The Los Angeles Times article is here, and it includes this:
During a teleconference, [Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts] Schori said the panel’s action was “neither go back to the drawing board nor a complete rejection,” suggesting that the “conversation” could continue at the U.S. bishops meeting in September in New Orleans.
But the Rev. Kendall S. Harmon, editor of the Anglican Digest and Canon Theologian of the Diocese of South Carolina, disagreed.
“It’s a clear rejection of any sense of commitment to the Communion and any attempt to engage seriously with the request of the primates,” Harmon said. “They are not interested in any aspects of what the primates have requested. That’s all autonomy and no communion. It’s certainly making a very bad situation worse.”
Read the whole article, and also read the Reuters article there.
“Presiding bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said on Thursday that the matter will be discussed again then and “the bishops will do what they will do.””
I know I’m not spelling this right – now we get Doris Day – Qua sae ra, sae ra – whatever will be will be, It’s not ours to say, qua sae ra, sae ra…………….
Every message from the last two weeks from TEc cries out “We are choosing to walk apart”, even as they ‘claim’ to want a relationship as part of the Anglican Communion. I don’t know how the ABoC and the other Primates can miss this message. The only way it could be clearer is if the House of Bishops made a video of the reappraising bishops giving the ‘middle fingered salute* with accompanying raspberry sound’ to the Anglican Communion.
(*translates to ‘two fingered’ in British terms)
I have a question. If 815 and the dioceses are claiming ownership of all the real property on the basis of TEC being a heirarchy church than if TEC walks apart are they not breaking the chain of the heirarchy? They claim the right in their authority over the churches but don’t they have a responsibility to the chain above them? You can’t have it both ways. Oh I forgot, these are liberals finagling!
TEC leadership has been given a clear message:
Convert to Christianity or cease to exist in the Anglican Communion.
Shakespeare describes these heretical bishops best:
…a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing…
Yep, the bishops will “do what they will do,” alright! They’ll continue to turn their backs on 2000 years of Church teaching and let a small perverted group of abject sinners run the Church into the ground…..and the rest of the Communion be damned.
When have you seen anything quite so silly? How long have we been listening to “We devoutly wish to be a part of the Anglican Communion and we won’t do anything except what we feel like, but we won’t actually speak honestly, make a decision to leave, but will continue to waffle, back and fill.” And the rest of us stew and complain but no one in the TAC has the power or the will to do anything. So we waffle, back and fill and no one does anything but everyone listens. There is a kind of paralysis here that makes polio look like the common cold. Why? Why? Think of the months that this blog has spent reporting the same words and the commentators making the same rebuttals, but everyone is helpless. Such hand-wringing! A some point, careful consideration and judicious review become cowardice. LM
jane4re, part of the problem is that the Episcopal Church does not recognize the primates as having any authority to establish deadlines or tell other provinces what to do. Therefore, there is no hierarchy to break if none is established. The primates are obtaining their authority only from those who are willing to give it to them. Thus I don’t think, and have never thought, that the primary question is, “How are the primates going to respond to their demand?” I think instead the primary question is, “Do the primates have the right to demand anything?” Only when that question is answered can you seek answers to the questions that follow.
Thus I don’t think, and have never thought, that the primary question is, “How are the primates going to respond to TEC’s response to their demand?â€
Actually Smuggs, TEC does not recognize anyone or anything as having the power to tell it what to do. It is silly for them to want to be a part of a communion which they hold in such utter contempt.
Shakespeare wrote centuries ago in “A Midsummer-Night’s Dream,” “Lord, what fools these mortals be!”
Pretty well sums up the bunch who say they run the TEC, doesn’t it?
Dee, it’s “Que será, será.” It’s Spanish. Que = what. Ser = to be. será = will be (third person singular simple future). See here for more information than you really need.
Infopro, TEC violates it’s own polity all the time when it wants to. Women’s Ordination and the practice of open communion in violation of Canon I 17 Sec. 8. If TEC wanted to they could find a way to do as the Primates have asked. They always find a way to do what they truly want to do. But your posts indicate that you are going to defend TEC regardless.
Fine, the Primates will set up a de facto provence under their own provences as they are now doing and there is in fact nothing you can do about it.
“Do the primates have the right to demand anything?â€
I think that this is the dumbest question I have ever heard. They serve under Jesus Christ in the ministry of authority and governance of the Church.
And we need to ask, “Do the primates have the right to demand anything?â€
Bizarre.
Well, it appears that the “polity” of the Anglican Communion is changing. Should “polity” be fixed in stone? This new “polity” would be one where the “confederation” is stronger and we choose to humble ourselves or walk apart. TEC seems to be making its choice.
Come now, DonGander. The pope and Catholic and Methodist Bishops, along with several other heads of denominations with structures also serve under Jesus Christ in the ministry of authority and governance of their “c”hurch(es) (I use small “c” while you used capital “C”) but they do not have the authority to demand anything from me, my congregation, my diocese, the National Church or any province in the Anglican Communion. The primates do not have power under Anglican polity to demand anything. Their group was not set up as such and has only transformed into such a pseudo papal group by their own assumption of power fueled by those who are willing to acede to them. It’s not a dumb question at all, especially since it’s a point being debated at the highest levels of our own church. On the other hand, to claim that Jesus Christ gives them the authority to imose a deadline when, in fact, Jesus has not, that’s a real stretch.
In my opinion, the only reasons that The Episcopal Church insists that they will continue to be a part of the Anglican Communion are this: They have always been a part of the Communion, and they think that because they give so much funding, they should continue to be a part of us, and it is simply incomprehensible that they shouldn’t be a part of us! In other words, “How DARE you tell us that we can’t! We helped found the Communion!”
infopro and Smuggs,
If you want to proclaim yourself a catholic and apostolic church you should be prepared to submit to the institutional conservatism of orthodoxy: unanimity in the essentials. And if there is disagreement over what is, in fact, essential, then the default is that unless your answer produces unity, as with the issue of slavery, for example, then the duty of the US province is to abide by the larger Communion. Of course, TEC can believe whatever doctrine it wants, up to and including unitarian universalism, but it can hardly demand that other Provinces validate what they consider false doctrine.
Infopro, you do not help yourself by incorrectly summarizing those you disagree with. It is a request–as my quote makes clear. All a real Christian community has in the end is a trust in the Lord and one another and a willingness to submit one to another.
What is revealed in your caricature of it as a demand is how much it chafes against what you want. But there we are–TEC needs to choose.
Infopro:
TEC has fastened its hopes on hijacking the Virginia parishes on being a hierarchical church. It’s the only thing in Virginian law that trumps (slightly) the neutral principles of law that will hold for the break away parishes. They have the titles, they paid for the stuff, they have maintained the places. Neutral principles say that’s enough, you own the buildings. HOWEVER if TEC can get some traction on the hierarchical thing they have a chance to escape with the goods. If you claim your hierarchy as the North American Province of the Anglican Communion, that might do it. Conversley, if the overwhelming majority of the Anglicans say you’re out , and or +++ABC disinvites you to Lambeth, bye bye hierarchical arguement. Comprend ? It doesn’t make much difference to me. I would prefer church in an old shoe store than a revisionist TEC Cathedral. Still, I like messing with the TECeretics about the property. Makes them crazy.
It is interesting how TEC is treating membership in the AC as a right and an entitlement. As such it accurately reflects contemporary American and Western culture. If they want to do their own thing, without any comments from the rest of the AC, it should simply leave. No one is forcing TEC to stay in the AC.
One thing, my friends: If Mrs Schori says the “conversation” is continuing within TEC, there’s still the faint chance that they will decide to bend at least a little. A lot of what they are saying now is to establish a bargaining condition with “facts on the ground”, and to keep up morale. Morale is very important to them as they have little else to back themselves. Also, curiously, continued membership in the Communion seems important to them.
The Primates, though, haven’t done that much talking. But their actions concerning Mr Atwood “speak” fairly firmly. In the end, what they do or don’t do will be decisive, even if they have no “authority” over TEC. They, more than any other instrument, are the Communion if they choose to assert themselves. I believe TEC is highly conscious of that. We’ll see. It’s still a very fluid situation; Sept 30 will clear at least part of the fog.
Another thing: I must assume the Holy Spirit would like for TEC to be redeemed *if possible*, consistent with protection of the faithful from heresy. That puts a large responsibility on the orthodox to not write TEC off.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Reactionary, I think you miss my point when I say that the primary question, at this juncture, is whether the primates have the authority to make demands on other provinces or submit deadlines.
Say the President of the United States issued a proclamation that, by virtue of his office and through is interpreation of Scripture, he has the authority to pass a law outlawing all abortion. Although many would cheer, others, especially in the legislature, would say that he does not have this authority to pass such a law because that is beyond his scope. Even those of the legislature and public who AGREE with his views on abortion would oppose such a move on his part because, again, he does not have such authority.
Likewise, the primates have issued what many perceive to be a demand accompanied by a deadline. And although many of us may agree with what they are asking for, we question whether they have the authority, under our current structures, to do so. And I, like many, don’t believe they do.
So I maintain that we are operating under what poster BillS said when we discussed this issue earlier this week. He is the first poster to say that “we are doing a new thing.” So let’s say that “we are doing a new thing”, let us pass in the Anglican Communion whatever needs to be passed by vote to give the primates the authority that they are claiming {such as the Anglican Covenant}, and be done with it. If TEC is outvoted, so be it.
But as it stands now, the primates are claiming something that is not theirs. So change it, be upfront about it, be inclusive about it {insofar as let all the provinces weigh in on it} and be done with it.
Smuggs: In “actuality” the authority is inherant in who they are… *IF* they choose to use it. It isn’t a constitutional thing like the President’s powers, it’s an ecclesial thing (Bishops have power) and a practical thing (+++AbC can’t withstand a determined majority of Primates for very long.
There are two “real” questions: 1) Do the GS primates have a majority?, and 2) Do they have the stomach for the nasty fight TEC will make of it?
If yes and yes, the Anglican Communion is already a much different thing than it was a few years ago. Whether that’s good or bad is another question, IMHO.
dpeirce, I don’t agree. Bishops, I agree, have power but each bishop’s powers are defined by their position and, ecclesiastically speaking, a bishop is a bishop is a bishop. A suffragan bishop does not outrank a diocesan but a diocesan can tell a suffragan what to do based on his or her power that has been granted to them by the body.
The primates have not been given ecclesial power by any body to exercise power over that body. Being primates is of no matter since, according to their history, they were not orginially set up to act in the manner that they are currently acting. It would therefore only matter if the primates had a majority IF they had the conferred POWER to enforce their majority decisions over the body which conferred power to them in the first place.
Nevertheless, if the Primates assert that power under majority vote, they will have that power. Practical if not legal.
See, what you say depends on whether people agree to apply it the way you do. It’s “common understandingâ€. Common understanding can change quickly and unpredictably, no? So, if the GS have a majority, and the will to fight it out, then they will have the authority. The +++AbC and TEC and others might pull out, but they would be the rump. If GS loses, or doesn’t have stomach for the fight, then they will be the rump. Either way, the Communion will be asserting the authority of whichever Primates remain.
That’s why I say it’s already changed. Look at how TEC have changed their “polity†against plainly-written instruments, such as your 39 Articles. And of course, TEC will argue your idea mightily. But even written covenants can’t stand for long against determined majorities.
The only way I see your theory happening is if the GS folds and doesn’t assert itself.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
But majority vote by whom? If the majority of all provinces in the Anglican Communion give them the power, they have the power. If the majority of primates in a room in Tanzania decide to give themselves the power, they do not have the power. It’s the common understanding that we’re seeking. Right now, the GS is acting as if they have already been given the power and that it’s going to be recognized across the AC. But they have nothing to back it up as there is no common understanding. There may be a common understanding amongst the primates but they cannot assume what has not been given. I don’t think that the TEC would give them the power. But they could be outvoted and thus majority would rule and a LEGAL new thing would have been established unlike a lot of things that TEC has done that have NOT been legal. This way, we stay above board, take the high road, insert metaphor of choice here!
“Right now, the GS is acting as if they have already been given the power and that it’s going to be recognized across the AC”.
As I see it, right now the GS are *preparing* to assert their power by seeking a majority vote of Primates on TEC’s response to the Communique. Weren’t nearly all Primates represented at Dar es Salaam? They agreed by majority vote, including even Mrs Schori and +++Rowan who must both have been grinding their teeth, to a demand and deadline on TEC. Regardless of TEC’s “polity”, come Sept 30 there is going to be an expectation for a response which TEC will ignore at peril to their Communion status. That already is a significant assertion of Primatial power, but isn’t complete yet. Completion will occur some time after Sept 30.
But, as you say, it can’t happen without a majority vote of all or at least nearly all the Primates (and, probably, a heckuva fight).
And, what TEC has done so far has been done, I thought anyway, by majority votes in their Conventions and other meetings, and therefore is “legal” within TEC. Is that wrong?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
I think we are digging so deeply into “power†that we overlook the obvious. What the Primates know is that they only have the power to withhold their own province’s recognition of the TEC. The only instrument that barely defines power in the AC is the Lambeth Conferance. I don’t believe a single one of them believes this is a power grab on their part.
What is important to them is how many other primates will agree and refuse to be in communion with the TEC. If for instance 50% of the Primates say they will remain in communion with the TEC and 50% say they won’t, you have a stalemate and things will remain uncomfortably about the same. However, if 80% of the Primates refuse to be in communion with the TEC and 20% say they will, then for a practical matter the Global South and whoever else agrees with them will, by default, become the Anglican Communion despite the anguish of the 20%.
From the Robinson catastrophe until now, many Primates have already broken communion with the TEC. The meeting at Dar was really a counting of the sheep and the goats. The Primates’ power that so many here keep talking about as a grab, is not that at all. The Primates now know which primates believe as they do and which don’t. Knowing that, their only power is to say that the AC is split deeply and the ones with the TEC are fewer than the ones who believe the TEC is apostate and the majority will not remain in communion with them.
Make any sense?
DH: Exactly!
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Ah, but herein lies the crux of the problem and why I believe that the Anglican Communion has placed the cart before the horse. Where did the primates get their authority to issue such a communique to the Episcopal Church? Where did they get their power to impose a deadline? I’m not talking about justifying what they’re asking or about justifying what TEC is doing, what I’m addressing is at the heart of this deadline issue. Have they been given authority by the provinces of the Anglican Communion the power to practice oversight of provinces? And the truth of the matter is that they have not. So they should have gone with the Anglican Covenant first, demands and deadlines second. Yes, it’s longer but it leaves no room for doubt.
If the primates do not and did not have the power or the authority to issue a demand, it stands to reason that they do not and did not have the power or the authority to set a deadline. This in and of itself renders September 30th as a nothing kind of date. It’s irrelevant! It’s a date that the primates came up with without having the authority or power to come up with it and thus it won’t be recognized by TEC or by some of the provinces who agree with its behavior. Things will carry on as normal.
Again, an assertion or primatial power based on what? Nothing that has been confirmed upon them, only upon that which they have assumed. You may justify the necessity of their assuming it but it is only a justification based on a person’s opinion. They MUST have the accession of the masses if they are going to oversee the masses.
At present, to the best of my knowledge, that which unites us in the Anglican Communion is our relationship with the ABC and his recognition of us. The fact that he sent out the invitations to Lambeth says a great deal about who is in and who is out and that has many, especially Matt Kennedy from Stand Firm, questionable about a future of Anglicanism that has the ABC as its focal point. I therefore don’t understand how it’s possible for one province to say that they are not in communion with another province any more then it’s possible for a sister to say that they don’t recognize their brother. This is a rather secondary point but it was one that was deftly ignored when Minns was consecrated a bishop by Nigeria. Nigeria’s polity says that they cannot elect a person a bishop who comes from a province not recognized by Nigeria. Nigeria doesn’t recognize TEC and yet elected Minns. So what’s that about? There are Episcopal parishes still helping Anglican parishes in Nigeria. So what’s that all about? In short, I’m convinced that the only reason that Nigeria and Uganda and whoever else says that they out of communion with TEC is because it’s the only way they feel they can share with their people that they disagree with us. But in reality, saying that they are not in communion with us, under our current structure, is a meaningless statement.
So, draft the covenant, get the bodies of each province to say yea or nay, and then expell or include or be in communion with or not be in communion with anyone you like.
“Have they been given authority by the provinces of the Anglican Communion the power to practice oversight of provinces? ”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t the Primates each control a province? So, aren’t THEY the locus of provincial authority?
An interesting argument: The Primates had no authority to issue a demand and deadline on TEC.
But they did.
And it’s pretty well assumed that TEC will have to give some sort of response to this unauthorized demand by the unauthorized deadline, otherwise their failure will have unauthorized and unspecified effects on their Communion status (I don’t remember exactly how the Communique said it, but that’s close).
But the Primates issued the demand anyway. Even though they don’t have the authority. And Mrs Schori and +++Rowan both signed it. Even though both opposed it and the Primates didn’t have the authority in the first place.
Hmmnnn….
Well, maybe the Primates will fold. That will put a halt to all this unauthorized stuff. But if they don’t fold, then they probably will try to do something unauthorized to TEC if they can get a majority vote. And then they will apply that unauthorized penalty to TEC and require unauthorized actions by TEC to get back in good graces.
No, better that the Primates simply fold.
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
There is a big degree of difference between what “controls” are or what “controls” mean from province to province. The presiding bishop of TEC does not control TEC the same way that Akinola does. In TEC’s case, it seems, the locus of provincial authority rests with General Convention and it, and only it, can speak for TEC. Not so in Nigeria and elsewhere.
Yes, and the response that they have given is that they question the primate’s authority. And who changes the status of their being recognized as Anglicans? Under the current structure, the answer would be the ABC. Who sent out the invitations to Lambeth BEFORE September 30th? The ABC. So the others can say that they’re in communion with or not in communion with TEC, they can put pressure on the ABC to disinvite or never invite TEC bishops to Lambeth again, but they cannot say that TEC is no longer Anglican. Only the ABC can do that.
And, as has already been said in the past, no one signed the communique. Schori agreed to the draft, took it back, it did not pass muster with the provincial authority of TEC mostly because, as Executive Council says, the primates did not have the authority to ask.
By the way, I took my son to task today for screaming a demand at his sister. He did not have the authority to yell at her. He does not possess the power to tell her what to do. Yet he, like the primates, did it anyway. And his sister, like TEC, ignored him and he got sent to his room for time out, not his sister. Had he done things differently, in a different order, he would have been able to remain in the room and it would have been his sister who would have been taken to task.
This is not an unsolvable problem or dillema. Simply do things in the right order.
We’ll see! The Primates can’t force the TEC to turn away from the secular-humanist path they are following and that’s for sure. But they can refuse to be in communion with them. If a majority of the Primates refuse to be in communion with the TEC over matters of Faith, please tell me who is no longer in the communion, the GS et al or the TEC.
I think it would be a mighty lonesome communion with only the TEC, Canada, maybe Europe that is sponsored by the TEC, perhaps the CofE, and a few others.
“True” to statement number one “True, but what does that mean? That they will no longer attend any Anglican function that TEC is invited to? Or that they will no longer share communion with them at these functions?”
No fair, DH, that’s a trick question. Since a large part of what defines us as being in the Anglican Communion is being recognized by the ABC, the answer is, “All of the above.”
That’s true, too. There’s more than a few, but in my opinion, you’re very correct.
As Bizarre as the question: “Do the primates have the right to demand anything?†is, equally Bizarre, is the concept that TEC has the power and right to change Christianity but other bishops and archbishops from around the world have no authority or power to maintain the faith once delivered in this missionary endeavor called “North America”.
The Lord God has called and appointed them; they speak. It would be wise to listen to them.
I would suggest that as Moses had neither power nor authority in Egypt, so the archbishops who love us and want to protect us here also have no power nor authority.
Big deal.
Sometimes such little details just don’t matter. God is not impressed with our power and polity.
I still say the origional question is “Bizarre”.
DonGander
Smuggs, I wonder which way the ABC will go. Will he sacrifice the Anglican Communion on the altar of the TEC and Canada, or will he with urging from the Queen (I have read that she is adamant that the AC not blowup) and others try to hold the AC together. After all, many of the countries represented by a majority of the Prmates were recent (since WWII) former British Colonies and still have close ties to Britain and the Queen.
I believe the ABC will eventually see that the TEC and Canada are on an errrant path and secular and sacred interests will require him to accept that the TEC et al are apostate. From that point, who knows what will happen.
I know that many GS and Asian Prmates are appalled at the path the TEC and Canada are taking. They have Islam to overcome and can’t accede to the gross secular actions of the TEC, Canada, and a few others. They must stand firm in the faith.
I have lived in Muslim Countries in the Mid-East/ North Africa (Egypt) and South-East Asia. I understand ++Akinola’s and other Primate’s problems. If they go off the map with this “new” Christianity, they are asking for huge problems from Islam.
Their Faith is far more important to them than is ++KJS’s. The lives of Christians in their countries as well as their faith is at stake.
DonGander, that schematic works in the RC Church but not in the Anglican Communion. You can’t impose a system that never existed in the first place! And you can’t invent a system for the masses without the consent of the masses. Those are the little details that have to be worked out. So either get the covenant passed or have the ABC disavow TEC.
Personally, I don’t think God is easily, if ever, impressed. Frustrated, yes. Having second thoughts about that darned rainbow promise, perhaps. Impressed, no.
DH ~ I fully, fully agree and it is exactly that point which the vast number of people in our church do not understand or know about.
May Christ be with you in your worship tomorrow!
Smuggs thank you so very much! This is a rocky road for all of us and we need everybody’s prayers that whatever happens will be to the Glory of God!
Please also pray for my Christian friends in Africa, the Mid-East, and South East Asia. They are so vulnerable and need our prayers, now more than ever.
Smuggs, I wonder if you’d be willing to wait and see whether the Primates do anything?
In faith, Dave
Viva Texas
Dave, I don’t think any of us have a choice but to wait and see what the Primates are going to do! 🙂
What I would like to see them do is what I’ve been saying throughout this great conversation tonight: work on the Covenant. Get it started. Don’t let the questions of “authority” or “power” be questioned. Leave no doubt in anyone’s mind. Don’t get or act pompously but act deliberately. And if a new kind of communion has to be formed, with the ABC no longer at the helm, form a new communion and call it something else.
That’s what I like to see! Of course, I’d also like a pony…:)
I’m what is known as an 8:00’er so I’m signing off for the last time being thankful for this conversation tonight!
“You can’t impose a system that never existed in the first place!”
I believe that the problem has become that of most people today not having even a slight clue as to what the original system was.
The system of today does not resemble the system of even 100 years ago.
DonGander
“The system of today does not resemble the system of even 100 years ago. ”
At least not in North America.
DonGander
Thanks to everybody for this thread. Let all of us go to bed, get down on our knees, and pray that God’s Will be done.
Praise God for being here for us in these trying times…..when we call upon Him.
The primates weren’t meeting 100 years ago, or 50, or 40, or even 30. To paraphrase from Wikkopedia, ABC Donald Coggan established such a gathering in 1978 as an opportunity for “leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation†with the first meeting being held in 1979. That was the original system, Don.
“The primates weren’t meeting…. ”
You still don’t understand but the observation is useful.
Why didn’t they meet and what brought about their need to meet?
If there is a common orthodoxy, of what need is there to meeting? Note Mr. Harmon’s comment in post #22: “All a real Christian community has in the end is a trust in the Lord…. ” There are God-given authorities and there are man-given authorities and we are in danger if we both abuse the trust and look to vacuuous authority. I do not believe that God set up the idea of a “Pope” but that does not mean that God did not set up and delegate authority to men.
John Westley was not a pope nor even a bishop but it is my belief and observation that his authority came from God. His authority, as viewed by men, was that of a moral pursuasion.
Do not put your trust in the chariots of Egypt; do not fear TEC. Fear God and obey Him. Of such are the great Christians of history and of such stuff, in whatever quantity and quality God desires, would rest on me and upon all those who are acting in God’s authority, this morning in pulpits and congregations.
God help us all.
DonGander