(ACNS)
The Archbishop of Canterbury announced the formation of the Windsor Continuation Group (WCG), as proposed in his Advent Letter
The WCG will address outstanding questions arising from the Windsor Report and the various formal responses from provinces and instruments of the Anglican Communion.
The members of the group are:
The Most Revd Clive Handford, former Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East (chair)
The Most Revd John Chew, Primate of South East Asia
The Right Revd Gary Lillibridge, Bishop of West Texas
The Right Revd Victoria Matthews, former Bishop of Edmonton
The Very Revd John Moses, former dean of St Paul’s, London
The Most Revd Donald Mtetemela, Primate of Tanzania
They will be joined as a consultant by:
Dame Mary Tanner, Co-president of the World Council of Churches
and assisted by:
Canon Andrew Norman of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Staff and
Canon Gregory Cameron of the Anglican Communion Office
I’m skeptical.
Huzzah! Another committee! Nothing gets the church moving more than a committee. Especially one that has absolutely no power to do anything. Maybe we will all be invited to join in their process.
Too little.
Too late.
zzzzzzzzzzz…wha?…huh?…oh!…zzzzzzzzzzzz
The jokes just write themselves, don’t they?
I know Bishop Lillibridge a little bit and have hope for his witness to the committee. I also know that John Chew will be a voice for orthodoxy.
I’m prayerfully and optimistically guarded.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Good group. Lilliebridge, Chew, even Victoria Mathews in such company. For those who believe anglicanism must move in a GAFCON direction, I am unsure why it even matters. It is great to see Mtetemela’s name here as well. He is a very solid, prayerful man.
Windsor processing – endless talk while the AC crumbles.
As William Witt put it, “In other breaking news, Lucy van Pelt offered Charlie Brown a renewed opportunity to practice his place-kicking skills.”
FYI – the portion of the Advent letter that deals with this latest committee:
[blockquote]I also intend to convene a small group of primates and others, whose task will be, in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group, to work on the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth. This will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process; I suggest that it will also have to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies. Its responsibility will be to weigh current developments in the light of the clear recommendations of Windsor and of the subsequent statements from the ACC and the Primates’ Meeting; it will thus also be bound to consider the exact status of bishops ordained by one province for ministry in another. At the moment, the question of ‘who speaks for the Communion?’ is surrounded by much unclarity and urgently needs resolution; the people of the Communion need to be sure that they are not placed in unsustainable and damaging positions by any vagueness as to what the Communion as a whole believes and endorses, and so the issue of who represents the Communion cannot be evaded. The principles set out at the beginning of this letter will, I hope, assist in clarifying what needs to be said about this. Not everyone carrying the name of Anglican can claim to speak authentically for the identity we share as a global fellowship. I continue to hope that the discussion of the Covenant before, during and beyond Lambeth will give us a positive rallying-point.[/blockquote]
I’ve already been put through the wringer at SF for saying this, but I will repeat:
+Victoria Mathews is by far the most intelligent and serious bishop in Canada and will give a genuine and sincere effort.
I think I’ll prefer to trust the judgment of men like +Mtetemela and +John Chew, who have agreed to be on this committee. First rate anglican leaders. Senior figures, hugely respected in the GS context. Gary Lilliebridge has been a superb leader and represents the best of the next generation in Camp Allen bishop circles. Now we are seeing some strong and interesting picks, especially in the light of the next season. Obviously, this will not be of much interest to those who have declared anglicanism of the former day dead, or see +Rowan Williams as a toxic force full stop, contaminating everything he touches. It will be interesting to see how the next season raises up fresh leadership in the C of E to stand alongside these movements. Clearly +Durham is well situated and critical. +York is also massively important, and an English counterpart to separatist instincts in several regions in the GS.
Incidentally, I notice my colleague Radner has provided some useful information about Dame Tanner. She also sounds like a significant appointment, with RC ecumenical skills.
I would like to be optimistic here, but the way that the Windsor bp.s laid down in Louisiana makes me wonder what this committee will accomplish. Granted it is a wider group than the backboneless pecusa Windsor bp.s, but given what little has happened with Windsor standards, the ABC’s declaration of no timetable, and Cameron’s involvement all point for me to a group that can not break the defiant stance of pecusa nor move the Communion forward in a unified direction.
I have to agree with Dr. Seitz. This is a reasonably good group of folks. Though this will mean more to the Camp Allen/Windsor folks who have remained committed to TEC. It has been said of the American Revolution that a third of the colonists were Patriots, a third Tories, and a third didn’t care one way or the other. I think something similar is true of the orthodox. There are GAFCON FedCons, there are ACI ComCons, there are folks who really don’t care, and then there are reasonably conservative folk who hope that the Windsor set will come up with another option. This last holds a hope increasingly forlorn.
Alta Californian: What about folks who would like very much to believe what the ACI/CommCons believe, but who sadly believe that the FedCons are more realistic by far in their assessment of Rowan Williams?
That’s why their hope is forlorn, my friend.
The problem is they are as suspicious of FedCon motives and tactics as they are of TEC’s, but not nearly as optimistic as the ACI seems to perpetually be or as truly committed to TEC and the AC as ComCons are.
I admit, I lean the ComCons way, but you see, I’ve long described myself as a Pessimistic Optimist. I fundamentally believe that things can be good and can work out, but the way things are going right now it probably isn’t going to happen. At my core is the nut of optimism, surrounded by a chewy nougat of confused frustration, and covered in a chocolate coating of cheery resignation.
When Seitz loses hope you know it’s over. It’s not over, it’s just almost over.
[Yawn]
And when the report is finished and on ++Rowan’s desk…then what?
All well and good, but will there be a “WCG-2, WCG-3, WCG-4, WCG-5 . . . etc., etc.?”
Given the history of stalls, delays and deferred or no action that we seen coming from Canterbury, I fear that we are looking at an Church soap opera that could rival the longevity of “The Guiding Light.”
Whoa to all of us who must suffer under the evil perpetrated by these endless reiterations, all seemingly dancing around the very same core issues. Indeed, it would be rather sad to see an epitaph to the Anglican Communion which read, “Killed by Study Groups and Committees.”
I personally think this is the best group ever appointed in the past four years of committees, commissions, and working groups.
They might even come up with some great recommendations.
Unfortunately, as we learned with Dar, those recommendations — even if assigned to specific people to implement [ie, the appointment of the chair of the Pastoral Council] — will most likely not be implemented, especially if damaging to relationships with TEC or disapproved of by the House of Bishops of TEC.
[blockquote]Unfortunately, as we learned with Dar, those recommendations—even if assigned to specific people to implement [ie, the appointment of the chair of the Pastoral Council]—will most likely not be implemented, especially if damaging to relationships with TEC or disapproved of by the House of Bishops of TEC. [/blockquote]
Ding! In the meantime, the Continuation Group (and really, is there ever any other kind in the AC?) will have performed its true function of preventing a meaningful decision on TEC. Godot never arrives, amigos.
These individuals are variously described here as the “best” group, a “reasonable” group, “trustworthy”, “highly respected”…….
Fantastic.
So just what is the purpose now?
How will these creditable voices actually make any difference and not be silenced as normal by the ACO and +RW’s plants in their midst?
What authority do they have to [b][i] do [/b][/i]anything?
Dar was at the point of decision and action and the ABC pulled out the rug so that nothing was done. This will be no different. He could still continue that process and convene the Primates, but instead he starts something new. The ABC wants constant process without decision.
+Gary Lilliebridge–Camp Allen meeting; next generation
+Donald Mtetemela–Camp Allen meeting and Primate from GS
+John Chew–Covenant Design and Primate from GS
Radner has provided notes for Dame Tanner. +Victoria Mathews is now retired, is smart, and will be good at getting things done. Can anyone provide information on Moses and Handford? This committee has come out of the blue. That makes it interesting as a potential ‘Court’ in the days to come. This may be a missing piece that has been a neuralgic point right along.
I know that most here will just condemn the group and indicate it is too late, etc. But for others of us, this is an intriguing development and something to probe for greater details.
I don’t think anyone is condemning the committee members. I would question them on why they opted to participate on such a committee with such nebulous directives and questionable mandates. The Anglican Communion Network (a suggestion of Rowan Williams as well) diverted the attention of the orthodox for quite a time and culminated in the impressive performance in New Orleans. Keep the orthodox busy generating paper: Windsor, Dromantine, DeS, and now we can look forward to a WCG report. I wait with bated breath.
“Intriguing”?
Is that what we’re here for? To be intrigued?!
Sadly, the time for intrigue has long since past – if it was ever.
[b]There is a world that is perishing out there.[/b]
I don’t condemn the committee members or those who are intrigued.
I do feel sorry for both though and I fear they will both be severely disappointed. And I hope we don’t all look back in a few years time and wish we’d spent less time on the likes of intrigue and more time on what we are really here for.
Mr Nabbo–I apologise for the immoral remarks in the face of your commitments to saving the perishing. Lenten best wishes.
No. 22, they have the power to make recommendations which will go unheeded and write reports which will be ignored.
A new Article of Religion:
The Sheep are ignorant. Keep them moving.
#24
+Clive Handford in his former capacity as Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East received much attention when he announced he had not signed the letter critical of Rowan Williams circulated after the Global South meeting in Egypt. In September 2006, however, he did sign the Kigali Communiqué calling for a separate ecclesiastical structure in the US. He [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1245]explained[/url]:
Exactly:
28. No. 22, they have the power to make recommendations which will go unheeded and write reports which will be ignored.
We have seen what happens to any directives regarding discipline or repentance for pecusa – nothing. We have seen what walking apart actually means – nothing. So, why should we expect anything better to come from this committee’s actions?
Far be it from me to try to disabuse people of their chagrin and scepticism, bile and even contempt! One purpose, one might observe, that blogs serve is a handy way to vent one’s spleen.
It is to be noted that a conservative younger American Bishop is on this committee, as well as one of the brighter Canadian Bishops, now retired and able to do some work. This points to a context where the messes are.
It is also to be noted that several prominent conservative leaders are involved, +Tanzania and +SE Asia, the former of which is also to become a diocesan bishop and step down from being AB. Both have hard jobs and are not usually time wasters or dupes. (Though one might think so on the basis of what is being stated here).
I see Uganda has insisted that invitations to Lambeth be reviewed, failing which, they will not attend. ACI has been on record that this makes sense and has also said it is unclear that it will not happen. It has been easier to condemn +RDW, accuse him of undercutting everything, and finding a way to think everything is a bust and so alternatives are all there are (whatever they might be; this is unclear, e.g., as long term projects in anglicanism).
We also know that +RDW did not want wrongly to expand his office. This committee is not like other ones, due to the density of solid people, at a time of decision. One could hope that they might review invitations for those Bishops in Canada and the US who have so obviously condemned even the New Orleans type obfuscations, as obfuscations, and in the way of their progressive individual episcopal commitments to SSBs (‘friends of Gene’).
There is also the question of oversight/adjudication of any viable plan for conservatives in TEC who are clearly not going the way, either of Gafcon options, CCP; or TEC revisionism, viz., Dallas, W-TX (he’s on the Group as announced), Albany, CFL, TN, TX, ND, W-Louisiana, SC and so forth, leaving aside W-Kansas, SWFL, RI, Montana, Mississippi, Louisiana, and others who have kindred concerns.
One of the condemnations of false prophecy in the OT involves prophets of doom — presumably because it is easier to predict that things will go badly (the spectrum at the other end from Hananiah) than well. Israel knew that this kind of doom merchanting was a default. Obviously this Group could do nothing, RDW could do nothing, etc. But I have great respect for Chew, Mtetemela and Lilliebridge, in my experiences working with them.
Stating the obvious is a far cry from spleen venting.
I would also add, and I wonder if anybody else feels this way – I’m beyond tired of hearing about committee members’ impeccable “reasserter credentials,” love of the Gospel, blah, blah, blah.
I wish I could sit in a conference room discussing hypotheticals all day long and still pick up a paycheck in the 1st and 15th. Sweet gig if you can get it.