1. Rowan Williams, it seems to me, has left himself room to disinvite people who have been invited or to lower the level of his invitation to them to eg observer status. He presides over the Primates’ Meeting and, quite rightly, seems to be waiting for the Primates’ Meeting date of 30 September 2007 before assuming he has heard officially and definitively from the bishops of TEC and from TEC.
2. I also was surprised that his invitations to Lambeth 2008 were issued before his study leave and holiday 3 month period – June, July and August. However, on reflection, it may well be a good move. We shall see. The TEC bishops know now that they may forfeit their full invitation and still have to respond by 30 September.
3. He has described the consecration of Gene Robinson as ‘bizarre’ (in the Time magazine article).
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1630227,00.html
This is very strong language and follows his ecclesiology of ‘interdependence’ trumping ‘autonomy’ on such an issue. So we are not left wondering what he thinks about that consecration, which has been a focus of disunity. So Gene Robinson is not invited.
Many people are honestly convinced that +++Rowan’s Lambeth invitions to unrepentent TEC bishops has doomed any possibility of survival by the Anglican Communion in a faithful form. No, it won’t be pretty or quick or clean, but the fat lady has not yet sung. Wrriting off the Communion at this time is premature, IMHO.
“However, on reflection, it may well be a good move. We shall see. The TEC bishops know now that they may forfeit their full invitation and still have to respond by 30 September.” I am sorry, but I cannot see how some could make such a ludicrous statement. If the bishops had not received the invitations, they would be much more inclined to cooperate.
The early invitations to the HoB has increased the schismatic and divergent forces. The Americans are less inclined to be conciliar and the orthodox have shown that they have had enough of the American hubris as evidenced by the Kenya announcement and the laudatory statements from orthodox around the world.
The ABC’s machinations are blowing up in his face. Plotting and subterfuge do not engender confidence in leaders, especially church leaders.
Robroy, everything you say *might* come true. The operative word there is *might*.
But your saying that with such vehhemence begins to resemble “It will come true if only I say it often enough and loud enough”. The fact is the Primates’ deadline of Sept 30 hasn’t come yet and we cannot know for certain what will happen. I’m Roman Catholic and I pray each day for the Anglican Communion to stagger through; I’ll continue that prayer until I have facts to indicate a change in my prayer.
In faith, Dave
Dave, I only say that the early invitations increased divergent forces, past tense. It is not a prediction of the future.
OK, my bad. I read it as a definite “wishful-thinking” type of prediction . Apologies.
I’ve read several arguments that the early invitations undercut the primates in their process of trying to bring TEC to account. Others, though, have argued that the invitations were actually a shrewd move by +++Rowan which either extends the possibility of TEC repentence or leads them into a trap. My own opinion is that, regardless of +++Rowan’s intentions — which are really unknown to us and we can only speculate, the fact that unrepentent bishops were invited DOESN’T prevent the Primates from going forward with their plan (whatever it is). And, since they are the most logical spokesmen for the Communion, we should let them make their play and not obstruct it inadvertantly with pessimism. Considering the nasty fight that TEC will most likely put up, those guys can use all the support they can get.
Somebody has said somewhere (it’s getting a little foggy because I’ve read so many blogs today) that Sept 30 really isn’t that far off. To me, that’s a good thought. The Holy Spirit might be able to do a lot in that time, or only a little, but maybe something!
And I *do* pray every day for the Anglican Communion. I’d hate to see my old Episcopal and Anglican home go out with a whimper instead of a bang.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Is there no limit to Fulcrum’s presumption that Rowan knows exactly what he is doing and it is right, after all he is the ABC?….
Problem is if ++Rowan does nothing…everyone bleats
if ++Rowan does something…everyone bleats
Truth is the communion IS ALREADY broken. Not due to ++Rowan Williams, not due to invitations or lack of them, but due to the fact that we have messed around with doctrine and ecclesiology.
As I posted elsewhere- the real cause of division occured as long ago as the 1970’s when the church broke with scripture and tradition and decided to ordain women. Please note the problem wasn’t the women so much as the action and theology behind it.
This led, logically, to a position whereby scripture and tradition can again be ignored – whenever it ‘feels’ right and just. It was only a matter of time before the homosexual lobby followed the women’s lib lobby in pushing for reform.
The result of such thinking is now clear to see. Division and breakdown. Hence:
IF THE COMMUNION WISHES TO SURVIVE- IT MOST STOP BICKERING ABOUT THE SYMPTOMS AND ADDRESS THE TRUE CAUSES!!
i.e admit where and when we actually went wrong and seek to rectify that, by reigning in the cancer of secularist thinking. Alas I fear it has neither the backbone nor desire to do so.
http://www.sbarnabas.com
Well, things are moving apace. It will be interesting to see who actually ends up at Lambeth next year. Many of the GS Primates have been talking about boycotting it; as have some TEC bishops. If the GS moves forward with the idea floated in, IIRC, The Road to Lambeth document of holding an “alternative Lambeth,” then I would think that would pretty much indicate that the schism was a done deal.
But we’re not there yet. For what it’s worth, here are my thoughts, and this is essentially what I sent to the Executive Council as a response to the draft covenant:
There are a couple of truths to recognize here that will govern how we — any of us — can plan to move forward. The first is that, contra some arguments, neither the presenting matter of human sexuality nor the underlying issues of hermeneutics are adiaphora. If Communion requires “in essentials unity, in non-essentials diversity, in all things charity” then these are “essentials.” Or at the very least everyone thinks they are essentials, because clearly the two “sides” are both prepared to schism over them.
The second truth, and this is contra the entire thrust of the Windsor Report, is that there is not going to be agreement on these matters any time in the foreseeable future. The reappraisers are not going to be chastised into changing their minds, any more than the reasserters are going to be “listening proccess”-ed into changing theirs. The argument has been going on for some years now; everyone whose mind was going to be changed has already been changed.
Taken together, these two statements mean that if Communion does require unity in essentials, then there is no Communion; these are essentials, and there is not nor will be unity.
Which, as I see it, leaves us with two alternatives: either we can resign ourselves to schism… or we can try to find a way of being, maybe not a Communion but a “something” that does not require unity in essentials. Something that even allows for vehement disagreement on essentials.
If I may be excused a metaphor, we’re heading down the path of being siblings who have had a blazing fight and aren’t speaking to each other any more — who don’t come to the same family gatherings, who don’t send letters, who maintain a stony silence when they find themselves in the same room. But, whether they like it or not, and whether they ever speak to each other again or carry the grudge to the grave, they’re still blood of each other’s blood; there’s a bond that can’t be completely severed no matter how much they might wish it.
The Anglican churches have a shared heritage in descent from the Church of England and a common tradition of liturgy. That is our ecclesial “blood”; we are related, whether we like it or not, whether we partake at table together or not, whether we speak to each other or not. That’s reason enough to try to find a way to be in some kind of relationship with each other.
What kind of relationship might it be, this not-a-Communion? Not an easy one, obviously, since we disagree so strenuously on so many matters. It would be bound to be rocky, since neither side could in good conscience refrain from working against the other in some respects. Perhaps the best way to conceive it would be to think of the other as our “Beloved Enemy” — whose works we struggle mightily to undo, but whom we love because we know they are doing right as they understand it.
Then again, perhaps it’s a pipe dream and such a turbulent relationship could never last without that unity in essentials. I’ll admit that I think that schism is the more likely scenario, by far.
But I will note that the Network has managed to hang together despite a fundamental disagreement over ordaining women — and I doubt you’d find many in the Network who considered that inessential. You can argue that they haven’t proven they can hang together in the long term, or that they couldn’t do it in the absence of a common enemy, and that may be true. Still, odd as it may sound coming from a reappraiser, in this sense I find the Network encouraging.
In the meantime, no matter what happens it’s going to be a bumpy ride.
“Something that even allows for vehement disagreement on essentials.” I would such a relationship would be extremely spiritually unhealthy and is not desirable. The current hierarchy of the TEc has shown themselves to be sick, a sickness unto death. They have turned from tradition and scripture. People argue the later, but the ABC himself, the epitome of a fence sitter made the euphemism that, “It’s impossible to get from Scripture anything straightforwardly positive about same-sex relationships.” (From someone who knowingly ordained a non-celibate homosexual as priest and who certainly knows the scripture.) Such a church has no foundation except we “should be nice”, send money to the MDGs, and invite everyone to the open communion. The irony of this radical inclusiveness is that no one will want to come. Bonhoeffer talks about giving away the sacred to those who don’t ask for it and who will disdain the offer. Such a church will die and cause great spiritual harm to those who are bound to it. The “communion without agreement on essentials” you talk about is an oxymoron, anyway. I don’t think the anyone, including the ABC himself is arguing for that.
It think one thing the ABC has done with his invitations is cheapen the value of being in communion with him. I am no longer sure that I even want to be in the AC. His studied failure to really stand up for orthodoxy and his ability to talk out of both sides of his mouth makes me think he represents TEC on a grand scale. And if so I want nothing to do with it.
RE: “Which, as I see it, leaves us with two alternatives: either we can resign ourselves to schism… or we can try to find a way of being, maybe not a Communion but a “something†that does not require unity in essentials. Something that even allows for vehement disagreement on essentials.”
I appreciate your reasoned attempt at articulating the problem and looking clearly at the solutions. Reappraisers, I think, would be happy with an entity that doesn’t agree on essentials. Reasserters won’t be going there. If I thought there were such an entity, I’d leave it and establish an entity where we can agree on essentials.
And I have to wonder what such an entity [being together without agreeing on essentials] is worth, too. I mean, I can go to the Rotary Club and be with all sorts and conditions of men without “agreeing on essentials”. And I live in America, where all us citizens do not agree on essentials in one sense, but in theory have agreed on the essentials as articulated by our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
So again . . . the moment that an entity exists where “we don’t have to agree on essentials” . . . is the moment that all the reasserters shrug their shoulders and start a new entity.
RE: “If I may be excused a metaphor, we’re heading down the path of being siblings who have had a blazing fight and aren’t speaking to each other any more—who don’t come to the same family gatherings, who don’t send letters, who maintain a stony silence when they find themselves in the same room. But, whether they like it or not, and whether they ever speak to each other again or carry the grudge to the grave, they’re still blood of each other’s blood; there’s a bond that can’t be completely severed no matter how much they might wish it.”
I don’t think any bond between any human being is ever completely severed. Some brothers, for instance, do illegal things and end up in prison. But the bond is not severed.
Some mothers abuse their children. But the bond is not severed.
Some aunts are absolutely crazy and paranoid and reclusive. But the bond is not severed.
Nevertheless, in all those instances, boundaries are raised between the two family members. That’s what I think is going to happen. There will be different entities, holding the combatting parties. And the bond will not be severed, but greatly greatly loosened.
On my part, I’d be happy to go to coffee and lunch and hiking and tennis with any reappraiser, and do multi-religions social volunteering and activities in the community together, as long as we both can be civil and talk about mutually interesting things. But I wouldn’t have any interest in doing anything specifically religious with them. I’d sooner hang out with Baptists, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics, in regards the religious activities department.
In fact, I think if there do end up being two entities, ecumenical efforts with the above named denominations would end up being far more fruitful, but basically pointless between the two Anglicanish entities. There’s just not enough in common in regards the gospel to be ecumenical.
#2 RobRoy: Are you sure? It looks to me like the reappraiser bishops of TEC are prepared to take the Church off on its own course and form an “Episcopal Communion,” and with its presence in 14 overseas jurisdictions, it’s a possibility.
Looking for “When did it start?” Ordination of women isn’t the starting point, IMHO.
It goes back to the 1930s when TEC was the first Christian Church to accept contraception, which goes back to infiltration of universities and seminaries by secular liberals during the 1700s and 1800s, which goes back to rebellion against the Church in the Protestant Reformation, which goes back to the Church’s corruption by worldly values, which goes back to Israel’s rejection of Christ, which goes back to Israel/Judah’s rebellion against worship of God alone, which goes back to Israel’s complaints against God at Meribah, which goes back to Eve/Adam’s rebellion against God’s command, which goes back to Lucifer’s rebellion against God, which goes back to…..
Point is, the brothers can fight, but reconciliation/unity will only occur when both accept God’s word as it is given to them and not as they would like for it to be. There really isn’t any other way no matter how much we struggle to find one. Read The Revelation.
Doom-saying must be much more fun than waiting to see. How odd ^_^!!!!!
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
#9
I’m sorry to see you think these are ‘essentials’ (or as good as).
#12
Sarah, I think you’re deceiving yourself. Among Presbyterians and RCs certainly and I’m pretty sure among Baptists there are exactly the same divisions over these matters as there are within Anglicanism. There is no ‘pure’ church here. One distinction that I suppose you can try to maintain is between those whose official theology is mucky/fragmented (TEC, Anglicanism in general) and those who trumpet a clear theology (RCatholicism). But that ‘clarity’ is greatly undermined by the huge gulfs between it and general practice and belief within the denomination.
#15 John Scholasticus:
It’s possible to debate whether they ought to be essentials. But clearly everyone is treating them as essentials, in the sense that nobody is willing to say, “OK, it’s not that important, we’ll defer to you since you feel so strongly about it.” So, like it or not, they may as well be essentials; and pretending that they can be treated otherwise isn’t going to get us very far at this point.
#16
Don’t really agree. I think this is a fight that should still be fought. Perhaps it’s gone – I don’t know. What I do know is that the alternative, however ‘realistic’, is worse.
Best.
If we don’t have a pretty good agreement on essentials like authority of scripture and what is sin, plus Trinity, virgin birth, and some others, then we aren’t members of the same church.
People who don’t agree with essentials should be instructed if they are open to instruction, and expelled if not.
Oddly, that appears to be the philosophy adopted by TEC recently. Earlier they preached inclusivity and tolerance, but now they seem to be concluding that the orthodox heretics will never be convinced, so they must be expelled (without the properties they paid for).
For some reason, Jesus taught that we must be prepared to abandon the things of earth in order to focus on the things of heaven.
#18 dpeirce wrote:
Alternatively, you might want to remain open to the possibility that those people who “don’t agree with essentials” might turn out to be right. Stranger things have been known to happen.
For instance?