Thirdly, The Attenders. There will not be a common mind amongst those bishops who do attend Lambeth 08. At one end will be the group of Americans, who took part in or attended the consecration of Gene Robinson, and at the other will be those of The Global South, who believe that The Episcopal Church has failed to meet the requirements of “The Windsor Report” and ought to be disciplined in some way or another. In between them will be a wide spectrum of opinion reflecting the generally confused state of the Anglican Family in 2008.
Fourthly, Reflections. If the bishops of such large and important Provinces as Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda do not attend””and right now it seems as if they will not do so”” and go to Israel instead, then there is no hope at all that the Lambeth Conference will take strong, traditional, orthodox positions on anything of substance. Further, if they do not attend, and put all their energy into making the Israel Conference into a success, then one may draw the conclusion that the Global Anglican Communion does not exist any longer in its 2007 form, for it has lost a third or so of its membership. Also, if they do not attend, then one may draw the conclusion that the See of Canterbury is no longer the symbolic center for them, and that, henceforth, they will create their own form of a worldwide Communion and Fellowship, into which only “the orthodox” will be admitted.
In fact, if they do not attend, it would seem that the Global Anglican Communion as we have known it is finished and its resulting parts will form alliances over the next few years.
For devoted Anglicans in the West these are difficult times to live through.
Extreme views from one not consulted. Much ado about nothing!
ALL bishops in the Anglican Communion (AC) should attend Lambeth. Not to do so would be to abandon the AC to the heretics. Truly, I believe that if all orthodox bishops attend, discipline will be imposed on TEC and the AC will bee steered in a more orthodox direction. As another commentor stated a few days ago, the rash actions of some among the orthodox bishops threaten to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
[blockquote]If the bishops of such large and important Provinces as Nigeria, Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda do not attend—and right now it seems as if they will not do so— and go to Israel instead, then there is no hope at all that the Lambeth Conference will take strong, traditional, orthodox positions on anything of substance. [/blockquote]
Lambeth ’98 took a “strong, traditional, orthodox position” on the very topic that now rends the Communion. TEC couldn’t wait to violate the letter and spirit of that position, and what price has it paid for its apostasy?
I think the GS Primates accurately see Lambeth as an expensive “jamboree” where much is resolved to no effect whatsoever.
Jeffersonian wrote: “TEC couldn’t wait to violate the letter and spirit of that position, and what price has it paid for its apostasy?”
I thought TEC was falling apart? All the lawsuits, the lost membership, all the controversy, backbiting, and ill will? After all the celebrating on this list whenever something goes wrong for TEC, now you’re telling me TEC is healthy, and hasn’t paid any price for its difference of opinion with much of the AC? Whew! Following all the ups and downs of the anglican wars really takes a lot of concentration!
True, #4, none of which is due to anything proceeding from Lambeth. It’s a revolt from below, not discipline from above, that has roiled TEC. As far as Lambeth goes, TEC is doing just fine.
Jeffersonian said: “True, #4, none of which is due to anything proceeding from Lambeth. It’s a revolt from below, not discipline from above, that has roiled TEC. As far as Lambeth goes, TEC is doing just fine.”
I disagree. Lambeth 1.18 is the justification cited constantly to justify the revolt. The ABC talks about it incessantly, that plus Windsor. This is one of the things that drives me crazy about this whole mess. Your side may be winning, for heaven sake. Maybe this is precisely the way authority can work in a communion like the AC. You’re operating on internet time not church time. During the “Western Schism” there were two popes for 40 years, and here you’re throwing up your hands in despair over the AC because TEC hasn’t been thrown out in 10 (unless women priests is your thing, in which case it’s 30). If I were you, I’d be in favor of my bishops going to Lambeth and fighting the good fight, but then I believe the Holy Spirit has worked and can work through the polity of TEC and the AC as it has traditionally operated (which isn’t to say I believe every decision that has been made according to that polity has been right). Unsolicited advice, I know!
I think you mean Lambeth 1.10. Yes, it’s pointed to, but it’s entirely derivative of Scripture. It changes nothing.
And the ABC talking about it, and Windsor, is precisely my point. He talks a good game, but ++Rowan has actively and fastidiously avoided doing anything. He has, in fact, done everything possible to substantively undermine Lambeth 1.10, Windsor, Dromantine and DeS. Lambeth will not change that…to the contrary, it will give TEC another decade to cement into place its heresies and to crush domestic opposition.
i am with you #2 i think they should all go and fight the good fight, otherwise we are lost.
MarkP is exactly right. No matter what some current voices within the Church of Jesus Christ insist is “prophetic” and “progressive,” the verdict of history is still out on ordaining women and ordaining non-celibate homosexuals. Both these may come to be seen as experiments that failed.
#8 : “…otherwise we are lost.”
I’m reflecting on this phrase. Do you mean it as a deliberate hyperbole?
Is it possible that God could do something no one…even the venerable Dr. Toon, whom I admire…believes Him capable of doing apart from some premise: “We cannot survive the termination of the Windsor Process if…” or “Without every part of the AC in communion with the ABC, we cannot be authenic Anglicann Christians…”
Such premises (they are my creations, not yours) and others like them are ultimately fear-based. Is our God in charge or not? Does He require the ABC or the AC to make a certain determination in order for His Kingdom to come, or for us to be faithful to Him?
[blockquote] Both these may come to be seen as experiments that failed. [/blockquote] The verdict of history on the latter of these “experiments” may become evident before the end of the current year.
#2, evan miller, and #8, magnolia,
I wholeheartedly agree. I may even be the commenter on a previous thread that evan is referring to, although I can’t be sure of that. But on several threads at SF and T19 I’ve ardently championed the “wild-eyed hope” that all 880 or so bishops will go to Lambeth and there administer a CRUSHING DEFEAT to the pro-gay activisit side and all the relativist western bishops.
This is not, mind you, a matter of merely passing some new resolution similar to 1998’s famous Res. 1:10. If that was all that we could hope for, then Jeffersonian would be absolutely right that Lambeth 2008 would be a useless Jamboree. But I see the potential for so much more.
Just imagine the possibilities. For the sake of argument, just humor me for a moment. Let’s say that Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda change their minds and show up in force in Kent in July. At that point, they can simply TAKE OVER the event. Cantaur is merely the host and presider, but as the mere facilitator and “first among equals,” he can do very little to stop the conservative juggernaut once it’s in motion. So here’s the ideal scenario.
Once assembled, the world’s bishops, heavily dominated by the GS, simply trash the AC Office agenda and substitute their own agenda, created at GAFCon in June. They immediately proceed to invite the CANA and AMiA bishops, along with +Guernsey, +Atwood, +Cavalcanti, etc. I think Canterbury won’t dare to try to stop it.
Then a much strengthened Covenant is just rammed down the throats of the liberals in the western provinces. Among other things, that revised Covenant explicitly CONDEMNS all homosexual behavior, and all other sex outside of marriage as not only “incompatible with Holy Scripture” (reaffirming 1998’s stand), but it goes a step further and roundly declares that all intercourse outside of marriage (and meaning marriage between a man and a woman of course) is “CONTRARY TO THE WILL OF GOD” and totally unChristian and unAnglican. In other words, we create a Covenant that has no loopholes or wiggle room for the liberals to exploit. We WANT a Covenant that no liberal bishop could possibly sign in good faith. We want MAXIMUM DIFFERENTIATION.
And when the +Chanes, the +Shaws, the +Brunos etc. strenuously object, we simply tell them: “Fine. You are entitled to your opinion, but not as Anglicans. Turn in your staff and signet ring as you leave. You are no longer recognized as Anglican bishops.” And some of us who are especially hotheaded types (like my fan club) then proceed to administer the unusual liturgical rite of tarring and feathering the heretical, rebellious bishops as they go out the door!
But that’s not enough. We then proceed to create a whole new 5th Instrument of Unity, what I’ve called an Anglican Supreme Court, that will have binding juridical powers to declare unbiblical acts of wayward provinces like TEC “null and void,” and “unconstitutional” because they are contrary to God’s Word, which is the true constitution of any Christian Church worthy of the name.
Please note: this is NOT resorting to a Roman style Curia. Rather, it is another step in the gradual process by which Anglicanism has been reclaiming our patristic inheritance over the last 150 years or so. That is, I see the creation of such “federal” or international authorities as part of recovering the patristic sense that councils of bishops can make binding decisions on Doctrine (like the Covenant) and Discipline (such as imposing international canon laws, as did Nicea in AD 325 and subsequent ecumenical councils.
This would amount to nothing less than the “Second Founding” of Anglicanism. It would be a decisive move toward becoming much more of a true worldwide Communion, not a mere federation of fully autonomous provinces. We need to morph into a true Anglican Church, with SUBORDINATE SEMI-autonomous branch offices around the world. That is not a pale imitation of Roman Catholicism. That is rediscovering what patristic style conciliarism looks like.
Finally, last but not least, at Lambeth 2008 we totally revamp the whole international structure of the Instruments of Unity to make them truly representative. For too long the liberals have been able to claim that the ACC is the most representative of the Instruments since it includes priests and laity (and maybe a deacon or two). Well, they have a valid point.
But the real problem is quite different. An even bigger problem is that currently all 38 provinces in the AC are treated as virtual equals, no matter what their size or spiritual state and degree of maturity. That is, tiny little provinces like Scotland and Wales, or Korea and Myanmar, have equal representation with the giant provinces like Nigeria and Uganda, which are in a league all their own. It’s like the U.S. Senate, where California and Texas have no more votes than Rhode Island and Delaware.
No that’s one thing if all the Instruments of Unity do is meet for the purposes of consultation, cooperation, and renewing the famous “bonds of affection.” Equal representation makes sense when the Instruments are really only for consultation and fellowship, and the representatives are therefore merely liasons.
But what we need are international GOVERNING bodies. I say that at Lambeth 2008 we start the doubtless long and complicated process of completely overhauling the whole structure of the AC to make it much more like the U.S. Congress, where the provinces are represented according to their size. And yes, let’s be clear, in the cased of the C of E, that means in terms of the REAL size of the provinces, as determined by SAS, average Sunday attendance, so that England only gets as many representatives as its real size warrants (3 million at most, insteaad of the nominal 26 million baptized but totally lapsed members on the formal rolls).
Obviously, this creates a whole new ballgame, with the Global South (GS) totally in charge. And that’s just as it should be. They’ve earned it. That’s exactly what I want. A completely GS dominated AC, with the liberal westerners banished to the margins for a change.
Now maybe the propsect of such a GS takeover of the whole AC could entice Nigeria and Uganda to attend Lambeth 2008 after all. I sure hope so.
So yes, evan. I concur enthusiastically with you. Let all the orthodox bishops go to Lambeth and just kick the liberals in the teeth there. Let them SHUN the liberal bishops while they are there. I mean, they refuse to shake hands with them. Refuse to exchange the peace with them. Refuse to take communion with them. Treat them like the miserable traitors and detestable scumbags that they are. And do it all lovingly, in the name of the Princeof Peace!
That’s my ideal scenario. The good guys in the white hats go to Lambeth 2008 and there have the great showdown with the evil villains in purple shirts who spout the “Gay is OK” lie that comes straight from the pit of Hell. In other words, Lambeth 2008 becomes the fight at the OK Corral in this western movie. And there at Lambeth, the good guys pull out their six-shooters, and just start blazing away, and totally annihilate those pathetic heretics who support the relativist, universalist worldview.
Glorious. Now that’s a New Reformation!
David Handy+
Fierce Advocate of that New Reformation
(and yes, given to some occasional hyperbole)
I agree with Dr. Toon’s analysis 100%. It should give regular readers here some pause to hear that, since my position and Dr. Toon’s on a multitude of other issues are diametrically opposite.
Many people who differ profoundly with the substance of Lambeth I.10 are agreed about the ultimate outcome of the process described by Dr. Toon, if it is allowed to continue. The Communion will define adherence to that resolution as a condition precedent to membership in the Anglican Communion and create mechanisms to exclude all those who cannot submit to it and include all those who can. That is why you heard all the reappraiser protests over the Archbishop’s Advent Letter–they recognize the ultimate consequences if the Windsor process goes farther.
However, if the process is short-circuited, the result will be the destruction of the Anglican Communion (which, among other things, means that TEC can continue on its merry way). The reappraisers cannot stop the process and destroy the Communion by themselves without assistance from within the overwhelming reasserter majority. As Dr. Toon points out, some reasserters in the Global South are well on their way to doing precisely that.
To paraphrase #6, the Church simply does not operate on internet time. It took about 40 years to iron out the Western Schism (1378 – 1417). It took four ecumenical councils between 431 and 681 to work out the doctrine of the Two Natures in One Person of Christ. By insisting that a crisis that blew up in 2003 be resolved before 2008, we are playing into the hands of Screwtape’s “Infernal Father Below.”
I agree with Fr. Handy et. al.
The GS bishops should show up to Lambeth and use their authority, as bishops, to change the agenda such that the Covenant becomes something with teeth such that TECUSA will have three options (in order of liklihood – by my perspective
1. Sign, but continue acting contrary to Communion direction. This will mean eventual expulsion, but it will take time (probably until Lambeth 2018 or a Primates meeting between 2009 and 2018).
2. Don’t sign – then they are out of the Communion. Note Individual bishops and dioceses can sign and stay in the communion.
3. Sign and reform – Show the commitment to the greater community by reforming and imposing discipline on priests and bishops who bless sames sex unions in a public forum (any place outside of a home) and not ordaining any more practicing homosexuals. This is my perferred choice.
In any case, I hope that the GS bishops go to Lambeth and enact their agenda rather than being passive participants in the ABC’s (read ACO’s) agenda.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Dale #13
[blockquote] It took about 40 years to iron out the Western Schism (1378 – 1417). It took four ecumenical councils between 431 and 681 to work out the doctrine of the Two Natures in One Person of Christ. By insisting that a crisis that blew up in 2003 be resolved before 2008, we are playing into the hands of Screwtape’s “Infernal Father Below. [/blockquote]
Ah, to hearken back to the days when communicating between parties by letter took months and calling together bishops took years.
1) We live in age where the world is small, not large. Times have changed.
2) Leaders of those councils, if alive, would not be calling together a panel of deference or set up mediating counseling sessions between TEC and those they persecute.
3) Would not tolerate the ‘leadership’ style of the ABC
4) Would demand compliance to Lambeth 1.10; Windsor; Dar; etc …
TEC is going to go on its merry way anyhow, “Windsor process” or no.
Katherine, what I hear a number of folks here saying is that pecusa can continue to walk apart, but only the bp.s attending Lambeth and pushing for discipline can do anything about it. Without sufficient orthodox bp.s at Lambeth, pecusa can proceed with their usual lack of caution or consideration of others.
Tony, I understand what you are hearing. But there are no enforcement mechanisms in Anglicanism other than mutual recognition among the bishops and, ideally, bishops of a particular province recognizing the authority of Communion-wide statements like Lambeth 1.10. The large majority of TEC bishops do NOT recognize the authority of the Communion bishops gathered in council, neither the Archbishops nor in total. Mutual recognition then becomes the only method of discipline. With all respect to the various proposals for Lambeth action, I don’t see anything that TEC bishops would respect, since they don’t respect their fellow bishops’ pronouncements to begin with. We have been busy in the past few decades as a church building more structures. The common faith and mutual recognition have departed from now hollowed-out structures. What good will more construction do? When/if the liberal diocese return to the faith, they can be welcomed back into communion and recognition, but they need to understand that they may be radically altered before they do, since those who do accept communion standards will want to worship elsewhere in the interim.
I see nothing sacrosanct about the recently-built “instruments of communion.” We are a communion lead by bishops in apostolic succession and apostolic faith. With all due respect to NRA, above, I don’t want the international communion to be legalized with a U.S. Congress-like legislative body and a new Court. General Convention was supposed to be like our Congress, and look where that’s gotten us. We are not the United Nations. We are a church.
Peter Toon got it right on target when he said of the Non-Attenders that “going to the Lambeth Conference in July 08 is …, not merely a waste of time, but a crime against the Gospel and Orthodoxy for joining with those who will not repent of their sinful innovations.â€
“The Windsor Process..… called for The Episcopal Church to cease both the blessing of same-sex couples and the ordaining of persons in same-sex relations.â€
Though far away in Nigeria, I still wonder that some people find it difficult to empirically determine whether or not TEC has ceased (stopped, terminated, ended) its innovations. Do we really want these innovations abolished or are we to gather to consider why they are not so bad after all? Why deceive ourselves further?
The Piper plays and people dance. Numbers will not change Lambeth 08 agenda and the covenant will take a long time to materialize at this rate. Let us meanwhile get on with the Great Commission.
Katherine,
Remember that the US didn’t have any federal authority until the new constitution was passed. No one (except the Federalist) wanted the Federal Government to have much authority and that got us to where each state had its own currency and did what it darn well pleased – with no controls on it to the larger body, except for those that the state itself desired. The new (1787) constitution imposed some much needed federal control only after it was discovered that the current “federation” was not able to walk together as a country.
I believe that the Anglican Communion is at a similar juncture today. The current federated structure is not serving the needs of the Communion as a whole – it is only serving the “needs” of the richest member – and not all members of the richest member. We need a new structure and that is why we are working towards a
Covenant (read new constitution) where the “freedom” of a specific province to determine the path of the whole communion will be curtailed so that all what is of concern to all is decided by all.
Yes, we are not a government we are a Church. But many members have ceased to act like a Church. “Freedom” and “Autonomy” only work while the needs of the whole body are placed above individual desires. I am free to drive so long as I obey the rules set forth by the governing body. Currently, there are no “rules” only “mutual recognition.” When “mutual recognition” fails, rules are required.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
And how will the rules be enforced? By an Anglican Police Force with dogs and batons? I’m kidding about that. But how? We have no force other than moral force and mutual recognition.
#17, TonyinCNY,
I can’t speak for the others above (like #2, evan miller etc.), but you have captured my drift well enough. And, lest there be any misunderstanding, let me try to clarify my stance a little more.
I basically agree with #13, Dale Rye, that if we simply proceed with Lambeth 2008 on the basis of “business as usual,” then we have a disaster. Dr. Toon is partially right (I’m tempted to add, “as usual”). All the efforts made by the orthodox leaders in the AC to warn TEC (and in principle other liberal provinces like ACoC, Scotland, Wales etc.) to back off, and all our pleas for our foes to halt and to show a sign of repentance have been to no avail….YET.
For the old cliche holds true: “If you keep on doing what you’ve always been doing, you’ll keep on getting the same results you’ve always been getting.”
So, let’s try a new strategy. Namely, let’s grab the bull by the horns and attempt the kind of coup I’ve described above (somewhat tongue in cheek) in my #12. The time has come for a drastic show down with the apostate bishops in our midst who are just wolves in sheep’s clothing.
That is, instead of seeking to find maximum common ground with our opponents, we should be doing the opposite, and seeking what I called above, “maximum differentiation” (to use one of Kendall’s favorite words). This is NOT the time to be seeking peace and reconciliation. This is the time for waging all out theological and ecclesial warfare on our theological enemies. And yes, I do mean exactly what I say, they are ENEMIES. I regard +John Chane, +Andrew Smith, +Tom Shaw, and all their despicable ilk as outright enemies of Christ, enemies of the true gospel, and my own personal enemies. And that is exactly how I will treat them, and treat them publicly, as enemies.
Now are we called to love our enemies? Why, yes, of course. But that does NOT mean treating them as friends, or continuing in “dialogue” with them politely as “the loyal opposition,” or as people who just might prove to be right in the future. Despite my overheated rhetoric about tarring and feathering them, I trust most readers realize that I’m partially joking when I indulge in such fierce talk. After all, I call myself “New Reformation Advocate,” and I often invoke Martin Luther as a worthy example to follow. And we all know how he castigated and ridiculed the papacy as “the Anti-Christ.” I’m doing the same thing.
The point is: for too long we’ve been pursuing the wrong goal. Foir too long the goal has been to preserve “the highest degree of communion possible” within the AC. And the implicit assumption is that this means preserving the INSTITUTIONAL unity of the AC.
But the last four years (if not longer) have made it plain as can be that this artificial unity is just a sham. There is no REAL unity to preserve, because the pro-gay bishops are actually advocates of a rival religion that may cloak itself in traditional Christian language, but which in reality represents a FALSE gospel totally incompatible with genuine Christianity.
Does that mean we act in a hateful, mean, arrogant way toward them? Well, despite the impression others may get from my highly inflammatory and polarizing rhetoric above, I really don’t mean that at all. But I do mean that we start calling a spade a spade. We call heresy heresy. And we stop treating heretics as our “brothers and sisters in Christ” when they are NOT. To put it bluntly, the Presiding Bishop is NOT my sister in christ, because she is not in fact in Christ anymore. She is my EX-sister in Christ.
It’s time to stop pretending we can have “peace, peace, when there is no peace” (see Jer. 6). Oil and water simply don’t mix. Never have. Never will. The time has come for a spiritual and ecclesiastical divorce.
But we need to make sure the whole world knows who is the party that walked away from this marriage. We need to make it undeniably clear who has committed adultery here and found a new lover, i.e., our foes on the “reappraiser” side. We shouldn’t let the liberals have the benefit of APPEARING like the faithful ones when they aren’t.
So yes, in the end, I agree with Dale and Dr. Toon in one sense. We on the orthodox side are in grave danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. It would be terribly ironic and totally unnecessary for us to drop the baton just before the finish line.
We have the votes. We can achieve a decisive victory at Lambeth 2008 and cast out those evil villains in black hats, as they so richly deserve. Our conservative juggernaut can just flatten the ACO and the liberal bishops. I say we go to Lambeth and just grind our enemies into the dust, in the name of Christ. And, of course, with love in our hearts the whole time.
David Handy+
Lover of Radical, High-Commitment Christianity
P.S. There were, as I’m sure many of you noticed, quite a number of typos in that white-hot manifesto I submitted hastily as #12. Such as typing SAS, when I meant ASA for “average Sunday attendance” and so on. Please take my unrestrained passion into account when judging such minor mistakes.
Katherine,
You are absolutely right in one sense. We CURRENTLY have no such enforcerment mechanism in place. And even the propose Covenant is much too weak to be effectual.
That’s why we need a New Reformation! We create those mechanisms. If I may be so bold, I think you show a certain lack of imagination. We need to “think outside the box.”
As the saying goes, where there’s a will, there’s a way.
David Handy+
21 – the rules will be enforced by participation in communion wide meetings and practices. For example, the Presiding Bishop will not be invited to the Primates meetings, while a leading bishop of those dioceses in commuion with Canterbury will be. Only those dioceses in communion with Canterbury will be invited to Lambeth. TECUSA will be told that it can only send members from member dioceses to ACC meetings or to international conferences.
The biggest problem will occur when a reasserting diocese desires to elect a reasserting bishop and TECUSA does not provide consents. At that point, more drastic measures will be needed.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
We shall see, but according to the [url=http://www.lambethconference.org/]Lambeth blog[/url] plenty of bishops appear to be signing up. Out of c850 bishops, c500 had registered by the end of October, and there are still plenty of bishops registering:
25th Oct.
[i]”With almost 500 bishops now registered for the conference…”[/i]
8th Jan.
[i]”Registrations come in thick and fast, now for spouses as well as bishops.”[/i]
I am in basic agreement with Dr. Toon as well as Fr. Handy’s comments, at least as far as attending Lambeth goes (I need to think through some of his other ideas a bit more). We’ve come so far through this wretched process and I can’t help but feel dissappointed that those I’ve been counting on most may not be present to represent us.
I suspect that if the Orthodox do NOT show up, Lambeth will be a jamboree indeed. If however, our representatives do attend in force, the question of “One lump or two?” will have nothing to do with tea (metaphorically, spiritually, intellectually speaking, of course).
NRA et al – OK, let’s recover our patristic inheritance, and return to the conciliarist governance of the Church. If your hoped for council should be called (at Lambeth?) and if we were true to our patristic roots, or if the patristic fathers were still with us, the first things that would be, and should be dealt with would be the Protestant heresies that have inhered in the Church since the Reformation, don’t you think. Protestant ecclesiology, views of the sacraments, the view of the Bible standing above the Church, etc., would be taken on as subjects more important to dealt with than the moral issues that so concern you and others(not that they are unimportant, but really and truly, not as imprtant as what I have mentioned). Phil Snyder – I assume you hold to Catholic doctrine and ecclesiology. What do you think. In the meantime I’ll trust in RW’s Catholic ecclesiology to guide us rather than the ecclesiology of some of the others, despite his somewhat Hamlet-like behavior at times.
#21: This is precisely why the AC needs to adopt an conciliar approach to governance. Because there is no pope and no curia, we are forced to rely on vague and unenforceable probities (If I may make up a word). The council is that which articulates the covenant and, by its votes, enforces its regulations. The world is indeed growing smaller, if speed of communication is the test, but it is still large and very diverse if the human dimensions are the standard. We need a global articulation and I continue to argue that only a formal council will serve the AC to provide that structure. Our identity is global now, and so must our governance be. Larry
I have to admit that I am of 2 minds here.
1. Yes, I would like to see all Anglican bishops go to Lambeth. It will NOT be nearly so easy for conservative bishops to wrest the agenda from the ABC and ACC and ACO as people here seem to think, but certainly the Lambeth outcome will be better if they are there than if they are not.
BUT
2) The Churches that are currently not planning to attend are not in communion with several dozen (over 100?) of the bishops who have been invited. How many of your diocesan conventions currently include excommunicated or other former members of the dioceses in their councils? It makes perfect sense to me that a province would refuse to enter into council to define the future of the Church with people who are excommunicate (as has been made abundantly clear when many primates have refused communion form, or with, the PB of TEC). And that is the situation that currently exists between most of the GS (approximately 1/2 of the world’s Anglicans) and the majority of bishops of TEC.
Personally, I find it ironic that I am in communion with more Anglicans than the bishop and standing committee of this diocese.
But what is the plan to protect the orthdox and to discipline TEC by attending Lambeth? Where is the ACI plan, the Fulcrum plan or the PBS plan? One might be persuaded that attending Lambeth is the better course, but “show up and hope for the best” is neither a strategy nor a persuasive argument. Those advocating full attendance at Lambeth need to give the orthodox something to show up and support. At this point the covenant would leave discipline years down the road while doing nothing to protect the orthodox in the meantime (or worse, making support of the current ad hoc arrangements like CANA and AMiA punishable immediately, if the CoE commentators got their wish), so that ain’t it.
#30: Heretical bishops were in attendance at the ecumenical councils so I don’t think that there should be a violation of conscience here. Sharing the sacrament may be another issue.
Fr. Matt raises a real concern in #26. But consider this: TEC as we know it is probably beyond recovery. The issue of “realignment” does not change if everyone attends Lambeth. I suspect that a strongly orthodox showing and outcome at Lambeth may ensure what we expect anyway at GC2009 (as a liberal-controlled backlash), so the subsequent inevitable realignment of North American Anglicanism could have formal Communion backing (albeit begrudgingly by some in the Mother Church).
For better or for worse, I believe that the Orthodox need to make it clear that Lambeth ’08 really is the last straw. Too many snowballs are now rolling for this NOT to be the case. And I believe that the so-called fedcoms and comcons need to be in agreement on this. All of the disagreement is fine (“iron sharpens iron”) but at some point we need to agree to move ahead together and pick up the pieces, even if our particular scenario of this drama didn’t pan out as we liked.
P.S. to my #32: Even though heretical bishops were in attendance at ecumenical councils, the ABC may still want to seriously consider playing his own “disinvite” card to assure fuller participation at Lambeth. Perhaps this is what certain provinces who have yet to formally declare their intentions are waiting for.
#33- Amen to that, but at the current rate, the ABC won’t determine who to pull Lambeth ’08 invitations from until Lambeth ’18. For all we know, he might pull +Schofield’s and reinstate VGR. I don’t know what he is waiting for, he just seems to enjoy the Hitchcock-style suspense he is building. If he really meant to do anything, he would have called a primate’s meeting, as he had led us all to believe he would. (This is one of those things that I pray every night to be wrong about)
Following on something Phil Snyder said in #20, maybe what we need to do is to think of Lambeth 2008 as a Constitutional Convention. When the Constititional Convention was called, it was convened to revise the Articles of Confederation. But once in convention in secret, they produced an entirely new, stronger document we call the Constitution.
What Anglicanism is lacking is a new authority to replace the State. No entity in the Communion currently has any juridical authority, the power to make binding decisions. What if the godly bishops (all of them) at Lambeth 2008 set out to create a conciliar authority where there is currently none?
A few thoughts: Read up on the history and importance of the Marbury v. Madison case. This case is generally agreed to be the case in which the US Supreme Court established its defacto power to sit in judgment over government decisions from a constitutional perspective. Prior to this decision, the USSC had the dejure power, but no way to enforce it. Since that decision, USSC decisions are followed as a matter of course.
So I think that the challenge for the orthodox now is to replicate that. TJMcmahon has correctly pointed out that membership in the AC is generally defined by who the ABC invites to Lambeth. Fine, we can’t change that without some serious overhauling which may conflict with the secular laws of England.
But why not get everyone to Lambeth, and then, as NRA suggests, not only discuss but pass a new Covenant which addresses these problems. For starters, include in the new Covenant a provision that acknowledges the ABC’s invitational power to Lambeth, but then insert something in there that he is expected to invite all Anglican bishops in good standing in the Communion. Then define “Anglican bishops in good standing in the Communion” to be a list that is kept and decided on by either the Primates or a new international Anglican Council (along the lines of what NRA suggests). That way, the ABC retains the power but now will have the decision essentially made for him. The key is to have the body making the “good standing” determination be one that is broadly representative and not open to ACO or TEC manipulation. If the ABC chooses to disregard the Covenant he has called for and agreed to, then you can be sure that there will be bigger problems for the AC then just that. I think Rowan Williams currently would be only too happy to have the invitation decisions made for him.
Yes, the orthodox should be going to Lambeth. But not just to play games. They need to be prepared to act. Yes it will be difficult, and no, they will not be able to stage the level of coup that NRA suggests. But they can take the work of the Covenant and add just enough teeth to ensure that TEC will have to either opt out or be disciplined thereunder.
Basically, the orthodox bishops should identify some of the current trends: 1) RW is pushing the idea of a Covenant; and 2) RW hates making decisions and is currently allowing everyone else to take the initiative; and use those trends for the orthodox advantage.
Interesting comments by Toon re: ‘Network’ bishops and the role of Common Cause. I have long urged that this issue be cleaned up. The majority of ‘Network’ bishops and dioceses are not involved in the Nairobi meeting and have not sought to override or say anything whatsoever about +Mouneer and his concerns. It appears they are no longer consulted. That may be necessary so far as the leadership of Common Cause is concerned. But Toon is correct to see this as confusing and/or implicating, potentially, of Network bishops who are not involved in Gafcon etc.
NRA #12 and #22:
I know that your #12 is a bit “tongue in cheek,” but I would be rather less sanguine than you about whether the assembled GS bishops, should they attend, would be able to “invite the CANA and AMiA bishops, along with +Guernsey, +Atwood, +Cavalcanti, etc.” Invitations to Lambeth are one of the few unique prerogatives accorded to the ABC, and I think you’d find more institutional inertia in your way than you think if you attempted to change that.
However, setting that aside, you say that you want “MAXIMUM DIFFERENTIATION.” The problem with that is that, if you succeeded, you’d end up with a much smaller communion than you seem to expect. For instance, if you want MAXIMUM DIFFERENTIATION, you can’t avoid taking a stand on WO — and whichever way you go, some of the “orthodox” fall away from you. And I’m willing to bet that once you really started defining, for instance, doctrines of justification, then you’d find less agreement among the orthodox than you thought… and if you insist on nailing down too exactly what one MUST believe in order to be a Newly Reformed Anglican, then even more of the people you thought would be on your side will reluctantly part ways with you.
There is also the point that, when the “much strengthened Covenant” is “rammed down the throats of the liberals,” most of the provinces attending will be required by their own constitutions to refer the matter to their own Synods or Conventions for approval. So it’s going to be a few years at best before you get all the replies, and that’s assuming that every province resists the temptation to propose changes before they approve it. (Any bets on that head? If I know Anglicans, you couldn’t get all the provinces to approve a lunch menu without wrangling about it.)
Realistically, the proposed Draft Covenant is probably about as specific as it can possibly be and still stand a chance of getting widespread approval — even setting aside the “liberal” provinces you wish to exclude.
Now, is it possible that a GS majority at Lambeth could pass a resolution declaring that TEC and ACoC were cast out of the Anglican Communion? I don’t know if they would actually have the votes for that, but I suppose it could happen. It isn’t written down anywhere that the Lambeth Conference has that authority; but then again, it isn’t written down anywhere that it doesn’t, either. If the other Instruments chose to respect it, then it would turn out that Lambeth does de facto have the ability to do that. Would the other Instruments respect such a resolution? I suspect that the Primates’ Meeting would, the ACC would not (they have a constitutional process for changing their membership), and I can’t predict what the ABC would do except that it would be phrased with great urbanity.
But that would still be far from turning the Anglican Communion into the kind of entity that you’re envisioning, and frankly I don’t see the Communion — even with we liberal heretics cast out into the outer darkness — becoming such a body.
Of course, I could be wrong. There’s certainly no scenario where I could be part of your Newly Reformed Anglicanism, so perhaps I can’t really understand the appeal of it and it would take off like wildfire amongst the Anglican-Communion-minus-TEC.
But I’m dubious.
Obviously bishops who are not now invited to Lambeth may also have no interest whatsoever in attending — that gets at the logic of Gafcon. One can’t have it both ways: storm Lambeth and insist on every consecrated bishop being included (the invitations are soley in the gift of Canterbury as Toon rightly reminds us) or view Gafcon as a genuine way forward and an alternative to Lambeth and for that matter, as Toon notes, the Anglican Communion qua Communion. These euphoric scenarios may be good fun to dream up, but I can’t see any logic in discussing them at length if they fall between the stools of what is now being pursued by people I assume mean what they say. It would be more logical to ask if Gafcon will effectively bring an end to the Anglican Communion, and that is what Toon’s piece is about. I think the answer is given by him. I also think he is right to say that those who wish to do Gafcon know what they are doing. He is just trying to clarify what the effect for others will be, and to do so in a non-emotional and straightforward way. That is a useful thing to do at this important time, even if one finds this or that aspect of his essay not to their liking.
PS–Toon also explains with some sympathy why failure to pursue the logic of Windsor in a more straightforward way is creating enormous problems. ACI agrees and believes that is where the pressure should be applied. Others not only feel this is a dead-end, but also genuinely want to create something other than the Anglicanism that has been with us for some time now. And with relish and enthusiasm. I say that in an entirely non-judgmental way, and as a statement of fact. It is crucial to accept this if the substantive issues are to be faced into and not ‘euphorisized’: lots of anglicans with power want to create a new thing that is Canterbury-free, alligns various power blocs around an expectation of describing and enforcing ‘orthodoxy’, and gets on with it. This new thing is a source of excitement and serious financial commitment and vast expenditures of time and resources.
No. 40 – At least some of those hoping for a blowup of Lambeth have in mind a new Protestant church.
41–clarity at this point would be useful and would sharpen the matter. I think there has been confusion and obscuring here, due to the enthusiasms of ‘leaving’ or otherwise declaring objections, heresy, whatever. Toon speaks with the same sense of urgency and logic as I hope ACI does, but because he speaks in a different way, he may better be poised to make the issue clear. Choices must be made. The Canterbury-free confessional option clearly energises people. We are beginning to see that it does not necessarily energise people like +Chew, +Mouneer, and others, however much they see how critical are the problems we are facing and must not duck. It has never energised +Drexel. The GS was divided over AMiA and it is likely to be or to get divided or is divided over actions of some but not all. One can lament that, but equally one can applaud that and say: time to move forward with a new federal confessionalism. Equally, however, it must be faced that a lot of other major leaders will not find this acceptable — even as the problems are real and must be faced. There will be a cost, this is a zero-sum game.
When “Lambeth 1.10” is commonly used in comments on this blog generally it is always shorthand for “homosexuality is sinful according to Scripture; partnered gays in ministry and blessings of same-sex partners are to be forbidden.” It never means what is also included in Lambeth 1.10 but almost entirely ignored by the criticis of TEC: “listen to the experiences of homosexuals.” In fact, the most vocal primates in opposition have consistently refused to develop a meaningful Listening Process. This refusal to include all of Lambeth 1.10, in my view, is because to get to know the personal lives of homosexuals, their commitments, their faith, their struggles, all that we heterosexuals go through, might be dangerous to one’s certitudes. The fear factor is alive and well in this respect. Since Lambeth 2008 will not pass resolutions but will discuss issues, doing so with bishops one has demonized might prove to be rather uncomfortable, especially if they try to explain their understanding of homosexuality, their experiences of the lives of gay and lesbian persons, and how they find in Scripture reasons for their positions. Far better to stay away and avoid the threat.
I respect Dr. Toon’s analysis, and I think that GAFCON is intended to be the beginning of an alternative Anglican Communion. I doubt few of those who attend will go on to Lambeth, for practical (e.g., financial) as well as ideological reasons. The symbolic significance of Jerusalem for this meeting is obvious: to identify with the first council of the Church, but unlike the original Church that opened the doors to Gentiles and became truly inclusive, this newly emerging Anglican body will open its doors only to the “orthodox.”
We do cover the same ground over and over again. I new essay is posted and we tend to jump into the same arguments. My belief is is that unless the orthodox primates go to Lambeth and insist on following through with the Windsor Report trajectory, then the Anglican Communion will split. As even our liberal brethren understand a divided house cannot stand and the current division in the AC cannot continue indefinitely. pecusa will either be disciplined or there will be an Anglican entity apart from Canterbury. The Canterbury-free option doesn’t energize me, but if the AC cannot apply discipline I don’t see how one is faithful to Jesus Christ, His Church and a wayward Anglican Communion at the same time.
Okay, so let’s assume that many of the largest Anglican provinces skip Lambeth. Let’s further assume that they create an alliance amongst themselves. On the one hand, yes, this will mean the end of the global Anglican Communion as we know it. Yet, on the other hand, it does NOT mean the end of the Anglican Communion. I have heard no statement from anyone that they plan to “leave” the Anglican Communion. I only read that the current structures of the Anglican Communion have been deemed irrelevant.
Like many others hear, a Canterbury-free Anglican Communion does not excite me – in large part because it would be but a splinter of the whole. But my hope – even should there be a mass boycott of Lambeth – is that the Anglican Communion will simply fade to the backburner for a season before re-emerging once again.
I believe Kendall is correct that TEC is a church under judgment. And I very much agree with him that that means both orthodox and revisionist. But let’s focus for now on the TEC revisionist heirarchy. This is an institution that is dying, and which will run out of money eventually as it continues to decline in numbers. The writing is on the wall. TEC will only decline in power and influence vis a vis the Communion. Rowan Williams, likewise, will not remain ABC forever.
The key long-term questions then are these:
1) Who will be appointed as future Archbishop of Canterbury? Will the power of appointment remain with Britain’s PM? Given the secular slide of that nation, will a conservative future ABC be possible in the future?
2) How long till TEC runs out of money and influence?
3) Will the “new Anglicanism” (i.e. the new bodies and structure put up by Nigeria, Uganda, Southern Cone, etc.) be something that can retain a catholic flavor, or will it splinter into a dozen pieces?
4) Will the moderate conservatives be able to team up with the federal conservatives down the road when the time is ripe for Communion discipline?
#35, Charles Erlandson,
While I don’t know you, you appear to be singing the same tune off the same songsheet. There’s lot of interesting grist for the mill in the posts above, plenty to ponder long and thoughtfully. But I want to highlight your statement:
“What Anglicanism is lacking is a new authority to replace the State.”
Ditto. I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I keep bringing up the idea of a “Post-Christendom” Anglicanism. Allow me to elaborate and thus to build on your stimulating little post.
As we probably all know, originally Anglicanism started out with the monarch fully in control as the “Supreme Governor” (at least Anglicanism since Henry VIII and the Elizabethan Settlement did). And up until the authoritarian King Charles I was executed in the 1640s, the king or queen ruled the Church of England with a rather heavy hand. Obviously, that’s no longer true (though actually, I wish good Queen Elizabeth II would take a much more active role in the life of the C of E). And that leaves a huge vacuum in our whole system of polity that has never really been filled.
Well, maybe in the past we could get along without any such replacement for the royal authority. But that certainly is not true today. That vacuum simply MUST be filled somehow, and it will be. Count on it. Just as “nature abhors a vacuum,” so do all human organizations, including the Church (which is NOT a purely human organization).
I know my provocative posts #12 and 22 on this thread may seem naive and idealistic. And maybe they really are utopian. But how will we know until somebody tries?
I don’t blame others for suspecting me of engaging in wistful daydreaming that has little or no chance of ever coming to pass. It’s not that I underestimate the difficulties, but that I’m increasingly sure that we have no real alternative.
As I’ve said before on other related threads (with regard to the CCP), there is a humorous quip of Fuller’s famous church growth expert Peter Wagner that seems very apt and appropriate to me. Dr. Wagner, a huge promoter of the necessity of church planting, has been fond of saying for years:
“It’s easier to have babies than to raise the dead, and a lot more fun!”
So true.
It’s understandable that many of us shy away from that sort of radicalism (I don’t, but it’s very widespread, as Dr. Seitz and others have rightly noted). But all I can say is that week by week I become more and more firmly convinced that we are on the verge of just such radical, sweeping, drastic changes. Not gradual, incremental, evolutionary changes. I mean drastic, sweeping, revolutionary changes.
The only time such Reformations are even possible is when there is a very widespread agreement that a genuine crisis exists, and that the status quo simply can’t, shouldn’t, and won’t survive. Otherwise the infamous power of inertia wins.
We live in a time of deep and genuine crisis, the severest crisis we Anglicans have had since the original Reformation itself. And while that poses great dangers, it also provides us with unprecedented opportunities. I say (in a typically Luther-like spirit): CARPE DIEM. Let’s seize the day and remake Anglicanism altogether for a new millenium. For orthodox Anglicans, I’m utterly convinced of this thrilling prospect: “THE BEST IS YET TO COME.”
The New Reformation has already begun, for better or for worse. And of course, I’m overflowing with exuberant confidence that it will be very much for the better.
Reformations wait for no one. Who knows? Maybe we will fail. Maybe we will succeed. But what I can almost guarantee that we will have the time of our lives in attempting to pull off this New Reformation. It’s the old, old problem of potent new wine requiring new wineskins (see Mark 2:22).
So if the noble ACI team, or FULCRUM, or other ComCons want to try to raise the dead AC back to life, I say: “Wonderful. More power to you. Frankly, I don’t have the patience.” I’d rather give birth to something new (as Luther did etc.).
David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
Zealous and Relentless Advocate of the New Reformation
I may lack imagination, but I also lack the optimism that some grand new structure will solve the problems. What held Anglicans together over the years of expansion? Common faith, common liturgy, bishops.
I’m not trying to be snide. I would like to have a succinct statement of what “the Windsor process” consists of at this point.
If all bishops were to attend Lambeth, they could do some things which would be constructive, and easier to agree on than new structures. (1) They could immediately expel all bishops who are, as of the opening of the Conference, permitting same-sex blessings in their dioceses or openly in favor of same-sex blessings. This would wipe out the majority of TEC (and also some Canadian and UK bishops). A list could be made ahead of time with supporting documentation from diocesan statements or other public statements by the bishops in question. (2) They could vote to make Lambeth the definitive constitutional body of the Anglican Communion of churches, and vote to make the Primates Meeting the executive committee between Conferences, with power to determine what bishops will be invited to future Conferences. (3) They could abolish the ACC. Saves a whole lot of money and makes us a Church led by bishops. There’s your ecclesiology.
David (responding to post #46):
I think we are “singing the same tune off the same songsheet.” I’m finishing my Ph.D. (I will go to England to defend it February 1st) on the future of orthodox Anglicanism. Obviously, there’s a lot more I could say, but I believe Anglicanism has a number of interrelated and difficult to untangle crises. There is an identity crisis, along with a crisis of authority, and a moral crisis to boot.
One of the issues Anglicanism has never resolved is that of authority. The 16th century (and later) assumption was that an appeal to the State could be made, an assumption that was shared by most of Christendom until recently. I say recently, meaning that part of the Anglican identity crisis is the crisis that Christianity is facing as it deals with postmodernity, a large part of which I believe is actually a “post-Christendom” hangover. The Church as a whole is having to learn how to govern herself without the coercive power of the state.
Much of what we call secularization is actually post-Christendom, or post-Constantinianism, which the Orthodox, Rome, and Protestants are all having to re-examine. It’s not so much that Christianity is retreating as that it looks different when it is not so closely wed to the State.
A large part of postmodernism, in my view (and I’ve never heard it articulated quite this way elsewhere), is simply a matter of unparalleled choice in our lives, including an unprecedented degree of choice in religion. It’s not just that we don’t have the State to give us carrots and sticks to have a certain religion: it’s also that we are now aware of many more religions and many more have now become culturally acceptable, something not true before, even when the State wasn’t coercing religious decisions.
While we must go back and learn our history well, there is no exact parallel for the situation we find ourselves in. I believe that Anglicanism will be quite confused and chaotic until we go back and re-examine a lot of issues we’ve never truly resolved. Come to think of it, church history and ecclesiastical identity is always more confused and chaotic than we’d like to believe.
The AC is split and may have already come to an end with these two meetings taking place.
Dr Seitz, Dr Radner (and all ACI / Fulcrum type people) need to make clear whether, if it comes to it, they will stay in a church with VGR and Bruno and Schori when Duncan, Schofield, Venables, are in another Anglican entity. If it comes to a split, does the ACI really feel it is its duty to stay with the reappraisers at all costs?
And, what about Windsor?
For all the good work of the Bishop of Durham and others, the ABC is twisting The Windsor Report as he bends over backwards to keep TEC in the AC while it openly refuses to repent of condoning behaviour “incompatible with scripture”.
Windsor said TEC should not be in AC councils until unity was restored….but see wha the ACO and the ABC have done with Lambeth invitations…… I am sorry to say that the ACI and Fulcrum are far too optimistic about the ABC’s agenda, given his actions in the last 5 years of delaying any action in response to TEC tearing the fabric of the Communion.
If it it comes to a split, I want Dr Seitz, Dr Radner, +Durham to be leading in the same church as +Duncan, +Venables, ++Akinola….. this group has no substantive reason to be divided and is only divided by the politics that the ABC’s delays in the last 5 years have created…… let us not be divided and ruled…….. unity must be based on truth and where we have to choose, let us choose God’s truth over staying in the club. Please!
Having said that, I think all our faithful bishops should go to Lambeth 08 and vote down the heretics….
Integrity and Changing Attitude will have a lovely time without ++Venables and ++Akinola and others at Lambeth 08…… we have to go (even if it is on the basis that this is the last time for the ABC’s mess of delays to be cleared up and some clarity and genuine unity to emerge)
Even the Lambeth 98 process was flawed. It is a wonder that the result was somewhat orthodox. Hearing what went on is harrowing. This was brought to you by Peterson and company. It will not change with Kearon. Bob from Boone, your listening process is one way, just as are TEC’s dialogues have always been. When the process belongs to one party the result is one sided. This is the reason NO ONE on the orthodox side wants to attend. ALL the meetings are politically manipulated to a certain end
#50/51 you got it right about the constitutionalists(Radner, Toon, Kings, Fulcrum etc), for then to be in communion with the ABC is matter of salvation. I have read various articles of Toon and all them is about how important is to be in communion with the ABC.
The Lambeth Conference is just a meeting of Anglican Bishops, it has not authority to do anything, they can just pass some motion like 98 1.10, that the TEC, CofE, ACofC, ACofA, CofI, EACof Brasil, CinW, SEC, CENTRAL AMERICA, MEXICO and ACofNZ will dismiss as homophobic. Nothing will stop TEC/NEW THING religion. ++Akinola and ++Jensen, if the bishops of the Evangelical centre want to go to Lambeth, to kiss Rowan ring, they are free to go, but they need to realize that ++Akinola, Jensen have more thing to do then to go to Lambeth and participate of a CIRCUS, because is it what it will be, it will be a gay festival, the press will love it. A shame to the CHURCH of CHRIST. And the leadership of the “Anglican Communion without the heretics must make clear that they don’t have nothing to do with that. In England the fight is just starting after the Lambeth fiasco is done, CofE will become like TEC. have in mind that the conservatives are more strong in CofE then they are in TEC.
50–I do not believe these are the choices. 51–agree.
#54 – if all invited bishops attend Lambeth, what do you propose they do?
Katherine,
After reading your post #47, I happily take back my suggestion that you might lack imagination. For you have made three very sensible, yet creative proposals. And I note with satisfaction that your final proposed action, eliminating the ACC altogether, is even more radical than anything I’ve said about the notoriously western-dominated ACC. It’s always nice, as Sarah Hey can testify, when you can pat yourself on the back for being moderate and centrist after all, since others take an even more “extreme” stand than you do (grin).
On a more serious note, here are a few reflections on your stimulating post. First, I immediately noticed that your list of what has held us Anglicans together over the years included three of the four elements or sides of the famous Lambeth Quadrilateral. You mentioned: “common faith” (presumably as summed up in the Creeds), “common liturgy” (presumably focused on the two great gospel Sacraments, but done in the classic BCP style), and “bishops.” These seem to correspond rather well to the 2nd to 4th parts of the Quadrilateral. But it leaves me wondering why you left out the role of the Holy Scriptures in cementing our unity. For after all, the Bible comes first and foremost in the Quadrilateral, just as it should. I’m not finding fault here, Katherine. As someone who frequently posts comments all too hastily, I know how easy it is to send something out into cyberspace without carefully thinking through all its ramifications. I’m just curious about this rather striking omission and how significant it may (or may not) be intended to be.
Second, my general response to your list of suggested actions in comparison with mine, is that they need not constitute an “either/or,” but rather perhaps a “both/and” situation. There is no doubt that your proposals could be accomplished faster and perhpas more easily than the more revolutionary proposals I’ve outilined above. And personally, I’d favor all three of your ideas.
One quibble or two.
The Lambeth Conference is far too big and unwieldy, meets far too seldom, and would be far too expensive to function as the main legislative body for the AC. Even the Primates’ Meeting would have the same problem as a governing body. But I like your notion of Lambeth as a “constitutional” body, in the sense that it could act as the equivalent of the Continental Congress that drafted our American Constitution. Now that’s feasible.
Second, the problem with the ACC is that it’s far too WESTERN. It is run along the lines of Robert’s Rules of Order, which puts the GS representatives at a distinct disadvantage. I’m not opposed to something like the ACC in principle. But it would have to be totally overhauled, and simply abolishing it might be easier and then starting something new in its place that would be more culturally neutral.
But keep using that good imagination of yours, Katherine!
David Handy+
Earnest Advocate of the New Reformation
But I’d still cling to my vision for yet other, more far-reaching changes as well. FWIW, this is the kind of thing that GAFCon needs to address, along with planning more outwardly-focused, mission outreach efforts.
The covenant work is proceeding apace. There is a meeting of the design committee in about two weeks in London. With +Drexel in charge of that, and from what I’ve seen of the work; and with the advent letter of +Canterbury, I’d say TEC insistences on autonomy may end up describing an anglicanism that is not the covenant will of the Communion. Grieb herself said TEC should withdraw for a season. Lambeth should be about firming up the covenant. I have just finished a long essay on this, from the standpoint of scripture’s use. Footnote: Consecrators of +VGR; I am not convinced they are going to be there without further ado — we shall see. My sense was that certain assurances were still being sought.
#48, Charles,
We need to talk, brother! We may be kindred spirits. Send me a private message (PM), if you’ve caught on as to how to do that here.
There’s a lot in your brief post that I’d love to respond to, but there is simply no adequate way to do that in a forum like this. Suffice to say that yes, you are “preaching to the choir.” I’m with you, 100%.
But just for the sake of stimulating further discussion or reflection, let me take one of your points and expand on it. You note, quite rightly, that one of the huge challenges we face in our “Post-Christendom” social context these days is the unprecedented degree of religious options now available in much of the world. I like to put it this way. We in the western world face a stern and daunting challenge due to the recent emergence of “pluralism” in our midst. And I mean that in two senses.
First, there is simply the historical fact of pluaralism as a sociological reality. That is, as we’ve all heard, the U.S. has become the most highly diverse nation in the world religiously in that there are now significant numbers of adherents of virtually every form of religion on the planet here in America. For example, due to massive immigration from non-Christian lands since the quotas were overhauled in the 1960s, we now have more Arab Muslims in the U.S. than members of TEC. That was unimaginable as recently as the 1950s. There are lots of converts to Buddhism among Hollywood celebrities (e.g., Richard Gere) and in southern Cal in general. We have large numbers of Hindus from India living here too, and so on. The mission field has come to us. You don’t have to go overseas anymore to get there.
But while pluralism as a historical fact, reflecting the growing diversity of the population, is a big challenge in itself, we actually face an even greater challenge in another area. And that is the sharp challenge posed to orthodox Christianity by what I call “ideological pluralism.” By that I mean pluralism as an ism, as a whole belief system. Namely, the conventional wisdom now in this country is some form of “It doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you’re sincere.” So let’s live and let live. We certainly don’t want the endless religious strife we see in places like Iraq (between the Sunnis and Shiites), Northern Ireland, or the Holy Land, do we? And so here, the challenge is not merely evangelizing the hordes of non-Christians who now live just down the street or across town. That would be hard enough. No, the bigger and harder challenge goes beyond evangelism to apologetics, defending the true faith against the perversions of it that are now so appealing and politically correct.
You have urged us to take history seriously, Charles. And I agree wholeheartedly. For the Pre-Constantinian Church has so much to teach us about how to not only survive but thrive in a syncretistic, pluralistic environment (for that is what the Roman Empire was). Of course, the Global South can also teach us a great deal, since they face that challenge all the time, without compromising the faith once delivered to the saints.
Do you remember the famous quip of Edward Gibbons, the author of the justly famous classic, “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire?” A contemporary of Thomas Jefferson, and a kindred spirit to him, Gibbons was a notorious skeptic and Deist who largely blamed Christianity for the weakening and ultimate collapse of the Roman Empire he admired so much. Way back in the 1770s he made a stunning observation that is so typical of him: witty, urbane, skeptical, but utlimately nihilistic. The barb is in the tail. Commenting on the remarkable level of toleration for many religions in the early Roman Empire (as long as you went along with the state cult and offered due veneration for Roma, and the divinization of past emperors), Gibbons makes the following astute and memorable observation:
“To the Roman masses all religions were equally true, to the philiosophers they were all equally false, and to the politicians they were all equally useful.”
Hmmm. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
David Handy+
Passionate Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism
#57
Re: Footnote: Consecrators of +VGR; I am not convinced they are going to be there without further ado—we shall see. My sense was that certain assurances were still being sought.
If you can answer, is this based on your reading of the Advent letter or information not in the public domain?
#57 – that would be interesting. I think disinviting the TEC consecrators is one thing that might allow some currently not intending to attend Lambeth to attend, even if the CANA and AMiA bishops were not invited, because that would uphold the Windsor Report. Indeed, as many have noted, letting the invitations stand would be a rejection of the Windsor Report, a choice, I submit, far more likely to impair the communion than a separate conference. (Paragraph 134, “those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion. We urge this in order to create the space necessary to enable the healing of the Communion.”).
But I also think that there needs to be some proposal to protect the orthodox in a manner that frees them from having to protect themselves by distancing from the communion during the covenant process. That involves, rather obviously, protecting them from TEC. There, significant work needs to be done – importantly, to repair the failure to implement the primates’ last, unanimous communique which included a detailed plan for that. But if that work is not done, the covenant process may be undone.
59–it is a public fact that several bishops in the C of E are concerned that +VGR alone is not the issue, and they have stated that their attendance at Lambeth is at issue; the advent letter needed to be read closely, for its own sake, and in the light of this fact. That is my view.
Prof. Seitz,
Thank you.
David+, thanks for your interest in my radical ideas. Me, as a radical! The universe shudders.
Interesting about the Lambeth Quadrilateral. As I understand it, this represented the minimum standards we required for ecumenical conversations with other churches: Scripture, Creeds, sacraments, bishops. The definition of “Anglican” was more specific than this. When I said “common faith,” I meant, of course, both the the foundational Christian deposit of faith (Scripture and Creeds) but also the English Church’s more specific views on these matters, which were summed up in their time by the Articles but most expressively and effectively in the Prayer Book worship which we all had in common until about thirty years ago.
In looking at reforming a broken Anglican model, we need, I think, to consider the original Reformation and what its purpose was. In the century or so of the Anglican Reformation as it developed and settled itself, the intention, however imperfectly it may have been accomplished, was to return to the faith and practice of the early undivided church. I’d like to see us do the same. What is our basic problem? Our bishops, for some decades, have not been behaving like Christian bishops but rather have gone into secular projects and the general zeitgeist. Rather than attempting to replicate modern-era democratic structures on the secular model for the church, let us reform our church based on the leadership of bishops who are willing to stand for the faith like men of God.
Note that the Orthodox churches have been able to endure in the face of 1400 years of Islamic pressure with the apostolic faith of Scripture and Creeds, their bishops standing against heresy, and their liturgies, the unchanging witness and expression of the faith.
I’d like to see reforms be both effective and uncomplicated.
And thanks to Dr. Seitz for the “Windsor status update.” If I have this right, this consists at the moment of the ongoing Covenant development and the possible exclusion of consecrators of VGR from Lambeth. This rather ignores the post-Windsor Primates’ communiques on same-sex blessings, it seems to me. But the decision on whether this is sufficient will be made by bishops and provinces.
Dr. Seitz – we shall see. I hope you are right, but have my doubts.
I do think that the main focus of everyone should not necessarily be on the Lambeth Conference as if it were being held tomorrow. I do think that the landscape may be significantly changed by summertime.
My perspective remains that Rowan Williams has bungled badly to date, but more out of a desire to avoid making tough decisions, then out of a malicious desire to subvert the orthodox. I think that he can still pull the rabbit out of the hat if he so desires. The question is – will he?
KJS has one valid point. Those closeted but obviously partnered male gay bishops in England should likewise be uninvited if VGR is to remain uninvited as well. We opened that door, now we should insist that the field be equal in this matter.
#63, Katherine,
You may well be more radical than you think (and I mean that as a compliment!). You remember what the etymological origins of the word “radical” are, don’t you? It comes from the stem, “radix,” or “root.” And there is little more radical and revolutionary than wanting to dig down to the very roots of a complex, difficult problem in order to solve it.
“Ad fontes,” or “Back to the source!” “back to the fountainhead,” was indeed the cry of fhe Protestant Reformers. They meant that primarily in terms of returning to the pure head waters of undefiled religion in the Holy Scriptures, before it became muddied by human tradtions.
But I’d agree (if I understand you correctly) that we need to do more than reaffirm what has been said in the past, e.g., in the Articles or the old classic BCP tradition. And while yes, our bishops have let us down badly by failing to act as true successors of the apostles, our troubles go much deeper than that. Again, let’s dig down and get to the root of our troubles (and thus be rightly and truly “radical”).
One way of expressing it is that we have two mutually exclusive religions now living under one roof. This impossible situation can’t endure much longer. And it won’t. “A house divided against itself cannot stand” (see Mark 3), and it won’t.
Another way to put it is that there are growing numbers of Anglican leaders who deny IN PRACTICE all four of the points of the Quadrilateral. They throw Scripture overboard when they don’t like what it says (and not just about sexual ethics, of course). They say the Creeds with their fingers crossed behind their backs. They subvert our grand BCP tradition of “common prayer” and worship. And yes, as you rightly note, the bishops have ceased to perform their high calling as guardians and promoters of the apostolic faith entrusted to them.
But while the coming split will be painful and deeply tragic, it is also absolutely necessary. For this is not a Romans 14 kind of issue (where toleration is urged on all sides). Rather it is a Galatians 1 kind of issue. These are matters that are “necessary for salvation.” You don’t tolerate cancer or gangrene. Instead, you take drastic measures and do whatever it takes to eliminate the disease from the body. That’s what I hope will finally start to happen at long last at Lambeth this summer.
David Handy+
Happy to be “more radical than thou” anytime!
It would have been so much easier for many on this site if, at the time of the Reformation in England, ontological ties with the Catholic Church had been broken with the abolishing of apostolic succession and the creation of a new church which then, in its fervid imagination, could have tried to reconstruct a “pure apostolic church”. Then one wouldn’t have to pay passing obeisance to the “church catholic” (when did that term come into being?) in the process of recovery. Unfortunately, though, those ties were not broken, due to both intention and historical accident.
#68, rob k,
I’m so glad that I’m not the only one who occasionally indulges in making tongue-in-cheek comments here. Nicely done.
But the timing is somewhat ironic, since today in TEC is the Feast of the controversial William Laud, the scourge of the Puritans. As many readers of T19 will recall, ++Laud was executed on this day in 1645 by his ultra-Protestant opponents, who furiously resented his high-handed ramming of catholic ways down Protestant throats during his tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury. Laud was probably a political fool, but no one questions his devotion to Christ and his firm commitment to the catholic side of Anglicanism, enriched by his deep study of the patristic tradition. He is rightly honored as one of the most influential “Caroline Divines” or 17th century catholicizing theologians.
Hey, even with all the bitterness we see on every side in TEC today, at least no one is getting beheaded or burned at the stake anymore. Deposed?, yes. Harassed in many ways and persecuted?, yes. But not put to death. Thanks be to God.
BTW, a note to all members of the NRAFC (I doubt anyone else will care). I’m leaving tomorrow for a long road trip and will be largely unable to keep up with the enthralling online discussions here at T19 or SF for several days. (All right, my Worthy Opponents, a little less rude cheering please. It’s bad form.) We’re trying to keep things civil here.
David Handy+
In my absence, robroy, as President of the NRAFC, takes over as the next in the chain of command
[blockquote] As many readers of T19 will recall, ++Laud was executed on this day in 1645 by his ultra-Protestant opponents [/blockquote] I am so glad we live in a day when we no longer execute our religious opponents.
Now, we merely need resort to the seldom-used gentle, maternal, and dolphin-like liturgical rite which involves the use of tar and feathers.
#70, Br_er Rabbit,
As usual, you are absolutely right. See, we have made progress in some ways over the years, even though we’ve gone downhill in others. I mean, why should Tar Babies be the only ones to experience this unusual liturgical rite with tar and feathers? We wouldn’t want anyone to feel excluded now, would we??
I’m counting on the Rabbit Patch to help lead the NRAFC in my absence over the next few days.
David Handy+
Founder, NRAFC
Thank God for the witness of Laud & many others such as Andrewes, Thorndike, Montague, Johnson, Cosin et al. Gives one hope to believe that the Church, while not free from error, is indeed indefectible.
Laud was not without sin in regard to his treatment of his opponents. I know he’s in the Lesser Feasts and Fasts, but let’s take off the blinders.
No. 73 – Sort of like Athanasius Laud was, maybe? His opponents wanted to tear the Church from its Catholic roots.
#73, Tony,
I agree that ++Laud was a questionable role model in many ways. I don’t think I suffer from any blinders in his case. For instance, his foolish attempt to impose a very catholic new eucharistic liturgy on Scotland in 1637 was incredibly high-handed and just plain dumb. The Scottish rebellion that followed was entirely predictable. He brought a lot of his troubles on himself. At the same time, Laud was admirably zealous, being willing to do absolutely anything for the cause of Christ and his Kingdom, and even to die for his Lord. And I find that honorable indeed, however mistaken he was at times (as we all are, myself included).
BTW, in light of my travel plans mentioned above, I am indeed on the road. I just stopped at a Panera Bread Store for breakfast and to check on emails.
David Handy+