Particularly in a period of contestation about the role of the Presiding Bishop it is crucial to keep in mind the peculiar polity of TEC. Bishop Stanton of Dallas has been clearest about this in questioning the option of alternative Episcopal Oversight given that specific limitations already inhere in the office of Presiding Bishop. No metropolitan powers are attached to this office. More recently, in the Diocese of South Carolina we witnessed appropriate attention to the limits this Church has imposed, in the course of its history, on the role of the Presiding Bishop. The Diocese of South Carolina did so, in other words, not as an act of revenge nor in a position of questionable advocacy, but in full compliance with the Canons of TEC.
I would request please that the comments remain focused on the content of the “plan” and its evaluation rather than on Dr. Seitz or the ACI or any of the Bishops involved as people.
Thank you.
On what basis or evidence does Dr. Seitz claim that “Those parishes which wish to leave and pursue other forms of alignment have in great measure already chosen that path”?
I see no way of knowing this. There are several parishes in a variety of dioceses that I am aware of that remain because of fear or they remain because they are hoping the Communion as a whole will develop a solution.
Reading Dr. Seitz’s comments alongside Bishop Howe’s communication, it seems like the question his been reversed. That is, this discussion isn’t about how to remove a ‘disobedient’ TEC, but about how to assure active membership for those who show clear assent to AC norms regardless of what their Provinces do. In other words, it’s about keeping in, rather than kicking out. An interesting switch.
This is not complicated. There is only one thing that would save the Communion – rescinding of the invitations of the consecrators of Gene Robinson.
Instead this “plan” mitigates pressure on ABC to do this.
First the revised covenant, now this plan. I can’t imagine the revisionistas could be more pleased. They both distract and further divide the orthodox. This raises an insurmountable barrier between the fed-cons and the comm-cons. What we see is a clear progression to the point of view that the most egregious sin is now “border crossing.” The ordination of Gene Robinson takes a secondary role to be totally swept under the rug at a future date. It [url=http://www.collegeforbishops.org/media/images/KJS%20Crop.jpg ]appears that KJS has won[/url].
P.S. They can’t even come up with an original name.
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
This cuts both ways:
I might just as well argue this means we should stop bending over backward to cut her in on action to which she’s not entitled – not to mention which she’s morally forfeited by false teaching and leveling strike suits against our Christian brothers and sisters. If ACI really believes “[t]he basic unit of Anglicanism is the Diocese,” then it has willfully and recklessly sold out mainstream dioceses and parishes by giving Schori a say in their life she should otherwise not have – that is, if this “principle” is anything more than a bromide.
This nostrum is nothing more than a bid to stave off the loss of congregations (= their money) that see clearly what GCC is and where it’s going.
Dr. Seitz – Am I misreading your description to understand that this plan is essentially for TEC diocese only – it is not for parishes in revisionist diocese where the bishop has not allowed alternative oversight, whether the parishes have realigned with the global south or not. It does nothing, in other words, for CANA, AMiA or other Common Cause Partners. I take this from your remarks:
[blockquote]Parishes outside Partner Bishop Dioceses will only ever have been able to secure visitations, or sacramental actions demonstrating their life in Communion beyond TEC, by moral persuasion; building non-juridical links to the Partner Primates, supported by Canterbury, can only help with this.
Those parishes which wish to leave and pursue other forms of alignment have in great measure already chosen that path.
For those Dioceses which wish to abide by Camp Allen Principles, this Plan offers a way to model full and enthusiastic compliance with Communion life.[/blockquote]
A little clarification would be helpful.
RE: “– The Primates at Dar es Salaam recognized the Camp Allen Principles as sufficient to express compliance with the Communion”
That’s great. So what’s new there. I mean . . . there are dozens and dozens of dioceses that don’t adhere to “Camp Allen principles” who are still hunky dory in the Communion. So . . . not certain what the point is of this. Pretty much, whether adhering to “Camp Allen principles” or not, it’s all the same in so far as Communion recognition. The issues are — for those who will be leaving eventually at some point — 1) Anglican Communion discipline of itself and 2) being out of TEC or somehow differentiated enough from TEC that it’s the same thing.
RE: “The basic unit of Anglicanism is the Diocese”
Okay. But for those people who find it more important to no longer be within TEC, they’ll just be willing to no longer officially be in the “Anglican Communion.” As has been demonstrated rather starkly by the parishes in Central Florida and Virginia and California and elsewhere.
RE: “The Presiding Bishop of TEC has no metro-political powers”
Depends on how one defines “metro-political powers” — the detailed list of the PB’s powers found in Appendix A in the appeal for APO certainly reveals much about Schori’s powers. But maybe we’ve just defined “metro-political powers” in a special way that doesn’t include the powers listed in Appendix A of this document:
http://www.pgh.anglican.org/Conventions/appeal2006.pdf
But that statement of course begs the real issue which is that many people do not wish to belong to TEC. One can attempt to obscure and muddle and state “principles” about various [i]aspects[/i] of TEC. But the fact is — lots of people don’t wish to belong to TEC. As I’ve stated on various other threads, my bet is that most of those people — once they’ve realized that the Anglican Communion will not discipline itself or establish order and integrity — will depart for non-Anglican entities at some point. So . . . pretending as if having some sort of special relationship with five Global South primates doesn’t solve — yet again — the issue.
It’s a bit like Bishop Howe wondering why parishes wish to leave his diocese when he himself is so godly. But . . . the only way to leave TEC is perforce to leave his diocese. And many people wish to leave TEC.
RE: “Parishes outside Partner Bishop Dioceses will only ever have been able to secure visitations, or sacramental actions demonstrating their life in Communion beyond TEC, by moral persuasion”
True, the failed DEPO plan being exhibit A here.
RE: ” . . . building non-juridical links to the Partner Primates, supported by Canterbury, can only help with this . . . ”
Right — but one can actually build juridical links to certain Global South Primates by simply leaving TEC. Which accomplishes two things — leaving TEC, and getting to be within an Anglican Communion province.
RE: “Those parishes which wish to leave and pursue other forms of alignment have in great measure already chosen that path”
I think this is dead wrong. I think those parishes [i]within fairly safe, stable dioceses[/i] [South Carolina, Central Florida, Dallas, etc, etc] have “already chosen that path.” I think that merely many many individuals in those “safe, stable dioceses” — depending on how much the diocese manages to differentiate itself from TEC — will continue to bleed away, mostly to non-Anglican churches.
In non-safe, chaotic, and revisionist dioceses those parishes which “wish to leave and pursue other forms of alignment” have not at all ceased their departures. I’m thinking of some right now who are considering departure, and this “Communion Partners Plan” will not in any way incline such parishes towards “staying.”
The charming prospect of opening “negotiations” with crazed revisionist bishops about perhaps being in a nice group with DEPO bishops [most of whom are truly too confused in their theological beliefs to be acceptable to orthodox parishes — come on, Duncan Gray??? get real!] who have nice, more intimate connections with five great Global South primates is just too little benefit at too great cost.
In their minds, it’ll be better to just go ahead and get their wish: 1) get the dickens away from TEC and 2) be inside of one of five Global South provinces.
RE: “For those Dioceses which wish to abide by Camp Allen Principles, this Plan offers a way to model full and enthusiastic compliance with Communion life.”
Those diocese which wish to abide by Camp Allen Principles were already able to have “full and enthusiastic compiance with Communion life” anyway.
End result of the Communion Partners Plan [my predictions]:
1) Parishes in safe [temporarily], differentiated dioceses will continue to be in TEC, but with no influence from the Communion Partners Plan one way or the other. Some individuals will leave for non-Anglican entities.
2) Parishes in safe [temporarily], but NON-differentiated dioceses will continue to be in TEC, but with no influence from the Communion Partners Plan one way or the other. Many individuals will leave for non-Anglican entities.
3) Some parishes in non-safe dioceses will leave for alternate Anglican entities. Flocks of individuals will continue to leave for non-Anglican churches. No affect from the Communion Partners Plan either way.
4) Some parishes and individuals in non-safe dioceses will stay, working for reform and renewal within their diocese — no affect from the Communion Partners Plan either way.
5) A few desperate rectors in non-safe dioceses, in divided parishes [some individuals in those parishes longing to leave, others wanting to stay and reform] will grasp hold of the Communion Partners Plan as a way to act as if some sort of extra special connection to some Global South provinces will make things better or somehow more “communion compliant/connected” and as a way to hopefully obscure that — yep, the parish is still in TEC.
Result — a few parishes in those situations will be a part of the Communion Partners Plan — and the individuals who wished to depart TEC won’t be fooled by the facade and will leave TEC for non-Anglican churches.
6) The dozen or so [at the most] Communion Partner Dioceses that are engaged in a special relationship with five Global South Provinces will be okay from a diocesan point of view. I do agree that the parishes who were generally going to leave those particular dioceses [Central Florida, North Dakota, etc] have probably already left.
Net effect: I’m happy for those dioceses which are already safe [temporarily] and somewhat vaguely stable. This will be a nice way to fellowship with five godly Global South primates.
Hey pendennis, why would those in CANA or AMiA wish to be a part of something like the “Communion Partners Plan” when they have already 1) escaped from TEC and 2) become a part of an Anglican Communion province?
#8 Well, I don’t think they would want to be in TEC. I think they would like to be more clearly and directly part of the Anglican Communion, but most of all they would like to continue to exist and share the gospel. But I’m also now seeing that this Communion Partners Plan isn’t even directed at them.
This is one amazing development.
We have now moved from calling the American Episcopal Church to repentance and back to the norms and the fabric of our Anglican Communion (which the American church tore by her actions and position on human sexuality and the authority of the Scripture) to debating and devising how to let the American church continue with whatever it is doing now and in the future.
From the way this is going, it is no longer TEc that has a problem, but the faithful. Lord have mercy!
Amazing indeed!
I am shocked.
Fr. Kingsley
Arlington, TX
RE: “The early read is that this is yet another effort to organize those who do not want a woman Presiding Bishop exercising primatial oversight (whatever that is), particularly someone who supported the ordination of Bishop Robinson and a feminist, and, under the guise of the Episcopal Visitor program, to give them greater voice in the Anglican Communion.”
You know, Mark Harris might be right — reminds me of the read that people had on the group formerly known as the Camp Allen bishops.
I’m all for the attempt — just as I was just fine with the Camp Allen bishops trying to get together and have “a greater voice in the Anglican Communion” and have “an international forum for the promotion of the Anglican Covenant and the Windsor Process” . . .
But I’m not certain — given what happened to that group of Camp Allen bishops — that Mark Harris needs to be worried much.
And if it such a group as Harris surmises, then why make this about alternative oversight of any sort? Why not simply say “a number of bishops from the group formerly known as the Camp Allen bishops wanted to form a larger partnership with five Global South primates who are attempting to work within the Communion.”
As I said on another thread, I don’t see why either those who have departed TEC or those who are within dioceses which will have nothing to do with this group need to find this new group unsettling or disturbing. I’m sure that it will be helpful to those dioceses like Dallas and others.
Now I’m adding something — I don’t see why progressive Episcopal activists need to find this new group unsettling or disturbing either.
Mr Pen–your questions are the backdrop of some remarks appended to the original ACI piece. I also found the Mark Harris quote important to reproduce.
http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/
Ms Sarah–if alternative oversight implies an oversight that the PB has, that is then shifted to others, that misstates the polity of TEC. The PB presides at General Conventions and at HOB meetings. Her authority over individual dioceses is carefully circumscribed and this needs to be underscored, and concrete examples of other ways to be anglican communion bishops and parishes put on the ground. When the relationship to the Communion was assumed and rejoiced over, the need for making that explicit would have been redundant. Now it is not. +Stanton has always made this very clear. You may speak of alternative oversight and why this does or does not do this, but it is to the side. More than that is taken up in my remarks on ACI. Lenten blessings.
It’s hard to read this and not come to the conclusion that ACI considers orthodox Anglicanism in the US a lost cause that must be sacrificed for the sake of the unity of the communion. Orthodoxy is being [i]expunged[/i]. Unless a realistic structure is provided to give conservatives shelter – and that means a structure removed from the authority of TEC – there will be no orthodox Anglicanism in the US in ten years time. How does this proposal address that reality?
carl
Seitz,
If “the diocese is the primary unit of Anglicanism,” then Duncan & Schofield and their dioceses are on a good footing to re-align…yes?
Fr Gross, I suspect this is why +Southern Cone has pursued this with San Joaquin, but my memory of the remarks of +Gregory is that he has reiterated ’emergency’ and ‘temporary’ in respect of this. I doubt, in the light of these comments from him, that +Gregory is any proponent of dioceses typically being formed to provinces outside of their local region. For obvious reasons: it would lead to a destruction of the Anglican Communion. But you can ask him directly. I suspect his view on this, and that of +Akinola, may well be different, even as they rightly see a problem to be confronted, just as others do. As for +Duncan, at present I only know what I read, and I am unclear what will happen with Pittsburgh as a diocese. Others will know far better than I do. I believe I made it clear that dioceses inside TEC which are opposed to Womens Ordination needed the PEV type arrangement one has in the C of E, minimally. The consequence of not having this has led to a further TEC oddity: geographical hostage in respect of women’s ordination. But I am repeating myself and apologise. Enough of all this for now. Lenten blessings.
I assume that I’m missing some nuance, but how does this square with what the PB is doing in San Joaquin??? How many ecclesiastical authorities are there today, and how many of them have been appointed by the Primate?
From my perspective, and perhaps I’m overly dramatic, but it seems like the “peculiar polity” of TEC is in systemic failure and is therefore no basis upon which to build any solution. We can continue applying analgeisc to the symptoms, but what does this do to cure the malaise? Buy time? How long? Until what?
Speaking of the “Camp Allen” bishops who met several times with much fanfare- when is their next meeting and what is on the agenda?
[i] Slightly edited by elf. [/i]
Seitz,
I wasn’t asking you to speculate. You affirmed that the diocese is the fundamental unit of Anglicanism and that within TEC’s ‘peculiar polity’ the PB doesn’t have ‘metro-political powers.’ Each of these statements bolsters your conclusion that, orthodox diocese don’t need orthodox oversight (because they are independent units immune from persecution by the PB).
Of course if it is true that the diocese is the fundamental unit of Anglicanism then this has ramifications that extend beyond merely your immediate conclusions.
As for ‘metro-political powers,’ we know that even without ‘metro-political powers’ the PB is quite capable of making life difficult for a diocese, so the definition of ‘metro-political powers’ is really not all that important.
On a different note, you said, “CANA, AMiA et al …want not to be TEC-AC, and work for the Communion processes which could expose the unwillingness of liberals in TEC to be communion compliant, but have concocted other schemes…”
Three things:
1) Of course they don’t want to be a part of TEC, but of course they do want to be a part of the Anglican Communion. If they didn’t want to be a part of the Communion they wouldn’t have bothered coming under the oversight of Nigeria, Kenya, etc.
2) Is it still unclear that TEC isn’t interested in being communion compliant? Do we need yet more evidence?
3) Why is your group’s attempts to order the communion life entirely legitimate, while the attempts of Nigeria, Southern Cone, etc. are ‘concocted schemes?’
RE: “When the relationship to the Communion was assumed and rejoiced over, the need for making that explicit would have been redundant. Now it is not.”
Again — I don’t see that at all. I myself “assume” and “rejoice over” the relationship that all parishes in TEC have with the Anglican Communion. Where is this in doubt? It is not at all in doubt. Revisionist dioceses, traditional dioceses all have no doubt whatsoever that they are in relationship wtih the Anglican Communion. Indeed, that’s a part of the problem. Once parishes realized that there was no hope of Communion discipline, it was yet another mass exit for the door. Had Rowan done as he promised in Dar, things might have been different. But sadly, that did not happen.
RE: ” . . . if alternative oversight implies an oversight that the PB has, that is then shifted to others, that misstates the polity of TEC. The PB presides at General Conventions and at HOB meetings.”
Alternative oversight implies being as little connected to TEC as possible and not being constrained by crazed bishops not allowing parishes to call orthodox clergy, not being constrained by crazed bishops inhibiting and deposing clergy, and on and on and on. APO is a desire to be AWAY from the national hierarchy of TEC, which no matter how much one spins is draconian and fascist as evidence most recently by San Joaquin and the national hierarchy’s shameful, non-canonical “non-recognition” of the Standing Committee of that diocese.
Finally, there seems to be some confusion as to the powers of the PB. They are clearly stated in the canons and listed in the appeal for APO, copiously referenced. They are far far far more than presiding over General Conventions and HOB meetings. And beyond that, of course, being out from under the Primate of the communion is actually a detail of being out from under the hierarchical authority of TEC, which is the whole point. Ie, it’s why Fort Worth is departing TEC entirely — because nothing could be offered that would allow this.
Since there seems to be some confusion as to what the PB is responsible for let me go ahead and list what Appendix A copiously references regarding her powers.
*********
APPENDIX A
Functions and authority of the Presiding Bishop of ECUSA under Title I of Canons:
1. Chief Pastor and Primate of ECUSA. Canon I.2.4 (a).
2. Responsible for leadership in
• initiating and developing policy and strategy in ECUSA, and
• speaking for ECUSA as to its policies, strategies and programs. Canon
I.2.4 (a) (1).
3. Speak God’s words to ECUSA and to the world, as the representative of ECUSA
and its episcopate in its corporate capacity. Canon I.2.4 (a) (2).
4. In the event of a vacancy within a Diocese, consult with the Ecclesiastical
Authority to ensure that adequate interim Episcopal Services are provided. Canon
I.2.4 (a) (3).
5. Take order for the consecration of Bishops, when duly elected, and assemble the
Bishops of ECUSA to meet. Canon I.2.4 (a) (4).
6. Preside over meeting of the House of Bishops; …and recommend legislation to
General Convention and the Houses of ECUSA. Canon I.2.4 (a) (5).
7. Visit every Diocese in ECUSA for the purpose of:
• Holding pastoral consultations with the Bishop or Bishops thereof and,
with their advice, with the Lay and Clerical leaders of the jurisdiction;
• Preaching the Word;
• Celebrating the Eucharist. Canon I.2.4 (a) (6).
8. Report annually to ECUSA and, from time to time, issue pastoral letters. Canon
I.2.4 (b).
9. Make appointments and delegate authority as appropriate to carry out his duties
assigned by the canons or General Convention. Canon I.2.4(c).
10. Appoint a Chancellor to serve for as long as the Presiding Bishop may desire.
Canon I.2.5.
Functions and authority of Presiding Bishop under disciplinary canons (Title IV).
1. The Presiding Bishop is the focal point for all disciplinary procedures relating to a
bishop under Title IV (The Disciplinary Canons).
• Charges against a Bishop are filed with the Presiding Bishop. Canon
IV.3.24 & 26.
• The Presiding Bishop forwards the charges to the Review Committee.
Canon IV.3.26.
• The Presiding Bishop on his own initiative may require the Review
Committee to investigate any Bishop whom he believes has committed an
offense. Canon IV.23 (b).
• The Presiding Bishop appoints the five bishops who make up the
episcopal membership of the Review Committee whose job it is to cause
the charges to be investigated and to determine whether to issue a
presentment against the Bishop charged. Canon IV.3.27 and 43.
• The Presiding Bishop may issue temporary inhibitions against bishops
(Canon IV.1.4-6); and may determine punishment and sentence of bishops
who may submit voluntarily to the discipline of ECUSA without trial
(Canon IV.2.9-14).
• The Presiding Bishop receives and acts upon the certificate of the Review
Committee when it finds that a Bishop has abandoned communion of
ECUSA, including the imposition of an inhibition of such Bishop. (Canon
IV.9.1).
• If a Bishop inhibited under Title IV.9 does not recant within two months
of inhibition, the Presiding Bishop presents the matter to the House of
Bishops for the Bishop to be deposed. (Canon IV.9.2).
In addition to the foregoing functions and authorizations, there are a number of
administrative functions provided in Title III (i.e., giving notice of a Bishop’s election,
preparing a list of episcopal resignations, etc.), not viewed as substantive and not
included here.
**************
Setting all of the above aside, I appreciate anyone’s efforts at doing something. I don’t begrudge those happy dioceses that will have some greater connection and fellowship with these five Primates. And I don’t begrudge those bishops and clergy who will be able to get together at Gafcon.
Most of us in the average everyday dioceses — Alabama, Colorado, Mississippi, Southern Virginia, etc, etc, — will benefit from neither, but it is churlish to begrudge joy and fellowship to others just because it does nothing for oneself.
I find myself in agreement with Sarah Hey. This plan seems like a case of much ado about nothing, or very little anyway. To use Kendall’s language, it offers very little “differentiation” and absolutely NO “structural relief.” What is needed is not just closer linkage with the orthodox majority of the AC. Rather what is needed is complete separation from TEC and its manifold errors.
Sarah is right. Lots of people, myself included want NOTHING to do with TEC. ANY form of participation in TEC is simply abhorrent to me. But then, that is why I attend a Ugandan church!
The New Reformation is underway. It will have powerful results. This modest plan will probably have almost no practical results. I see nothing significant to be gained by it. Nothing.
David Handy+
Dr. Seitz –
I can’t tell you how WRONG this statement is and the fact that you actually think it’s true shows how OUT OF TOUCH your thinking is. Sorry for the shouting, but you seem, based on this, to have NO IDEA what is going on in the ground in revisionist dioceses with traditional churches, NONE at all.
I will leave to to Ms Sarah whether she is on board with what New Reformation is proposing.
As for the role of the PB vis-a-vis what is planned, I see nothing relevant adduced. SC showed that in respect of +Lawrence’s consecration.
Dioceses which wish to move forward with full Communion compliance are in no way hindered in that.
As for theories from NRA joining up with conclusions to the contrary from Sarah, I will leave to the principals. I have never understood the implications of the latter, or the reality of the former. Lenten best wishes.
What I find interesting in all of the devising of schemes and maneuvering is that nothing is expected of or demanded of Mrs. Schori. And Mrs. Schori is not prevailed upon to show any good faith effort at “reconciliation” – the lawsuits continue, the scheme for alternative oversight still has the fatal liability it always had, Mrs. Shori and her allies continue to do nothing – there is not not even a hint of a good faith gesture which might encourage reasserters to believe that they are taken seriously. Meanwhile, we are invited to take hope in the rationalizations of ACI, the surrenders of the Windsor Bishops and the assurances of John Howe that this will all work out. I might take all of this a bit more seriously if Mrs. Schori told her Chancellor to suspend the lawsuits and invited Duncan, Iker and others to a serious discussion about how all of this might be resolved so everyone could actually remain in some sort of fellowship. I suspect hell will freeze over first.
Well, it seems like this plan and the responses to it are a “tempest in a teapot.” I am not sure how this plan, interpreted most charitably, could ever be thought of as a “solution” to the Anglican crisis. It most surely is not. Yet, I do not see this claim made by its backers.
The plan actually doesn’t really seem to do anything other then “model” a version of “Communion-compliance” (whatever that means anymore) in TEC, and establish a rapport between “Windsor” bishops and some moderate primates. All very nice, but I am not sure what this will actually accomplish, other then establish some additional lines of communication.
But I would caution folks to pay careful attention to this plan’s objective as outlined in Howe’s announcement. The plan will
And lest anyone be in doubt as to whether this plan is intended to be a solution for parishes stuck in liberal dioceses, note the following statement:
This plan seems to be nothing more then an alliance of self-defined “Communion minded” bishops in TEC to come together for support with some like-minded primates. Nothing wrong with that.
The problems with this plan will come only from those (be they unrealistic supporters or overzealous critics) who claim that this plan will be anything more then that. This plan in no way absolves either Rowan Williams or the Communion from dealing with the TEC problem.
Dr. Seitz – am I correct in my analysis?
RE: “I will leave to to Ms Sarah whether she is on board with what New Reformation is proposing.”
Not at all, I think those who fancy themselves brokering some sort of new reformation through CCP are frankly enjoying the delusions that an opium smoker enjoys — just as those who fancy that having a fellowship group with other orthodox Primates without any particular differentiation or structural relief are delusional in the same sense.
But both groups are nice good-hearted people and I sincerely wish them well.
RE: “As for the role of the PB vis-a-vis what is planned, I see nothing relevant adduced.”
But recall that your original point was that the PB didn’t have much particular power, and thus it is pointless to try to be NOT UNDER the PB’s authority. Of course, the PB has plenty of power, as the list nicely reveals. And again, the trivial [and incorrect] point of “faugh, the PB has no real power” is actually to offer the idea that, really, it’s meaningless also to wish to be away from TEC, since really, TEC has no power or identity anyway.
Again — both the CCP and the ACI are, in my opinion, delusional in shocking shocking ways.
RE: “Dioceses which wish to move forward with full Communion compliance are in no way hindered in that.”
Indeed. Dioceses which wish to move forward with full Communion compliance are in no way hindered anyway. And . . . dioceses which wish to move forward NOT with full Communion compliance but yet within the Communion are also in no way hindered anyway also.
JamesW, I agree in general with your last comment, other than the implication that somehow RW or the Communion feels responsible for “dealing with the TEC problem”. I expect he has no sense of “responsibility” at all for that. After all, the Covenant is not supposed to deal with TEC — it’s all about the future. And RW, as he has said repeatedly, has no power to deal with TEC. So I don’t see anyone that has any sense at all that there will be any “dealing with the TEC problem.”
But — as I said above — I am happy for the ComCon bishops to have a fellowship group. And I am happy for the various FedCon and GS Primates to have a fellowship group in Gafcon. As above:
[blockquote]I don’t begrudge those happy dioceses that will have some greater connection and fellowship with these five Primates. And I don’t begrudge those bishops and clergy who will be able to get together at Gafcon.
Most of us in the average everyday dioceses—Alabama, Colorado, Mississippi, Southern Virginia, etc, etc,—will benefit from neither, but it is churlish to begrudge joy and fellowship to others just because it does nothing for oneself.[/blockquote]
Thank you all for the comments. There are two crucial issues which are not addressed here:
1. Control of the ordination process: This ranges from whether an Orthodox believer can be accepted into the process and make it through the many “flea checks” , where and how priestly and diaconal formation and education will take place, As long
2. Bishop’s role in the call of clergy: I was in process with a very orthodox parish, and a bishop would not allow the vestry to continue with me because of my beliefs despite an excellent recommendation from my (very liberal) diocesan. Conservative parishes within TEC can be indoctrinated over time (or orthodox believers driven out).
As long as the liberal establishment controls these elements, DEPO is mere window dressing.
A third issue which may well arise is that of what happens when some of the more senior orthodox bishops still in TEC retire — In a letter to the Bishop of Fort Worth Dr. Jefferts Schori has already gone on record that she believes no bishop -elect opposed to the ordination of women could gain the needed consents for consecration.
The false God of unity continues to trump right belief for some. I fear they are being duped
Islandbear
Dr. Seitz,
Do you have any response to my question posed in #2?
[i] Dr. Seitz doesn’t work for this blog. We’re always grateful for his participation, but we
doubt that he spends a lot of time following blogs. [/i]
[i]Most of us in the average everyday dioceses—Alabama, Colorado, Mississippi, Southern Virginia, etc, etc,—will benefit from neither, but it is churlish to begrudge joy and fellowship to others just because it does nothing for oneself.[/i]
Well put, Sarah. I thank you for reminding us of that.
– Joyless in the Diocese of North Carolina
Hey Todd . . . this may be a little off-topic . . . and I’m sure that the elves are already testy [ahem] but . . . if this plan and the CCP plan are essentially of neutral value in a diocese like yours [as I certainly believe that they are], what would be helpful to you and others like you in NC who are still in TEC?
I’m genuinely interested.
I have some ideas but you would know better, as you are in the diocese.
As an American born and raised priest in Canada, I suppose I can speak in a limited way on what I think is the case on both sides of the border, and that is many, many, many more parishes and even dioceses would be leaving the Anglican Church of Canada and TEC if it were not for a). the threat of their priest’s career being tanked, and their families going down with them, and b). the real threat of losing churches where 100+ years of faithful families have poured time, sweat, money and tears into the very fabric of of these places, which they feel they will have to walk away from so that the so-called “trust” to the diocese is upheld (ie. the threat of costly litigation).
In my opinion, any scheme that falls short of the primates along with the ABC calling TEC and the ACC to full repentance will be a failure and a breach of trust to God and those folks I mention above. And so most of us are waiting, patiently, for years now, for the episcopal leaders of our churches to do just that…lead. But we will not all wait forever. After all, high ecclesiology and episcopal polity aside, we are only one expression of the church in the world. ALL of my so-called lay people understand this, and many have already packed their bags.
Ron you will not get an answer because there isn’t a shred of evidence. Look at falling ASA. Any evidence of abating? No.
We have had one whole diocese leave. There will be at least two or three more. Look at the situation in Central Florida, the jumping ship is only starting. People know that come GC2009, it will prove much more difficult. People also know that the political spectrum is changing quickly. Seitz et al apparently consider +Duncan Gray and +Dorsey Henderson orthodox now. This is because so many of the true orthodox have left, these middle of the roaders become right wingers. Wait till +Duncan and +Iker leave and some of the so-called Windsor bishops retire. Bruno will be considered conservative. No, the flight of the orthodox is still picking up steam. Their situation truly is becoming untenable and this plan does nothing to improve it, rather its silence on lawsuits, inhibitions, changes in canon law only promise to solidify the KJS/DBB double squeeze on the orthodox.
What is true is that crafters of the plan are playing directly into the hands of the revisionists. A communion without discipline where laissez faire tous is the rule is no true communion. This plan is obviously not designed to provide aid to the orthodox, for it does nothing the kind – DEPO plus [i]”opening lines of communication.”[/i] As if +John Howe doesn’t have ++Drexel Gomez’ phone number and as if +Duncan Gray is going to be calling up ++Mouneer Anis for advice (+Gray was probably one of them who was hurling epithets at ++Anis at the HoB meeting.)
No, the reason for this “plan” is quite clear from the following in Howe’s email: “Initially, five Primates of the Global South: West Indies, Tanzania, Indian Ocean, Burundi, Middle East.” This plan’s main purpose is to stop the spread of the boycott and divide the Global South.
My only question is why? Clearly the only hope for discipline has always been for a unified front of the orthodox to demand it. This “plan” divides the orthodox and dashes all hope for discipline.
I am quite sure that I will never receive an honest answer from those responsible. All I can say is, “For shame.”
The comments here and elsewhere have been fascinating, and I think we need to add a couple more pieces to the conversation.
1. Bishop Howe has made two things clear–that church bodies suing church bodies is a tragedy that contravenes biblical teaching, and that the laws of Florida do not allow such dramatic moves such as San Joaquin. I deduce therefore that Bp Howe and the other proposers of this plan believe that re-asserters need several different tools in the toolbox in order to defend the Faith and the Church. This plan is one tool to be used by those dioceses that want to affirm the Faith but do not see the option of leaving TEC today. Whether these bishops in fact have the option of leaving TEC is not the point, they do not believe it is an option today.
2. We have lost the language of realignment–I believe all the bishops mentioned and ACI have previously argued that a realignment is inevitable and is in the works now, and will be fully realized only after some time. Thus, this plan seems to buy time for those who do not see an exit from TEC’s heresies today, but are praying for and positioning themselves to leave when such an exit is available later. Archbishop Gomez has indicated that that exit will be come visiable with an Anglican Covenant, with some opting in and others opting out. Obviously, there are questions, doubts, fears and hopes for the Covenant and the Windsor Process, but that does not invalidate their desire to stand faithful to the end of that process.
3. The plan is a headache for the Presiding Bishop–she weaseled out of Dar es Salaam by appointing Episcopal Visitors, now those same EVs have “apprised” her of a new plan which invokes elements of Dar es Salaam. So her appointments have taken the initiative out of her hands. Now she has San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Fort Worth to contend with: she’s got Abp Akinola and GAFCON: she’s got CANA, AMiA, Uganda, Kenya, and Southern Cone: and now she’s got her own EV’s forming Communion Partners. By itself, it may not appear to be much–but together with everything else, it makes her headaches worse, not better. And if all the parties work for the glory of Christ building a comprehensive strategy, my guess is that another effort will soon take shape to reach out to those re-asserting parishes in hostile dioceses. The realignment is messy, but it is happening.
The great reformation was 75 years long–we are at best 35 years into this new reformation. Patience, courage, hope and all eyes on Jesus.
Let me repeat my comment on the earlier Howe thread and then add something:
The complete illogic of this proposal is really quite easy to spot; in fact, embarrassingly so.
[blockquote]”The Communion Partners will be informally gathered – there will be no “charter” or formal structure.”
If there is no charter or formal structure, then what is it? A new list-serv? If anything is on paper–a list of acceptable episcopal visitors, for example–then that is a “charter” or “formal structure,” albeit a very simple one. If there isn’t, then this is no more than a gentlemen’s agreement, instantly revisable with a phone call or an e-mail, endlessly malleable according to the whims of whoever joins the latest meeting–except that there can’t be a meeting, since that would be a “formal structure.”[/blockquote]
Dr. Seitz and others are now referring to the Communion Partners as a “plan.” But if it is a plan, does it exist only in the minds of the Communion Partners? If this plan is not a purely mental construct of verbal agreement, then it exists on paper somewhere, and thus is a “formal structure.” Which then begs the question, how is this informally formal structure any improvement on the many formally formal structures already in place?
I predict this “plan” will evaporate with tomorrow’s sunshine.
In agreement with IRNS and (somewhat) disagreement with LCF+: As I said about the “opening lines of communication” silliness:
As if +John Howe doesn’t have ++Drexel Gomez’ phone number and as if +Duncan Gray is going to be calling up ++Mouneer Anis for advice (+Gray was probably one of them who was hurling epithets at ++Anis at the HoB meeting.)
This plan attenuates pressure on the weakened Rowan Williams, precisely the wrong thing to do at this time.
Sarah: Unfortunately, I don’t think Rowan Williams feels any responsibility for TEC, nor do I think he will ever do anything about it. RW’s plan will be to keep dodging discipline in the hopes that he can keep punting things into the future. He realizes that (most probably) the GAFCON/CCP bishops will never formally leave the AC and TEC will never reform. He also realizes that the GAFCON team will organize an alternative structure within the Anglican Communion. People tend to think of exclusive circles (i.e. A or B). But I think that there will be two circles that overlap.
There will be the structure known as the Anglican Communion, but which will in fact be the Anglican Federation. It will be centered in Canterbury and will have structures but those structures will have little credibility and there will be no accountability. Then several parts of this Anglican Federation (known as the Global South) will have formed a “communion” and will begin to function as a “Communion within the Federation”. Parts of the GS Communion will technically not be recognized by the Instruments of the Anglican Federation (i.e. the ABC). And that’s the way it will be for a while.
The real future of Global Anglicanism lies not, I think, with the CDG or the ACI, but with HOW the GAFCON partnership orders itself. And that is the part that worries me. As I have said before, I really wish we could combine the thoughtful intellectual catholic presence of Seitz/Radner/Gomez with the reality-acceptance of Akinola/Minns/Orombi.
Allow me to explain a missing part of my last post (#37). The future of global Anglicanism rests, I think with the DNA that GAFCON sets for itself, because I think that the emerging GS “Communion within the Federation” will gradually absorb the remaining Anglican Provinces as the liberal western Provinces collapse due to lack of money and people. At some point 20-30-50 years from now, the GS Communion will have absorbed the Anglican Communion.
Jamesw wrote in 38 that “At some point 20-30-50 years from now, the GS Communion will have absorbed the Anglican Communion.”
I think the Seitz/Radner/Gomez/”Communion Partners” group would agree with you. Further, if that is the case, then for those dioceses and parishes which cannot leave TEC out of choice or out of fiscal/legal realities, the Communion Partners plan is an effort to keep faithful re-asserters in the Church & Communion long enough for the GS movement to influence the whole of the Communion.
As I said in my earlier post #34, we need several different tools in the toolbox and we need to trust God to use all the tools to accomplish His purposes for, in and through His Church.
(And now, the peace of the Lord be with you on this Resurrection day!)
Dear Todd–the idea is to build enough evangelical catholic anglicanism within the US, linked to Communion Partners who share the same vision, grow it where it can grow, and let it have enough stability that it will be difficult for parishes in NC or GA to be denied visitations by their Diocesan. And, if such happens, the Diocesan will have put a pipe in the ground at a time when the Communion is determining its future character. I am as puzzled as even Sarah as to why there is so much conspiracy-theory and bile — though in some cases that is not unusual I realise. This is simply the effort of catholic and evangelical Bishops to link with their counterparts in the Communion and forge ahead in the space provided by TEC’s polity — a position articulated and long favoured by SC, Dallas, and others. I can see no reason why it cannot build solid ground, stay at arm’s length from what Noll rightly sees as a determination to go one’s own way inside of TEC revisionism, and provide what in the UK is called ‘the loyal opposition.’
Thank you LCF+ and off to worship.
Rob Eaton+ (who is in the diocese of San Jaoquin/Southern Cone) wrote at Titus:
[blockquote]I’ve only heard about Communion Partners today, like many of the rest of you. I like the fact that these particular bishops are named as having made the presentation. I have already seen it as a necessary rally point, and a way to differentiate from within. A way to exhort and encourage, and lift up those who fall. Just like AAC and ACN when they got started. [/blockquote]
(He also states that he is suffering from bilateral pneumonia so we should remember him in our prayers.) Certainly Father Rob’s and LCF+’s words are gracious and irenic. But…
Why now? Nothing in this plan couldn’t have waited till after Lambeth. Given Rowan Williams weakened position, there was a possibility that invitations of consecrators of Gene Robinson might have been rescinded IF a unified front of orthodox demanded it. This is what SHOULD have happened regardless of outcome (for Rowan Williams is certainly hell-bent on having the consecrators there). Instead, we have the framers of this plan very much playing into the hands of the revisionistas giving them a free ride. As I said before, Katherine Jefferts Schori and her ilk could not be more pleased.
I might add that I don’t have any problems with the plan, per se. Pretty much milk toast – DEPO warmed over with an exchange of email addresses between Episcopal visitors and more moderate GS primates. This is the kind of “differentiation” that one would expect from the so-called Camp Allen bishops who distinguished themselves so forcefully at New Orleans. Again, my objection is the timing. The timing plays into the hand of the revionistas.
RE: “The future of global Anglicanism rests, I think with the DNA that GAFCON sets for itself, because I think that the emerging GS “Communion within the Federation†will gradually absorb the remaining Anglican Provinces as the liberal western Provinces collapse due to lack of money and people.”
I think, JamesW, that you may be severely underestimating two things. 1) What the DNA of Fedcon/Gafcon will become/is and 2) just how little Comcon Provinces will wish to become a part of it as a result.
One can watch as its smaller mirror image CCP and ComCons in the states to see how it will most likely work.
[blockquote] I can see no reason why it cannot build solid ground, stay at arm’s length from what Noll rightly sees as a determination to go one’s own way inside of TEC revisionism, and provide what in the UK is called ‘the loyal opposition.’ [/blockquote]
What happens when the Bishop retires, and is replaced by someone more amenable to 815 and its theology? The War of Attrition goes on. Existing conservative leadership in the diocese will be isolated. Future conservative leadership will be inhibited. One by one its redoubts will be reduced. Ground lost to liberalism will not be regained. This is the fate laid up for the ‘loyal opposition.” They will be told: “Pay us tribute until we get around to destroying you. If you pay us a lot, we will destroy you last.” I am sure it will be great comfort to them to know that “eyes will be on the TEC situation as it unfolds.”
Whatever the benefits of this idea, they will not extend past the end of Lambeth. Should Lambeth be perceived as successful in the face of a conservative boycott, TEC will have won a great victory over its orthodox opposition. Having avoided punishment, TEC will no longer feel the need to step lightly around the opinions of the Communion. It will think itself invulnerable. And in the aftermath, TEC will remove the glove from its mailed fist. TEC’s leadership will go after its orthodox enemy with a vengeance. GC2009 will show its true face. And why should they not? Who is going to call them to account?
carl
Thank you, Dr Seitz. The building of a robust evangelical or reformed catholicism within TEC is devoutly to be prayed for, and can only help those of us who remain within. (I do not discount the distinct possibility that a robust Anglicanism outside TEC but within the United States can also help those of us who remain within.)
But I have no interest in being a “loyal” opposition within TEC. Opposition within, yes, but loyal only insofar as I think that breaking off congregationally – at this point, at least – is not what we should do in our particular context. But that is loyalty to catholic order (recognizing how contradiction-laden that term is in the wider ecclesial situation), not to an institution that has arrogated to itself powers that a provincial or merely national Church does not possess.
I can give the Diocese of North Carolina only my prayers for its reclamation – and that, I admit in my sinfulness, only rather grudgingly.
But I cannot give the diocese, or our bishop, my loyalty.
I’m a little perplexed over the anger directed at this (rather spotty and premature newspaper) announcement.
From what I can gather — and I repeat rather than invent the sarcasm — most people on this thread find the “plan” innocuous to the point of pointless, or the dotterings of the benignly delusional, or a small-scale public-relations bone useful for a handful of moderate parishes sunk in ignorance and under the oversight of a few spineless and irrelevant bishops, or a rather tasteless reprise of stale leftovers from another era.
If this is the case, it will hardly be a problem if the heroic and beseiged were not “consulted” — it would be a positive gift (who in the world with any real guts and faith would ever want a part of such a thing?); and it is difficult to see why the “revisionists” should find it all that appetizing to chew; what merit from the Communion’s Treasury does one receive for treating with simpletons? And why should the Archbishop of Canterbury “change his mind for the worse”, since he is, after all, nothing more than a mildly throbbing yet utterly immobile brain in a vat in the first place?
Given the tenor and implications of the remarks, then, why not just let the children play with their toys quietly until the big boys put the finishing touches to the New Reformation that will somehow apply a “discipline” to a by-now distant relative who has moved over the ocean, that will courageously and cleverly deliver the Sheriff of Nottingham of his goods and properties on behalf of the deserving poor, and that will present the world with a missionary communion driven by the combined spirit of Elijah, Athanasius, Martin Luther, and John Wesley redivivi?
If sarcasm and rhetorical posturing are put aside, however, it will only be because one recognizes that all of this is more complicated than we might have hoped and that people don’t all react and decide things in the manner we each think obvious and necessary, nor according to the time-frames we had assumed expedient, and that therefore provisional responses have to be made, in a variety of ways, during a time of uncertain sorting- out, responses that cannot include everyone in every element, but that will serve their purpose, in their different ways, to the degree that they can each maintain evangelical vigor, charity of spirit, and hope — as well as the openness of heart that one day can accept the rebuilding of what the Lord has torn down as a gift and not as a Jonah-like disappointment.
Hi Ephraim Radner, I also am puzzled by the hostility to something that I do admit that I see as fairly innocuous.
I think — after lots of blog interaction and thinking — that FedCons see this as a threat to their own strategies and that this fellowship group will somehow prevent a larger coalition forming for their own strategies. I personally think that the fellowship group is a [i]consequence[/i] of the division amongst strategies, and not a [i]cause[/i].
That’s as close to a reason as I can get for the outrage expressed on various threads.
The only other reason I can come up with is that, as usual, the media report of the fellowship group was wrongly touted as some sort of “solution” to problems for all reasserting Anglicans in the US, which clearly is not the case. So when people opened up their browser windows the following day and saw what it actually was, they visualized this as some sort of Grand Solution and were outraged that it was, in fact, not.
Todd–you state ‘loyalty’ on the only terms conceivable and nothing else was meant.
Why the anger? Here are the first 5 things that came to mind:
1) Petre’s article got folks hopes up that something substantial was in the works. Comcons have been hinting that something substantial was coming, and after the covenant design group report proved a yawner, we thought maybe this was it. Since this isn’t substantial, we are left disappointed, and hoping that this wasn’t the ‘big surprise’ we’ve all been waiting for.
2) We’d just blame Petre for bad reporting (still a good option), except for the fact that a lot of this “communion partners†idea sounds much like the Primatial Vicar plan that came out of DES. Of course, the PV plan was substantial, so if this is supposed to be that….well… that’s a serious bummer.
3) Seitz article starts off with “it is crucial to keep in mind the peculiar polity of TEC.†Really? This is crucial? Like, first paragraph crucial? At first I feared that Bonnie Anderson had joined the ACI staff, but the next sentence is both clarifying and even more disturbing: “Bishop Stanton of Dallas has been clearest about this…â€
4) The Seitz article goes on to make the case that oversight isn’t needed because the PB isn’t all that powerful. This is well off the mark as Sarah’s posting of the Canons shows, but this has apparently been an assumption that the ACI has been working from. Astonishing.
5) Though the Seitz article goes out of it’s way to assure the PB that all of this is canonical, it takes a random swipe at Fedcon’s (see comment 20 for details); accusing them of desires and intentions that are just plain untrue.
Fr Gross. There is not a single thing in the material cited by Ms Hey that indicates the PB can insinuate herself into dioceses in extreme ways — that is precisely what someone like +Schofield is arguing and rightly so. I was at the +SC consecration. It was handled appropriately and wisely. Anyone with a modicum of grasp of the history of the Episcopal Church in the United States knows that the PB is not an Archbishop. The point was very clear: ‘oversight’ is not something the PB has, so it would make little sense to ‘take it from her’ and give it to an ‘alternative.’
I think there is an awful lot of hysteria and thin skin about the FedCon plans. I think Sarah has been helpful in pointing that out. You’d think we were speaking of Moses on Mt Sinai. I think people need to take a deep breath and stop seeing conspiracies everywhere or studying five chess moves down the road.
What may I ask is disturbing about the logic deployed by +Stanton, +Howe, +Salmon and others?
One might also ask: are the solid Bishops involved in this, and the Primates contacted, just dunces? Led around by their nose by ACI and sneaky Rowan with a beard and fake glasses? Sometimes I wonder if blogs are just places to make deposits of bile. I do wish people had higher levels of trust and good will. What a terrible witness this all is.
I’m sorry that Petre wrongly inflated the “Comcon hints” — whatever exactly they were — to Gross’ eventual dismay. I would argue Gross’ point regarding the “powers” of the PB — which are non-jurisdictional with respect to individual dioceses, and intersect with them only when it comes to calling meetings and setting up disciplinary committees and reviews, and in this regard are quite different from the powers of many Anglican “Primatial Archbishops” (although not all) — but the line about “Bonnie Anderson” joining the ACI staff gives the exercise away. This isn’t a discussion, it’s simply an insult gallery.
Todd–the idea would be for your parish to invite one of the Camp Allen Bishops for a visitation, or one of the Communion Partners. Would the Bishop of NC not agree to that? Would +Indian Ocean, e.g., and +Mark Lawrence, e.g., be unable to provide a pastoral and sacramental visit? Especially if a lot of dioceses had already allowed the visitations to happen — say in E-TN, USC, +AL, S-VA? On what grounds? The point would be that this forces the Diocesan to make a decision about his Communion life, and explain why it is that a catholic Bishop of the Communion is not allowed the courtesy always and everywhere extended. The more the TEC Bishops demand that they have their own autonomy, the more they will be likely to get what they want. Except, of course, for those Bishops who are keen to demonstrate their loyalty to the constituent character of TEC with the Communion. So I dispute the idea that this is just a way for cozy fellowship for Communion Bishops, a kind of apres moi le deluge. No. I do not believe that the participating Bishops would be acting in that spirit at all. Moreover, the point is precisely to raise the matter of Communion belonging at the place where the neuralgia, opposition, or fence-sitting/demurring is greatest and most in need or exposure and remedy: in the Bishops own fellowship. Lenten blessings and prayers for you in North Carolina (my home state).
I should have added, Todd: such vistitations could happen with the Diocesan present. What better way to bring the issues into charitable conjunction?
Two months ago, on December 21, ACI over the signatures of Drs. Seitz, Turner and Radner addressed the significance of the ABC’s Advent Letter. In concluding, they emphasized the [url=http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/126/2/]following:[/url]
Unless corrected, I assume the plan outlined by Bp. Howe is intended to meet the “urgent†need described above, i.e., “an interim solution†providing “differentiation†that will prevent “further fragmentation of the Communion.†Most of the commentary I have read has assumed the latest ACI/Howe proposal had goals along these lines and has evaluated it (often harshly) on these terms. If this new proposal has some other, lesser, goal these criticisms may have been wide of the mark. In which case, the question becomes where is the solution called for on Dec. 21?
Oh yes, Dr. Seitz – we can ask our bishop – and that puts our rector in the cross-hairs. There is (rightly or wrongly, on both sides) such an atmosphere of tension, cynicism, and politics that there is NO trust anymore. In my diocese we have seen lawsuits, we have seen rectors deposed, we have seen requests for oversight delayed – and we do not have one of the ultra-reappraising bishops. When our rector retires in a few years, do you really think our TEC-institutional supporting bishop will allow a traditional rector to be hired? I don’t. And in a few years, when SSUs are agreed to, either at GC09 or at a diocesan convention in the future, what will the advice be then? Wait for another commission, another paper, another meeting? All to stay connected with what I once thought was important – a worldwide Communion – but am beginning to regard as the devil’s snare.
Mark–what kind of differentiation different to what has been described did you have in mind? There is a differentiated group of Bishops internal to TEC: anglican communion bishops. These are keen to publish the maximal compliance to Communion teaching and life, as recognised by the Primates at Dar es Salaam (‘Camp Allen Principles’). They will link to five significant Primates. They will accept invitations from parishes to visit, and will make manifest in their own regions, explicit Primatial links. In many dioceses, these invitations will be accepted. In others, they will be rudely turned back (one supposes). This is itself useful in manifesting a particular understanding of the office of Bishop and its place within the Episcopal fellowship of anglican Bishops worldwide. If one does not believe there will be any adjudication of this kind of notional anglican ecclesiology (Bishops unwilling to give one another fellowship across borders, when asked) by the Communion as it moves forward (see now the remit of the Windsor Continuation Group); or one believes +RDW has the power and the inclination tro derail everything (as do a good many people on this blog); then of course such exercises in Christian episcopal fellowship are a nonsense. But I have said much of this in my prior note. Do you have in mind a PCA/PCUSA kind of differentiation (or the kind of differentiation one sees in Scotland with various reformed churches, Kirk, Free, Wee Free, etc)? I would need to hear more about what differentiation was desired I suppose. What is being proposed is consistent with what our letter stated, given the realities that have transpired since (Gafcon etc).
Branford–Some dioceses will surely be as you say. I believe someone spoke of little bridges of stone. One must always get what one is able to get and build on that. That is what this entails. I lived in CT for 18 years. I have a clear idea of how difficult it can be to be located in a tough place. The Scottish Episcopal Church was my second long-term exposure, and I believe I can speak of challenges every bit as dramatic. These are not easy times, and have not been for many years. (Though I have found theology in University academic contexts frequently more difficult).
I have not argued that the PB’s powers are in fact ‘archbishop-like,’ or ‘metro-political” or constitute ‘oversight.’ The problem is that they don’t have to be any of those things for the PB to cause trouble for orthodox diocese and parishes. The depositions in the VA lawsuits were particularly eye-opening about how the PB has used her position to ‘develop strategy’ for TEC. This is why the structural relief offered by the DES PV plan was necessary both for orthodox diocese and parishes.
This ‘communion partners’ plan would be fine if it were considered in isolation. The problem is that the ‘communion partners’ plan is apparently a substitute for the original PV plan. As a substitute it is terrible. It is the PV plan without any teeth left in it, and as such it represents a capitulation to KJS.
I have no interest in splitting hairs about the definition of ‘oversight;’ what I care about is life on the ground for my friends still in TEC. At one point the PV plan offered hope. The formation of the ‘communion partners’ is the final nail in that coffin.
As for a thin Fedcon skin, Dr. Seitz, you said that AMIA, Cana, et al have no interest in being a part of the Anglican Communion and are “concocting schemes.” I think that would sting even a very, very thick skinned Fedcon.
Dr. Radner, the Bonnie Anderson reference wasn’t meant to turn this into an insult gallery. As you know the phrase “TEC’s peculiar polity” was the way 815 started dodging both Windsor and DES. It was a lie. If TEC had wanted to comply, they could have found a way to make it happen. However, they didn’t want to comply at all, recognized that an outright refusal would be bad, and so hid behind the ‘polity’ argument.
Because of this context it strikes me, and no doubt others, as surreal to hear the ACI and Bishop Stanton trotting out the polity argument? Do you hear yourselves?
Context is everything. The ‘communion partners plan’ is fine until it’s understood in its context and compared with the original PV plan. The arguments from ‘polity’ might have some traction if those words hadn’t been used for the last 4 years as a smokescreen for inaction. However, this is the context in which we live. I don’t doubt your intelligence or sincerity, but I do doubt your perception and judgment (just as you doubt mine).
No Fr Gross, I simply redouble my assertion that the skin of some is far too thin. I meant nothing in my comments. Explicit statements have been made to the effect that +Canterbury is dispensible. That is completely fine, and a respectable position to hold. But it not the same thing as an assertion of Communion as this has traditionally been understood. You are free to develop your own understanding of the Anglican Communion, and pursue it with all diligence. It is not a position I hold, and I might have thought that many in AMiA and CANA were fully aware of that and glad of it. Thin skin? You bet.
And: the only thing surreal is the failure to grasp the specific dynamics that govern the topic of polity — itself a neutral term. Yes, that is surreal. You hand it over to others and let them define it and then complain. That strikes me as more than surreal. It just seems foolish.
56, Branford, Seitz-ACI, indeed the ACI, offers you no hope at all. You need to take care of yourself as best you can. I know of at least one group of former TEC laity who are planting their own church and are looking to come under an off-shore primate.
#62–I agree entirely that Mr Branford has many choices. That has been true for some time now. Going the church plant route may make excellent sense.
I appreciate Mark McCall’s observations and questions.
Again, Dr Seitz, thank you for replying – not once but twice! I honestly cannot say what Bishop Curry would allow, though we have the history of his several years ago not allowing the (then new) Primate of the Church of Uganda to preach and to celebrate the Eucharist at a parish of the diocese which has now divided, the majority of whom are now in a new parish (having left their buildings to the diocese and remaining minority) under the temporary primatial oversight of the Archbishop of the Church in West Africa. It could well be that an altered situation, with a part of remaining TEC [i]robustly[/i] and clearly differentiating themselves from General Convention and 815, would provoke a different response to any requests for visitations by Camp Allen bishops.
Part of my own discouragement is being in a parish that is almost certainly divided enough on this issue, and under a rector who has made his opposition to the direction of TEC/General Convention a matter (admittedly costly) of personal integrity, rather than parochial integrity and discernment, that a request for such a visitation would be highly unlikely. It is difficult to imagine (I write this as his friend, not merely as a parishioner) his trying to move the parish and its leadership toward the sort of differentiation that a visitation by a Camp Allen bishop would declare. (Though he has gone so far to offer that, when the time comes for confirmation for my children, he would personally make such arrangements as were possible to have them confirmed in the Communion-partnered diocese just to the south of us, if that were preferable to me, and would accompany us.)
Whatever effect the current plan would have in dioceses such as North Carolina, I am even less certain what effect such a plan would have for those of us in parishes where, as Communion conservatives or conservatives otherwise, we are in a minority and unable to effect any sort of differentiation from TEC other than by our own statements and personal associations.
But Lord knows I do not begrudge anyone such relief as plans like this would bring.
Indeed Fr. Seitz.
Dr. Seitz, I find it hard to hear “concocting schemes” as value neutral language, but if you insist that you meant nothing by your comments about CANA, Amia, et al then I’ll take you at your word.
I am glad to hear that you are not simply going to allow 815 to define ‘polity.’ It seems to me to be entirely appropriate for you to use that neutral term for your purposes. Bishop Iker has done this in the past to great effect.
However, the fact remains that even after appropriating the word ‘polity,’ your proposal is a capitulation to KJS, signals the death of the original PV plan, and is therefore hardly to be celebrated.
If I may comment on the postings above in connection with my own (#28) Visitations are not the issue — access to the ordination process, ordinations and Rector’s elections are.
Island Bear+
‘Coming under an offshore Primate’ — who would have thought we’d have language like this! Well, there it is. The judgment of God, pruning and cleaning, tearing down and uprooting, just like Jeremiah said. And then, though not in his lifetime except in a dream and a glimpse into the future, building up and planting. And God over it all, Judge and Savior.
68, unless they say the heck with it and leave the TEC and the AC both, but I assume you have no problem with that, right?.
#66–opinions there are aplenty. Capitulation to the PB? Hardly. This just sounds like more hysterical and dramatic gesturing. Enough. Time to move on. I have no interest in turning a limited office and officer into some kind of Creature of All Powerful Forboding. Great old hymn states it well, ‘whoso beset them round with dismal stories, do but themselves confound, His strength the more is.’ Go well.
I looked back I don’t see hostility or anger. Disappointment, frustration, weariness, perhaps. I think Baby Blue summarized the plan very well:
[blockquote]We are not about just creating reservations of the discontented – but about the restoration of the historic Christian faith in the Anglican Communion. There is nothing in John Howe’s plan that moves this forward – it’s about sequestering the faithful into reservations where they are easier targets.[/blockquote]
The ‘communion partners’ plan is a capitulation because it is nearly identical to KJS’s NO version of the PV, as opposed to the original DES plan.
The only difference that I see is that the ‘communion partners plan’ clearly articulates that some GS Primates may visit orthodox diocese for fellowship and sacramental celebration. It is nice that this was stated as desireable, but of course, this has always been possible in the past and so represents no real development.
What the ‘communion partners’ plan does do is allow Windsor Bishops to tell their constituents that “the Windsor Process is moving forward,” at the same moment as it kills the original PV plan.
1) Dr. Seitz – you wrote
Yet this happens already under DEPO, does it not? And has not proven to be an effective solution. So if THIS is the purpose of the plan, I think it fair to give it a *probable* failing grade (in that it won’t stop folks leaving TEC to either CCP or other denominations). But that does not seem to me (nor according to Howe) the purpose of the plan.
So, while I think that there is a great deal of anger at this plan by some (probably as a result of unmet expectations), I see it as a positive force FOR WHAT IT IS. Upon some more reflection and after reading posts #39 and 41, I am much more positive towards this plan then I was yesterday.
2. Sarah, I think that I misrepresent what I mean when I say that the “Communion within the Federation” will “absorb” the rest of the Communion. I see that this wording implies that the southern Communion would not change, while everyone else reconciled themselves to that vision. I am not suggesting that. I think the reality will be more complex than that. From what I can see, the GAFCON group is no more willing than TEC to have a central authority make authoritative decisions about faith. So I seriously doubt that there would be much formal structure for the southern Communion. Rather, they would continue effectively with what existed in the Anglican Communion prior to 2003 – basically an unwritten constitution that nobody changes doctrine without common agreeement (i.e. a Communion of ONE faith). My point is though that this group will ACT like a Communion, in the way that Rowan Williams describes that term in, e.g. his Advent Letter (i.e. a common agreement about what the Christian faith is).
Realize Sarah, that the CommCon Provinces and the FedCon Provinces will still both be a part of the Anglican Federation (still known as the AC), and will still share the one faith. The CommCons will be committed to the western-controlled and failing Federation Instruments, while the FedCons will have (have) given them up as completely useless. Gradually, I think, two trends will emerge.
First, the Instruments will be increasingly seen to be powerless as the liberal western Provinces become even more radical without discipline. This trend, will, I think result in more of the CommCon Provinces losing confidence in the Federation Instruments, and moving more into the sphere of the southern Communion. It would be my expectation that as this occurs, BOTH the CommCon Provinces and the FedCon provinces will change.
Second, as the liberal western Provinces shrivel on the vine, their power over the Instruments will decrease. This will occur as the first trend emerges. At some point, the liberal west will lose its control over the Instruments. What will be happening during this time will also be a coming together of the FedCon and CommCon Provinces. I would think that at this point, the two spheres of Communion (i.e. the Communion of a common faith from the FedCons, and the Communion of a common catholic order from the CommCons) might just merge back into one sphere, and the conservatives will take back the Communion.
What the Communion Partners plan can accomplish (maybe) is anchoring some of the more stable orthodox regions (dioceses) within TEC for the long run. I do think this is a valuable work.
James writes,
[blockquote] What the Communion Partners plan can accomplish (maybe) is anchoring some of the more stable orthodox regions (dioceses) within TEC for the long run. I do think this is a valuable work.[/blockquote]
I would disagree with this being “valuable.” See the quote of Baby Blue’s in #71. Seitz’s explications talks about limitations of the canonical authority of the PB. I wonder if he has read the proposed changes to the canons which will most likely go into effect in 2009. (I am unclear which changes need a second reading, so perhaps 2012.) Now, I have no idea whether these would constitute metro-political powers in the ecclesiastical sense. I do know that she does what she pleases already, and that abandonment will be pretty much what she says it is in the future.
Temporizing measures such as this are poor pastoral care for the future health of the flock. Howe is set to retire soon. His successor might be Tracy Lind.
Dr. Seitz,
Thank you for your reply. When I originally read your Dec. piece (which was between San Joaquin and GAFCON), I assumed you were hopeful of an interim solution that would prevent further disaffiliations like DSJ and the hardening of the tear that was about to be manifested by GAFCON. That is what I thought the bolded language in your Dec. post meant. If I am reading you correctly, you now believe GAFCON has itself foreclosed some of the objectives you hoped for in Dec., but that the “Howe plan†will be enough to prevent further fragmentation.
I agree with you on the significance of GAFCON, but question whether this proposal or anything like it will stop the fragmentation. One fundamental dispute I have is with the notion that what is needed is “an American solution to an American problem.†I have always thought that what was needed on a global level (discipline of ECUSA by the Communion) was different than what was needed in the US (differentiation). The big GS provinces want to be rid of the revisionist “cancerâ€; the beleaguered US orthodox emphasize their need for a “safe place.†For example, parallel jurisdictions in the US would delight most Americans, but be totally unacceptable to the Global South because it doesn’t address their problems. And with a hardening fragmentation at the international level, fragmentation at the local level becomes almost inevitable. There is no differentiation so different as being part of the Southern Cone or Uganda. So perhaps the global split makes your December objectives now impossible.
But fragmentation will continue until the global problem is solved, and calling the GAFCON people names and treating their departure as a matter of indifference, if not a blessing in disguise, is not a solution. I hasten to add that you and ACI have not done this, but others have, including some who are very important. I often read that Rowan Williams is steering a course between “two extremes.†What are being equated are the solitary figure of Gene Robinson on the one hand and just over half of the communion on the other. As long as this thinking prevails in London (one American equals thirty million Africans), fragmentation will not only continue but accelerate.
I think many of the orthodox would take comfort from an ACI recognition of the devastating consequences that lack of discipline has had for the global communion. And many would be more favorably disposed toward ACI proposals if they thought this point was grasped.
A few concerns about what I have seen posted while I was writing my last comment…
1. As the situation with the 6/9 Standing Committee members in San Joaquin which the Presiding Bishop has “derecognized” without any canonical warrant whatsoever, it seems to me to be somewhat naive to think that the discussion of the PB’s powers, or lack thereof, should be limited to the explicit canonical provisions. The “other side” has made it very clear that they will be okay with the Presiding Bishop “making it up as she goes along” with regard to the canons.
2. As has been repeatedly said for the last 5 years, nobody is just asking for episcopal visitations. The concern is for episcopal control over parish apportionments and clergy succession. Seitz and others – do believe us when we tell you that in many, many TEC dioceses, the Communion Partners plan will have no effect at all. Goodness, in my own diocese, a priest is marked for simply declaring that they oppose the practice of “open communion”. Inviting a Communion bishop in, which might very well be permitted, will simply add that parish’s and rector’s name to the “to do” list of the liberal or moderate diocese. So that next time that parish is in the search process the diocese will quietly but firmly insist on only giving the parish moderate-sounding liberal candidates for their next rector. I know for a fact that priests get so identified for such small stands and that such identification puts them on diocesan blacklists for future appointments. That’s the reality in TEC.
If this plan is the “interim solution” referred to by Mark McCall in post #55, it WILL fail. Such a plan will not stop the continued disintegration of neither TEC nor the AC. That is a simple fact. This plan will work to differentiate some of the leading non-CCP dioceses in TEC, but does not a thing for orthodox parishes in liberal dioceses.
So again, if this plan is intended to provide fellowship and build connections to Primates for a small group of orthodox TEC bishops, good for it. It sounds like a wonderful initiative. But if this plan is somehow thought to be the “American solution to the American problem” referred to by the ACI (and pointed to by Mark McCall above in post #55) it is astonishingly naive and will very quickly prove to be a “flash in the pan.”
Dr. Seitz,
I will ask you again for the third time if you could please answer the question I posed of you in #2? If you will not respond then I can only assume that you have no such evidence.
Upon reflection, I would agree that the suggested plan would have an institutional benefit for those who desire to maintain the institution. What I cannot see s how this plan will do anything to help the Anglicans in this country (be they Episcopal or otherwise) proclaim clearly the Good News of the saving love of Our Lord. How would this institutional solution do anything to promote the Gospel imperative. For those of us who believe that we called to mission and not maintenance, this is no solution at all. While the non-denominational congregations grow thru the proclamation of their understanding of the Gospel, the unique pace that the Anglican voice has to offer this country is being lost in petty squabbling over who is the most wrong: those who promote the changes in doctrine or those who cross diocesan borders. Are we willing to answer before the judgement throne for those souls that we neglected to tell the Good News of God in Christ when the opportunity was before us? For my part, the way to do get back to mission was apart from the institution of TEC. For others whom I respect greatly, that path is from within TEC. Why can we not encourage and honor both approaches?
Thank you, Br. Michael (62) for your response, and Dr. Seitz (63) as well. But Dr. Seitz’s advice:
seems to me to make me the one who has to sacrifice and not those who manipulated the church around me. I know that’s life and that’s the situation right now, but very difficult to take when you have young children to consider. I can no longer justify to myself that my family’s multi-generational ties to TEC mean that I can’t look elsewhere. There is no other option where I am that I can see – why would I want to be tied to a church that claims to be a Communion but is demonstrably not? Why would I want to be in any other mainline demonination that is/will be going through the same rejection of Scripture as TEC? I think the Lord is pruning, and he’s pruning back to the Reformation, not just back 40 or 50 years. I’m sure many will disagree with me, but I look at the fruits of the Holy Spirit and I don’t see constant fragmentation of Christ’s Body as one of them.
I see that this thread is back to some idea of the Communion Partners Plan being an “oversight” plan. I maintain — as I did at the top of the thread — that I don’t see any parish in distress within a hostile diocese and considering leaving TEC considering this as a helpful plan, in part because it does not protect parishes in the least from hostile bishops [with regards to succession, assessments, and more] and leaving TEC certainly does, not to mention providing laypeople with the happy knowledge that they are no longer in TEC.
I would think that the only parishes who might be helped by such a plan [of those in hostile dioceses] would be those parishes with desperate rectors who somehow were trying to “throw a bone” to those conservatives who are distressed over TEC — and as I said above, those conservatives would leave anyway, if a rector tried to pawn this off as a satisfactory solution to 1) the depradations of hostile bishops and 2) being a part of a grossly heretical denomination.
All of the above being said, I’m glad folks are thinking and trying to do things.
Better than total passivity and paralysis.
Sarah, we do seemed to have come full circle and back to your original comment.
And like you said, it’s hard to see any parish spending much time on this. For those who are safe it’s irrelevant, and for those who are in danger you’re just putting a bullseye on your forehead for no good reason.
The only folks who might get some use out of this plan are bishops and rectors who are still pretending the Windsor Process is still alive so as to keep their conservatives from walking. It might work for some, but I doubt it.
Mark–I do not know what you mean by ‘Howe Plan’ — there is no such thing. If you mean the material he has circulated, so as to attempt to correct a Telegraph news story, this is a memo from wider Bishops and others’ work. This work has been in process for many months now. It involves input from a wide arena of Communion leadership.
I am unsure where the idea of ‘oversight’ came from, but I think it was from people wishing oversight was something that could be taken from the PB and given to others.
Dr. Radner writes:
I’d agree with our ACI friends about the unfortunate tendency toward hyperbole and vilification. Many of us are too quick to read the worst into statements, and then challenge the integrity of those trying to do things. But, I do think this cuts both ways. And I am weary of the ACI’s increasingly dismissive tone regarding the “FedCon” plans. I suspect this is what motivates at least some of the unpleasantness here; it seems to some like one more kick in the FedCon groin to have excluded it’s de facto leadership, and then to explain it with statments that sound like “oh well, they obviously don’t care about the communion anyway.” (Pardon if I’ve mischaracterized the tone; if I have, you do need to understand that this is how your comments come across to some readers.)
It would be nice if our ComCon friends could heed Dr. Radner’s advice, and cut some slack for those who have found it necessary to make alternate “provisional responses.” As Prof. Seitz says, “What a terrible witness this all is.”
It is a terrible witness. On all sides, no doubt.
Like Ms Hey, I do not believe the fedcon/gafcon conception is either workable as a Communion option, nor will it attract much beyond what it has done thus far, and added to that, it will not be attractive to the majority of GS Primates — witness major leaders like Chew, Anis, Gomez standing to the side or being more forthright in distancing.
My sense is that fedcons simply assumed that ‘orthodoxy’ was some kind of immediately obvious notion and that all would follow, when a major block of orthodox people do not find what is offered as prudent, palatable, or commanding of anything like wide Communion respect. This is simply a fact. Add to this that orthodox expressions of real ‘orthodoxy’ will fall in on themselves and compete and defeat. May God have mercy.
I cannot see why the ACI or any other conservative bloc ought to be expected to accede to understandings of Communion–in the long range of God’s ways, prayerfully apprehended–put forward by others with plans they hold dear.
ACI, to my mind, does not believe its remit is to hold up ways forward for public acclamation, and to contrast these with what is being proposed by others, in the first instance. It does what it believes is God’s will for the anglican christianity it tracks in missional success throughout the world. It may be that this vision and these prayers are answered by God with a No.
But to say as a chief business that ACI is not respectful of something called a Fedcon solution is both false, and also misunderstanding of what we believe God is doing in all this. We cannot know what God intends with anglicanism, and we only pursue what we believe we hear God saying about this catholic anglican reality going back, in the providence of God, to saints bringing Christianity to the British Isles in the early centuries after our Lord’s ascension.
I sincerely pray that everyone spend more time in prayer and discernment, instead of blog point scoring, and ask what God is doing with an anglican christian missionary success story, now, in this time of His purposes.
I have no interest in impugning designs for anglicanism I do not share. And I contest that ACI is chiefly about that. It has its own work and its own understanding, in prayer, of what Christ is doing in this portion of his body.
CTian–God bless.
Dr. Seitz, You ask where the idea of ‘oversight’ came from as if we were interjecting it into the conversation in a way that is unwarranted.
To the contrary, Bishop Howe wrote this about the Communion Partners plan: “In the context of the Episcopal Visitors concept announced by the Presiding Bishop at the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, a number of us have reflected a need for a larger gathering which we are calling Communion Partners.”
So apparently the Communion Partners plan was an evolution out of Schori’s EV plan, which was itself a counter-proposal to the DES PV plan. The DES PV plan was championed by the GS because they recognized the very real need for such a thing in the United States (and at the time Schori gave her assent). The need for the DES PV plan stemmed from TEC’s unrelenting pursuit of its revisionist agenda, TEC’s lawsuits, and some orthodox TEC dioceses request to the ABC for Alternative Primatial Oversight. (It took a while but there’s the word ‘oversight.’)
If Howe hadn’t drawn our attention to the lineage, we of course never would have noticed, as the Communion Partners Plan is such a dilution of DES as to be unrecognizeable. But given that this is the lineage, it is entirely fair for us to ask ‘why is there no oversight included here?’
Your ACI article seems to answer this question by saying that the PB doesn’t oversee anything, therefore orthodox diocese are safe from persecution, however, orthodox parishes in revisionist diocese are largely unsalvageable (because the diocese is the fundamental unit of anglicanism).
This doesn’t hold water for the following reasons:
1) the PB is in fact quite powerful
2) DES called for protection for both dioceses and parishes
3) Your group has chosen to back a slightly altered version of Schori’s counter-proposal, rather than the DES PV plan.
So the question many of us have is this, “Why have the Camp Allen bishops been content to merely ammend Schori’s EV plan, rather than fight for what is actually needed?”
I will grant that the Fedcon/Gafcon solution may be fraught with peril, but staying put and waiting for the ABC to act is no less risky.
As a communion, the closest that we were able to get to having a disciplined and orderly life was the DES plan. If it comes down to following the guys who championed that plan (Akinola, Orombi, Venebles) or the guy that worked to subvert discipline both before and after DES (the ABC), then I’ll take the former.
Well, I don’t think that the Anglican Communion will have a future if it depends solely on human effort. That much is clear. I think that God can save Anglicanism despite our best efforts to destroy it, or God can let Anglicanism die despite our best efforts to save it.
It seems to me that neither the GAFCON/FedCon faction nor the ACI/CommCon faction hold the key to the future of a disciplined, ordered Communion. Both are plagued with crippling weaknesses, yet both hold to some incredible, God-given strengths.
Kendall has long declared that ours is a church under judgment. On that I must say I heartily agree. I think that Kendall would also say that both the CommCons and the FedCons still have a lot to be purged from. One of the biggest follies that I have noted amongst Anglicans and (especially) Episcopalians has been the sin of PRIDE. We always seem to think we are the cat’s meow – smarter, more enlightened, and more better company then other Christians. Well, now we are in the situation where all the FedCons’ clever men and all the CommCons’ clever horses can’t put Humpty-Dumpty together again. Only God can do that.
Perhaps it is time to accept this reality and get on with the basics of being a Christian and spreading the Gospel. I am not saying stop doing things and engaging in activism, but rather adjust our attitudes. I hold Sietz, Radner, Minns, Orombi, Wright, Gomez, Akinola, Anis, Packer, Short, Guernsey, Kolini all in very high regard. I don’t always agree with what they do. Sometimes they are foolish, sometimes naive, sometimes too pushy, sometimes too aggressive. In other words, they are kind of like Jesus’ disciples and like all the other sinners who are trying to follow Jesus throughout history.
For what its worth, I think that in 50 years or less, the Anglican Communion will have a renewed strength. I believe it is under attack in a way most of us have no idea about. I don’t think that the way forward will clarify anytime soon, and I think that the Anglican Communion will only be saved because God wills that it be saved. I think that the best each of us can do for the future Communion is to be as faithful as we can in the circumstances given to us to live in.
JamesW writes, “Perhaps it is time to accept this reality and get on with the basics of being a Christian and spreading the Gospel.”
Kendall in his Colorado lectures stated (a slight paraphrase): “The Episcopal church is still an effective organization for carrying out the Gospel mission, true of false. If you answered true, repeat the question.” Ephraim wrote a famous letter stating that the actions of diocese leadership and the national Church are severely compromising his ability to carry out gospel ministry. So we have revisionist dioceses preaching their universalist gospel: sleep with whomever, everyone will be saved, see you at the sufi dance. Then you have the “Camp Allen” dioceses whose message is being contradicted by the national church and that are preoccupied with damage control. A good example is the diocese of Central Florida…
It seems to me that one of the unspoken issues that this “Communion partners” plan seeks to address is the hemorrhaging occurring in Central Florida and other “Camp Allen” dioceses. This is category one of Sarah’s analysis (#7):
[blockquote]Parishes in safe [temporarily], differentiated dioceses will continue to be in TEC, but with no influence from the Communion Partners Plan one way or the other. Some individuals will leave for non-Anglican entities.[/blockquote]
Now, +John Howe already has a good relation with ++Drexel Gomez, who visits the diocese with some regularity. The plan certainly adds nothing to Central Florida as Sarah says. Rowan Williams wrote that he did not understand why parishes were seeking to leave +John Howes’ diocese. Could he be more clueless? South Carolina might be safe for a while, but the reality of the +Howes’ impending retirement is staring in the faces of the people of the diocese. Public statements that the wolves have no teeth (or metro-political powers, whatever that means) does not provide succor to those who will have the wolves in their midst when their shepherd soon retires.
The only internal solution viable is if the Camp Allen bishops are willing to take a true stand for the Faith. (Faith trumps polity, by the way.) They wouldn’t fear for their lives like the Oxford martyrs, but rather simply embarrassing inhibition – ecclesiastical martyrdom, if you will. Of course, to do this would require them to act in a non-collegial fashion. Something that their performance at New Orleans as well as this weak proposal argue that they are quite incapable of.
Just in the facts department: 1. +Drexel Gomez has to my knowledge visited Central FL once. 2. Oxford Martyrs — fearing for their lives — that is where ACI is? Again, it would be nice if this kind of silliness were put on hold. 3. This is not a ‘Howe’ plan and was not conceived with him in mind, on the terms you appear to assume.
RE: “Like Ms Hey, I do not believe the fedcon/gafcon conception is either workable as a Communion option, nor will it attract much beyond what it has done thus far . . . ”
Just to clarify, while I do not believe that the CCP conception is workable, I do believe that it will attract more parishes — mostly in hostile dioceses who simply must leave. I don’t believe that the majority of departing Episcopalians will go CCP, but I do believe that some will.
I just wanted to clarify that bit.
I may have missed some document posted elsewhere, or maybe coming from the UK I’m not following the nuances of what is being proposed, but could someone – without bile and vitriol – explain to me what this is actually proposing. Preferably with a couple of working examples. Would these episcopal visitors act like flying bishops do in the C-of-E? (Actually I’m not going to continue suggesting similar models as that might muddy the waters further.)
Explanation would be gratefully received.
The Episcopal Visitors plan that Schori presented at New Orleans would provide TEC bishops to visit orthodox parishes in revisionist diocese or orthodox diocese that are feeling estranged from TEC.
The Communion Partners Plan adds the element that these visitors would, on occaision, meet for fellowship and discussion with folks like Gomez. In addition, GS Primates like Gomez would come to some TEC dioceses for fellowship and the celebration of the sacraments.
Marcus,
You ask how would this work in different situations?
Orthodox parishes in orthodox diocese: have no need for EV’s
Orthodox diocesans: have no need for EV’s
Orthodox parishes in revisionist diocese: could ask their bishop for an EV, and if that bishop consented then one would make a visit to the parish.
The Communion Partners Plan is a call for greater fellowship and communication between EV’s, “Windsor Bishops,” and a few GS Primates.
The main problem with the EV plan is that it only provides temporary “pastoral’ relief to orthodox parishes when what is needed is structural relief.
For instance:
1) if a revisionist bishop decides not to allow an EV, then there is no recourse.
2) Even if a revisionist bishop allows an EV, that parish may still draw unwanted attention from that diocese.
3) An orthodox parish in a revisionist diocese still must pay its assessment to the diocese (and some parishes can no longer do this in good concience given what that assessment now supports).
4) The EV plan does not help orthodox parishes that are in their most vulnerable state: transition between rectors.
The Communion Partners addendum to Schori’s Episcopal Visitors plan solves none of the above problems, nor does it protect orthodox diocese that are undergoing transitions in bishops.
The ACI position seems to be that these problems were never meant to be solved by the Communion Partners plan. So one question is, “Is there any other plan in the works to solve these problems, or have the Windsor Bishops resigned themselves to living with these limitations?”
Re: Mark McCall’s comment:
Amen; of course, this question has been suggested to our ACI interlocutors over, and over, and over again, with the same response we’ve gotten here (none). The silence speaks volumes. I drew my own conclusions, and I suspect others have, as well.
You have ACI’s priority (there is only one, in my opinion) well represented here: Communion uber alles. It’s all well to slap the “catholic” label on top of that, but when we look at the two communions that actually are catholic (Roman and Orthodox), we see that unity has meaning only as there is unity in the one Faith and eucharistic fellowship. ACI encourages us to defer to Mrs. Schori’s institution, even as it promotes a different faith and even as we experience widespread sundered eucharistic communion. That isn’t “catholic,” any more than it’s catholic to tolerate, as an intellectual curiosity, a sexuality agenda that has been flatly rejected from day one by Rome and Constantinople.
I’m not sure how many times ACI has said this, and I’m also not sure it matters. I think people form judgments and stick with them no matter what is said. It would be pointless to reiterate that lack of discipline has had terrible consequences, and that this has been exacerbated by a failure to bring concerted and organised pressure from all conservative quarters. But that is called sin.
Dr. Seitz – Without meaning to sound vitriolic (I hope I never do), I think that the ACI could stand to have an advisor in the PR variety. I don’t mean just for window dressing, but because I think sometimes that the ACI is relatively clueless about how its latest missives will be received by the ordinary laity. I realize that you will say “but the ACI’s role is not to be that” and I agree with you. But I do believe that the ACI is trying to do its best to solve the AC’s problem.
So here is a clue. In the run-up to the DES meeting, the ACI was trumpeting what became the DAR plan. The ACI declared that this was what was needed for the interim solution to the AC’s problems. Then Rowan Williams undermined that plan. KJS then proposes as a substitute plan, a repackaged form of DEPO, which both CommCons and FedCons had previously rejected as unsatisfactory. The ACI now proposes a repackaged form of DEPO as its new interim solution. It studiously refuses to criticize RW for undermining the plan which they proposed.
What this looks like to the ordinary laity, Dr. Seitz, is that the ACI are the guys who draw a line in the sand and say “this is the limit.” Then the bully crosses the line, and the ACI steps back, draws a new line and says “well, this is the limit.” And so on.
Many people who are now in the FedCon camp really, REALLY would rather be in the CommCon camp. Most really, REALLY had high hopes in the thoughtful solutions presented by the ACI in the past. Expectations were raised. Now it *looks* like the ACI has caved. And that, I think, more then anything is the cause for the intense anger which greets much of the ACI proposals lately and leads to such bile and vitriol on the blogs.
We are not in a position to do anything like this. Every ounce of work done by us is pro bono. As many people as believe we are doing a shoddy job of X or Y, as many believe we are doing what we should. Blogs tend to attract category one. There is no magic formula to deal with the challenges of keeping a Communion from fracturing into a million shards. We work as hard as we can, on top of busy teaching, preaching, writing schedules. I suspect each one of us has wondered where we have the stamina to do the work we do, full of missteps and bad PR and innumerable other faults that could be spotted (though I think on a blog like this, our missteps are noted with enthusiasm and relish). But thanks for the tip. Off to teach a seminar.
By the way: I am a firm believer in augustinian/pauline Christianity and have no trouble accepting that sin is sin, and that no special agents can make sure that people will not do whatever they are inclined to do. As my old friend Fitz Allison used to say: original sin is the empirically verifyable. I do often think about whether participating in blogs makes any sense, not least because it is hard to know if it is a random sample of anything, or just 3 pieces of a 200 piece puzzle.
Let me come to the ACI’s defense (someone get Chris a sublingual nitro, he his having chest pain). ACI has never stopped recognizing the terrible damage done by lack of discipline. The entire raison d’etre of ACI is due to lack of discipline. I am quite sure that both Ephraim and Chris get on with their academic work and training of orthodox clergy without all this nonsense.
They remain committed to discipline coming through existent ecclesiastical structures. They have stated that the cast of characters that we have to deal with are the ones who we alloted to deal with.
That being said, I think that half-measures such as these are decidedly unhelpful. The troops are weary. Side diversions exacerbate this.
The message that ACI remains committed to discipline coming through existent ecclesiastical structures has been clear. At this point, though, I have a hard time understanding how Rowan Williams can continue to escape very tough criticism, as he has undermined a very important structure: the Primates’ Meetings. Along those lines, most speak of the “Windsor process,” even though there is no such thing. The process ended at GC06 with ECUSA’s rejection of Communion discipline, and the report behind the process should more properly be called “Dromantine.” That meeting of the Primates, marking the official Communion position, substantially downplayed the border crossing ACI is quick to join Katharine Jefferts Schori in bemoaning.
Even if we accept this error, however, the fact remains that the border crossers are the only ones experiencing any sort of discipline, while ECUSA is experiencing none – and, this is principally due to one man, the aforementioned Williams. What I’m getting at with respect to ACI is that, if we are to accept the first sentence of this comment as accurate, we need to see at least as many of ACI’s erudite papers and public commentary aimed at the ABC as the “FedCons,” GAFCON, blogs, etc. I invite correction if I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen it.
I would like to thank Drs. Seitz and Radner for their patience (and thick skin) for responding to critics on this and many other threads. I have always suspected that they share some of our criticisms, but like Robroy says, are making the most of the cards they have been dealt. A few years ago we were digging a farm pond in our field and I looked out the window to see the operator of the bulldozer kneeling on the ground on the earthen dam he was constructing. Thinking he might be injured, I walked out to check and as I got closer I saw that he was squatting beside a small sapling growing out of the dam and pounding on the tree with a large stone a bit bigger than his hand. He didn’t have a chainsaw or pruning saw on the dozer and the tree had to be removed. It was about half-mangled when I got there. He gladly accepted my offer of a saw.
I am sure ACI would love to have a chainsaw, and I suspect they talk among themselves about how necessary a good saw is. But until they get one they will keep pounding away with the best rock they can find, all the while responding to critics like me who tell them that what they really need is the right saw.
Is it the position of the framers of this proposal that visitations by and meetings with foreign orthodox Anglican leaders will facilitate a strengthening of orthodoxy in TEC? Was it lack of such in the decades past the was the cause of the rise of heresy and apostacy? I didn’t really think there was such a lack of communion mindedness among the orthodox.
But what will be the practical effect of greater, thou not unlimited, access to the Communion outside TEC? How will it change what actually goes on here? It seems to me that what is being underplayed is the nature of our special polity, and how it has been actually and effectively used and abused. These visits don’t look like they will accomplish any more than did the access of the Red Cross to German POW camps, always on the condition of the Commandant’s aproval or course.
I gather from the comments about strengthening the communion mindedness in TEC is that schism and schismatic thinking among the orthodox, by which I mean downplaying the importance of the institutional unity of the Communion and ignoring Canterbury approved solutions, is seen as a principal problem to be addressed when it is clear that such is but the consequence of the unrestrained heresy plaguing the church which is the real problem. Trying to address the former before adequately dealing with the latter is rather putting the cart before the horse. It doesn’t go anywhere and only reveal a horse’s ass.
[url=http://www.marrowcleaver.blogspot.com/]Have a Nicene Day[/url]
You are welcome, Mark. Could you use your chainsaw on #101 and some others? All best wishes.
Thank you for your and others’ efforts, Prof. Seitz.
You are most welcome, Pageantmaster.
According to [url=http://www.livingchurch.org/news/news-updates/2008/2/25/house-of-bishops-will-address-bishops-in-communion-plan]Living Church[/url]:
Another problem with the “plan”: The Episcopal visitors are not the same as the “Camp Allen” bishops. So here I am in Newark, say, with my struggling orthodox parish. I request an Episcopal visitor and my heretical bishop gives me…Dorsey “I will ram full funding for 815 down the throat of my diocese” Henderson, lawyer/lackey of KJS. Will he adhere to Camp Allen Principles?
William Witt gave [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/10324/#189201 ]this account[/url] of life in a revisionist diocese how effective DEPO was:
[blockquote]Just as an aside, these were the deal-breakers with the CTSix parishes. Andrew Smith was more than willing to provide DEPO for all six parishes. However, he required an upfront commitment to full payment of assessments–even though numerous revisionist parishes were not paying them. And he absolutely refused to promise that revisionist priests would not be imposed on the parishes when their own priests retired or moved. When Smith has had the opportunity to install clergy for the TEC remnants of CTSix parishes (as, for example, St. John’s, Bristol and Christ Church, Watertown), they have always been revisionist.[/blockquote]
Again, why are the proponents promulgating this folly?
Please review Fr. Kingsley’s (#11) apt analysis of the CPP and comment. Or, is it so bang on that CPP defenders would rather not comment and let the observation fade into the noisy background? Thanks.