from the subverter of the conciliar DES communique.
As events unfold, I am starting to view the ABC as a young ruler, who considers himself very rich in the historic AC. At least, that is his witness to me.
“Some of us who have actually participated in all the meetings believe we have to get on with the really important ministry of the Church, which is to do with salvation and eternal life, and that this can only be done with those who share the historic biblical faith. It’s a question of realism and priorities.”
++Venables has defined ‘it’ in ‘a nut shell.’
Its time for the orthodox in all of the primacies to ‘distance’ themselves from the progressive-revisionists and those who refuse to believe that the progressive-revisionists have forced a secularly driven schism upon the Anglican Communion.
#3- All I can say is that I am ++Rowan Williams appears to be dead set to maintain Lambeth invitations to a group of bishops who are determined to impose a theology on the Communion that will destroy everything the Archbishop of Canterbury says he believes. And he will maintain those invitations at a cost of losing 30-40 million people who substantially believe as he believes. It makes NO sense whatsoever- regardless of who holds the money.
Invitations to a tea party are a poor method of discipline, but it is the ONLY method this organization apparently has. Lambeth is utterly unfair as it is- TECs wealth allows them to maintain a see for every 7000 churchgoers (based on ASA), the average GS bishop oversees a diocese 10x that size. And in the ACC, TEC has as many votes as provinces several times larger. So, the least ++Rowan could do would be to level the playing field by removing the bishops who currently allow or perform SSBs. To date, he hasn’t even pulled Bennison’s invitation, and he is inhibited.
“It’s not personalised” —Abp. Venables
We’ll see. Just consider the rest of Venables’ statement.
_ _ _ _ _
“It is definitely to do with the Anglican system and the whole procedural set up”
Specifically, a procedural set-up entirely dependent on Lambeth Palace.
_ _ _ _ _
“So much has been done such as Lambeth 1:10, several very clear communiques, the Windsor report and even some crucial and concrete decisions taken, yet nothing seems to have really changed and it’s hard not to read this negatively”
Thank Lambeth Palace, the chief averter and subverter of orthodox initiatives.
_ _ _ _ _
“It’s as if every time you have to start from scratch and people have just got tired”
That’s right. Thank Lambeth Palace legerdemain, with its unending reports, commissions, and panels of deference.
_ _ _ _ _
“The latest disillusionment is that there won’t be another primates’ meeting”
Thank Lambeth Palace, the author and perpetuator of these exasperating procedural knots.
So once again we have a Primate who refuses to answer the simple question: “Will you attend Lambeth?”
Oh for heaven’s sake, the “system” is refusing to be bullied into capitulation by the radical conservative fringe! As for the primates not meeting, all I can say about that is one man’s “tragedy” is the rest of the church’s “thanks be to God!”
[blockquote]Oh for heaven’s sake, the “system†is refusing to be bullied into capitulation by the radical conservative fringe! [/blockquote]
Because, of course, it’s too busy being bullied into capitulation from the radical liberal fringe. And has been for 50 years.
Ms Russell said
“…the “system†is refusing to be bullied into capitulation by the radical conservative fringe!”
Really! Belief in and aherence to “the Faith once given” results in an individual being classified as a “radical conservative.”
Well Ms Russell, that opens the door to the use of perjoratives to describe the motivations of the GLBT crowd and to specifically, in minute detail, describe their departures from “the Faith once given.”
But, I don’t believe that such rhetoric repartes from orthodox Anglicans would be Christian, which we are.
By the way, please describe how the departures from “the Faith once given” of the progressive-revisionhists in ECUSA support your statement.
If ++Venables is right — and I fear he is but hope he’s not — then immediate, humble, and Herculean efforts need to be made by the GAFCon group to mend fences with ++Anis, Southeast Asia, and others in the Global South who feel they have not had sufficient input into these decisions, and to bring them on board with GAFCon.
If ++Venables is wrong, then immediate, humble, and Herculean efforts need to be made by the Communion-oriented conservatives in the Global South to mend fences with the GAFCon group, and to convince them to rethink the location and agenda (and possibly timing, as ++Anis suggested) of the conference, as well as persuading them if possible to pick up their crosses and give it Just One More Try at Lambeth.
Without a united Global South, the Communion will not split, it will shatter — and it will finally be conclusively demonstrated that the Anglican Communion Office is so-called for the same reason that a certain group of American planes in 1945 is referred to as the Hiroshima Task Force.
It strains credulity that a minuscule group of activists in a tiny, dying, but immensely rich and complacent American church could singlehandedly destroy more than a century of work building the Anglican Communion. But it is apparently all too true.
11. Better to be bullied by a small minority who can’t produce a decent theological statement as to why they did what they did even though the vast majority said don’t do it? Better to ignore the communion-wide teachings? Yes, all in the name of the cause.
Craig said,
“It strains credulity that a minuscule group of activists in a tiny, dying, but immensely rich and complacent American church could singlehandedly destroy more than a century of work building the Anglican Communion.”
It doesn’t strain my creduality. It very nicely fits the pattern of radical and often nihilistic socialism that has been the bane of the world since the end of the 19th century.
Whether the progressive-revisionists realize it or not, they are nothing but creatures of that radical movement. Many of them are so close to it that they are in the midst of the radical socialist forest.
That is, they and their total culturilization are so much a part of that forest that they cannot see beyond that forest and perceive the world outside of it.
Therefore, within their frame of reference, they believe that what they are doing and what they believe is the absolutely right thing to do and to believe.
They have no concept that their ideological construct is nothing but a simplistic product of mortal thought.
The communion is, in itself, an invention. Without the technology funded by the liberal wing, without Trinity and lots of gay clergy believing in the communion and funding African Schools, our relationships would be nothing.
who is Venables? How many are in his diocese compared to NY, for example?
AnglicanFirst demonstrates, of course, the problems of caricature. He accuses us of nihilistic socialism without any… argument. He pairs them together, a mirror image of socialists have often argued that Christians are fatalistic, leaving everything up to God, awaiting heaven, with no work to be done on earth. As far as the “bane of the world” I’m not sure what he is talking about. Ending child labor? Uncovering the slaughterhouses? Women’s voting rights? The GI Bill? He seems to infer that business people are less sinful than others. Which is a delightful fantasy. His Manichean worldview seems to imply that government is useless. Um – how many inventions were created by NASA with government money?
Whether the conservatives realize it or not, they are products of a provincial, pre-scientific worldview before technology separated property sex and death. They cannot perceive the world outside of it.
AnglicanFirst, if you had just a smidgen more humility I would take you seriously. Because the fact is that I believe I can be wrong. I, personally, have no particular allegiance to gay marriage or to gay bishops. I just don’t think it represents a reason to break away from praying together. Look in the mirror. You are the one who thinks you are absolutely right. We’re the ones who are simply trusting the baptized Christians of New Hampshire.
#14 Craig I don’t think reconciliation efforts depend on if ++Venables is right or wrong, or who needs to apologise to who. Conservatives have to reconcile and start uniting, otherwise the communion will die. Simple as that.
If you look at provinces like Nigeria, I think they are looking at things and saying they are better off outside of the communion. They have a vibrant growing church, and all they can hope to get by maintaining unity is to start importing heresies from a communion that has no discipline, and is teaching a false gospel to dying churches in their regions. To save their church from the same fate, they have to either break ties or reform the communion before it can destroy them.
Reform has been tried, and has failed in their view. So the process is now to separate from the heretical bishops, and maintain fellowship with anyone that wants to join them in upholding traditional Christian teaching. If conservatives who think they can remain in communion with bishops who teach against the divinity of Christ want to keep them on board, they need to stand up and ensure some discipline happens. Instead they are launching a PR war against those that are separating themselves from the hererical bishops, and throwing a fit about politeness and lack of consultation. But I think those separating have made it quite clear for a number of years now – if there is no discipline, they are not going to Lambeth, they are separating. Don’t know why that is suddenly a suprise when they took action to implement that after the majority of the communion allowed Canterbury to hand over to the ACC and agree not to carry out any discipline.
Where was the support from fellow conservatives when they asked for another primates meeting?
Where was the support from fellow conservatives when responding to the ACC report from the HOB meeting?
It was quite limited looking at the public response. Which must mean the majority remaining is actually quite happy to fellowship with bishops who don’t really believe the basics of the faith, and are not willing to discipline. And if there is no discipline, then there has to be some form of separation in order to survive.
RE:”Some of us who have actually participated in all the meetings believe we have to get on with the really important ministry of the Church, which is to do with salvation and eternal life, and that this can only be done with those who share the historic biblical faith. It’s a question of realism and priorities.” Yep, that’s pretty radical these days!
BTW, I have noticed that Susan Russell frequently uses the “belittling” and “sarcasm” techniques…
But I’m not in this particular case.
So we can go ahead and declare that Gene Robinson’s shouldn’t have and should never have gotten a pointy hat and ban homosexual marriages then? No? Oh well.
And you apparently think that the rest of the Anglican Communion should think so as well.
[blockquote] Whether the conservatives realize it or not, they are products of a provincial, pre-scientific worldview … [/blockquote]
John Wilkins,
You say that like its a bad thing.
[blockquote] before technology separated property sex and death.[/blockquote]
I would respond to this, but seeing as I am provincial and pre-scientific, I am incapable of understanding what you are talking about.
carl
[deleted — please focus on the main article, rather than other commenters]
Remember your mom telling you that you would be known by the company you keep? Christians in Muslim countries can’t afford to be hooked to the same wagon as the pro-homosexual lobby, as that association can get in the way of effective preaching of the Gospel according to Scripture. When part of the body says “Scripture was wrong about….” and part of the body says “Scripture teaches that God cares about sexual morality,” those two parts cannot maintain an affiliation. If one part says “killing is wrong and abortion is killing,” and the other part maintains women have a right to kill their unborn children, you cannot remain as one body. What is wrong for one side is right in the eyes of the other on issue after issue. That makes a difference here and all over the world. Two very different ideas of what Christianity teaches cannot coexist in the same body without producing mortal illness. The institution needs a new start.
Venables says “this is not personalized.” I give him the benefit of the doubt. The Global South Primates indeed have a complaint with the system. The Anglican Communion Office is problematic, the Anglican Consultative Council is problematic, the Panel of Reference is Problematic, the “Windsor Process” even has its problems, and the “Covenant Process” appears problematic as well; and yes, the ABoC and his office have been problems with their “non decision” decisions and elevating the authority of “process” above (most) all else. I also wouldn’t rule out the So. Cone Primate blaming in part himself and the other Primates for part of the delay in resolution. Therefore I’m with Venables and think the blame is wider than one person, it is indeed sytemic.
systemic.
And John Wilkins, a bell just went off. “how many inventions were created by NASA?” You sound like a certain Amati investor. Regardless, God bless ya.
Kendall and elves: Why pro sodomy VIP people like Susan can be sarcastic and we(the normal people) can’t.
++Venables is right, the time to talk and listen ended, know is time to start the separation. The centre(ACI, Windsor Bishops, Province of the Middle East, Fulcrum, South Caroline, Central Florida, New Mexico, Springfield, Albany) must choose in with who they want to be. As ++Venables said now is time to the Orthodox, Conservatives, Trditionalists, Fundamentalist(I have no problem in be called by any of them) Anglicans to start to do what the Lord asked us TO PREACH THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST AS THE ONLY WAY TO SALVATION. Because the TEC’s “NEW THING” is just heresy and heresy Dr Radner doesn’t save souls. Well done ++Venables.
Of course it all makes perfect sense if the ABC has determined that the AC can only be held together if no decision is ever reached. If TEC is disciplined it will leave. If the TEC is not disciplined the Global South and others will leave. So the solution is to keep the process in play. What if the process is on the verge of success as it was in the case of Dar Es Salaam? You derail it as the ABC did. Rap the TEC on the knuckles and propose a new process as the ABC did in the advent letter. You reset the clock and start all over. The process is kept in an endless loop the will never reach decision. That is why the ABC did not call another Primates meeting to respond to the HOB response. There was a real risk that the Primates would have rejected that response and moved to discipline. The ABC could not let that happen.
Russel+:Oh for heaven’s sake, the “system†is refusing to be bullied into capitulation by the radical conservative fringe! As for the primates not meeting, all I can say about that is one man’s “tragedy†is the rest of the church’s “thanks be to God!â€
The Southern Cone may not be a large province, however, those radical conservative fringe elements who are being failed by the “system” account for about 40,000,000
individuals. Furthermore, I am sorry that you feel that depriving the leadership of those 40,000,000 of meeting together is an occasion for thanking God.
I regret my comment #4 as I was being silly and truly think that for the most part I completely agree with ++Venables in almost everything he says, except that his comment about the Anglican System is not personalized is not quite correct. The health of the system is dependent on the impartiality and orthodoxy of the leadership We often forget that the ABC is but ‘one among equals’ and to attempt to maneuver the system for his own goals and those of the radical liberal fringe of a couple of tiny provinces is most certainly a prime example of personalization.
Apologies for the misspelling of Russell+
Early on in this sorry mess, while almost everyone was still looking to the Archbishop of Canterbury to provide some form of order and discipline in the Communion, I began saying that he was part of the problem, not part of the solution. In a rounda about way I think the Primate is saying the same thing. ++Rowan Williams = no solution.
John Wilkins,
If numbers are important how does the heresy perpetrated by TCGC fit with the theology of the rest of Christendom when comparing numbers?
Besides, by the time San Joaquin, Fort Worth, Quincy, other diocese and independent churches bond with it the Southern Cone will be much larger so, therefore, by your way of thinking, more important? More truthful?
AP+
[i]edited by elf. Please stop the name calling of other commenters[/i]
ABp Venables represents the overwhelming majority of Anglicans. Millions as BillC points out. Ms Russell represents an eensy weensy radical fringe that has done incalculable damage to the Communion.
#13 AnglicanFirst, I agree with you! And Ms Russell: None of what has transpired so far would ever have happened, had you and your followers not abandoned the faith once delivered to the saints.
IF the AC were the “democratic” organization it pretends to be, Nigeria would have 10 votes to every one of TECs at Lambeth and on the ACC. Bet that would change the complexion of things alot. The reason we are where we are is that TEC can afford to support 110 corporate (diocesan) structures with an average sunday attendance of about 7000 each. The average CoE bishop oversees more than twice as many, and the CoE is discussing cutting back the number of dioceses. A GS bishop oversees 10 times as many or more. The last thing that TEC (or, I am coming to fear, ++Rowan) wants is a democratic Communion.
Personally, I would like to see the entire GS go to Lambeth, one more time. But I will acknowledge that the Primates and bishops of the GS know more about the inner workings of the Communion than I do, and I expect their prayer lives are fuller than mine as well. If they determine that the best course is to boycott Lambeth, then I think we must respect and support their decision, regardless of our personal opinion. The current situation in TEC is intolerable. If the ABoC is not going to make good on his word and enforce the discipline outlined in the Windsor Report, to remove TEC bishops who have defied the will of the Communion from the councils of the Communion, then we will have to find another way to remove ourselves from the control of those bishops. Which means following those bishops who uphold the doctrine and traditions of the Church.
[i]Please stop the comments about and to Susan Russell and return to discussing Abp. Venables’ remarks. Thanks. –elfgirl[/i]
Elves — just for clarification — is it the *comments* of SR that we are not to respond to? Or is it SR that we are not to respond about?
I am genuinely confused. I had wanted to respond to her comment, but now I’m not certain if I can.
And . . . if we are not to respond to SR’s comments in general, then . . .
Well, you know.
Sorry for the confusion, Sarah. Primarily we were concerned with remarks ABOUT Susan Russell. If you have comments that address the substance of her comments (beyond making sarcastic or one-line remarks about something she wrote) those are still fair game.
–elfgirl
Susan Russell is smart. She realizes this blog is very influential and has wide readership so she comments regularly. She also many times posts stuff intentionally worded so as to get a charge out of people and which gets the discussion thereby off track. Please do not take the bait.
Or take the bait and refute what she says in the context of the on-topic discussion, which often isn’t too difficult.
“Who is Venables? How many are in his diocese compared to NY, for example?” —John Wilkins
Better to ask: Why is Venables’ diocese growing and the Diocese of New York irreversibly shrinking?
Venable’s province is growing not because of evanglization in the Southern Cone but because he’s offered his province as a convenient parking place for schmatics until they can organize their own alternative Communion.
#42- The schism in the AC dates from 2003- when 1 province decided to act against the expressed will of the Communion and 2000 years of Church tradition, not to mention the plain reading of Scripture. TEC “tore the fabric of the Communion” (ie- created a schism). The precedent has been established- you cannot consider San Joaquin “schismatic” until after it has ignored the unanimous vote of 2 primates meetings. Oops, maybe not even then. Of course, you can always write the ABoC and request that he refer the matter of ++Venables actions to the Panel of Reference.
#42-
The church in the Southern Cone is growing through faithful evangelism and Christian service.
Thanks for the clarification, elves. While I do find it amusing when one member of a progressive activist fringe declaims against the “radical conservative fringe” I just wanted to put Russell’s remark into context, and I promise that I don’t mean it sarcastically.
RE: “As for the primates not meeting, all I can say about that is one man’s “tragedy†is the rest of the church’s “thanks be to God!—
“As for the primates not meeting, all I can say about that is [the conservative Anglican’s] “tragedy†is the [progressive activist Anglican’s] “thanks be to God!—
It’s pretty average for progressive activists to pretend — at least in their public rhetoric — that conservative Anglican’s equal “one man” and the progressive activist Anglicans equal “the rest of the church” . . . so there’s nothing new there and I can certainly see their purposes in making that public pretense.
Just wanted to take the opportunity to point it out again.
Bob from Broome(42) the schismatics are Kath, Gene and their friends and know who is leaving TEC and their NEW THING, St Paul is very clear about them on ROMANS 1, 18-32, 1Corinthians 6,1-20(Kath should read this about lawsuit against fellow Christians), Paul is very clear about how Christians should treat these people, “Christians should have not relation with these people and treat them with PAGANS”.
Christopher:
“But I’m not in this particular case.”
I’m not sure what you are talking about. I’ve always been open to the idea that I could be wrong about God’s intentions for Gay people. I’ve not been convinced that conservatives are right: as I’ve mentioned, i think conservative thinking about sexuality is a lot like believing that Adam and Eve were real people. And in other places I’ve delineated a more robust explanation of thinking about marriage and sex.
But I’m willing to say I’m an agnostic about it. I just don’t know.
“So we can go ahead and declare that Gene Robinson’s shouldn’t have and should never have gotten a pointy hat and ban homosexual marriages then? No? Oh well.”
Chris – who is we? I don’t have that authority. Do you? The ABC doesn’t. The people who have authority are other baptized Christians, namely those in New Hampshire. But you can declare it from your room and computer. You can be the pope of your own house.
“I just don’t think it represents a reason to break away from praying together.” I said.
“And you apparently think that the rest of the Anglican Communion should think so as well.”
It’s my opinion. I’m not going to break away from conservatives in TEC who disagree with me. I’m not going to threaten them, nor will I assume they are nasty, polluted people threatening their souls for thinking differently. Further, I wonder if your average person in the AC cares much. It’s not as if I’m sending people who think like me over to Nigeria or wherever to change their minds (after all, TEC was sending people over there for many years. If they had intended to bring them the Liberal Gospel, it didn’t work). But can we work together on issues we both care about? Caring for AIDS orphans? Or do we sacrifice them to the altar of our own pieties?
Venables doesn’t have much interesting to say, and the illness metaphor is… a problem.
RE: “. . . and the illness metaphor is… a problem.”
Well . . . for progressive Episcopalians it is.
For reasserting Episcopalians it’s not a problem at all.
Praying together is not so much the problem, but is surely more effective if we are praying together to the same entity. However, the church is supposed to teach. It is the teaching function which is impaired if part of the church is teaching and preaching in opposition to the other part of the church. Perhaps John W. is content with a situation where no one can be sure what the church teaches, but a large part of the church cannot tolerate that situation. It should be clear what the church teaches and believes, and it should be the same in every part of the church. If a person joins the church in Africa, he should have the assurance that if he travels to the US he will be able to attend a church which teaches and believes what his home church teaches and believes. I think it is this function that deeply concerns Archbishop Venables and a number of the other primates.
#47
“. . . and the illness metaphor is… a problem.â€
It is if you are so obviously in denial.