More on Justin Welby’s Facilitated Conversation Scheme on sexual immorality in an interview with David Porter and Malcolm Brown in September 2014.
David Porter is Director of Reconciliation to the Archbishop of Canterbury
Malcolm Brown is Director of the Mission and Public Affairs Division in the Church of England
Documents from Church of Scotland’s Decision to be used.
David Porter: “It’s not necessarily about sitting down arguing over the Scriptures” [3 mins 30 secs in]
Listen to it all [Soundcloud] [about 11 minutes long] and see also for background David Porter Lays Out Justin Welby’s Sexual Immorality Plans for the CofE
TRANSCRIPT
Interviewer: So I’m here with Malcolm Brown and David Porter and we’re going to talk about the College of Bishops Meeting and what might happen at the College in the week ahead.
Malcolm, how have we got from the Pilling Report to what’s going to be happening at the College of Bishops this week:
Malcolm Brown: Well as you know the Pilling Report actually recommended a process of conversations with facilitators as one of its key recommendations given the intractable nature within the church of some of the questions that it looked at. I think it is common knowledge that the Pilling Report was not, or the Pilling Group, wasn’t unanimous – there was a minority report from one of the bishops, but I think the mood of the whole group, including the bishop who wrote the minority report, was that the experience of sitting down together, and it did actually take about two years for the Pilling Group to come to its report, that process had been extremely eye-opening for everybody who was involved.
I think whether it was the right way of doing this or not, the group was brought together as a bunch of bishops and advisers whose views were very much at odds with each other from the start. Now those didn’t coalesce into an agreement or a consensus but what did happen was that each of them heard a lot from why each of them believed what they did. They began to take each other seriously as people journeying in faith, and even though that did not lead them onto the same journey, it led them into a degree of respect for each other they had never really plumbed before. So the recommendation to move to conversations, carefully designed, with facilitation, across the whole church in fact, is an attempt to say that the real fruit of the Pilling Report wasn’t the attempt, doomed attempt perhaps, to come to agreement, it was the fact that we had learnt to respect each other in new ways, and to understand something of why people who disagreed profoundly, believed with such passion the things that they did.
Interviewer: David can you tell us something about the process that the Bishops are going to be engaged in over the next few days?
David Porter: Well quite simply it is what is says on the tin, it is a process of shared conversation. It is about creating space that they can feel a certain amount of confidence and because somebody’s there holding the ring so that all voices will be heard, that people will be able to engage with each other in a respectful way, to come and to talk about the change that we see in the culture around us in relation to questions of human sexuality and the diversity that exists within the church about how we should respond as people of faith to that. And the process that we have designed is aiming to bring the bishops through a series of conversations where they themselves draw on the various resources, materials that have been provided, their own experience, their own knowledge, their own understanding of Scripture, to look at various aspects of this challenge about what actually is going on out there ”“ how are different groups within the church and different perspectives in the church being held and articulated ”“ and then how do they as bishops respond to that, how do they see that impacts on the church’s mission, the church’s self-understanding.
So that’s the nature of the process.
It’s not sitting down talking to text, it’s not talking about the Pilling Report, it’s not necessarily sitting down arguing over the scripture, although I am sure a certain amount of Biblical discourse will take place.
It’s about saying to busy leaders, as with all of the church, Let’s just take a breath, create the space and talk and see how we then can get a greater understanding of what we think our response as a church should be and why we differ on that.
Interviewer: What do you think would be the ideal outcome? You say you have designed, there have been people who have designed the process. What would be the ideal outcome that that process has been designed to elicit?
David Porter: For me the ideal outcome will be that people will be able to articulate with a measure of empathy the views of others that they don’t agree with, that allows them therefore to see in their relationships with them that they also are seeking to be faithful to the Tradition of the Church, the teaching of Scripture and the Calling of Christ – in our Mission to the world. And that we develop that rapport, that capacity to Disagree Well that means that when we get to the process which is beyond the shared conversations when decisions will need to be made, because you can’t leave it in this space forever, the way that we approach the making of those decisions is done in a way that honours the fact that we are Brothers and Sisters in Christ, and that even though we disagree, we are going to do that in a way that reflects that reality as much as the reality of our own convictions on these issues.
Malcolm Brown: There’s also something lurking here that’s about some things that the church is particularly good at or ought to be good at and that’s offering the world in general a different model of how you can conduct rancorous debate, really difficult debate. And a parallel I’ve drawn once or twice is with the very, very different issue of fracking where my department is caught up in that at the moment, and where a senior geophysicist said to me a while ago: ”˜there’s almost no space for rational discussion if this. Everything is taken to be pushing you to one pole or the other in the argument.” And that is actually true of so many areas of our public life ”“ that debate isn’t about where can we agree, where to we disagree, it’s about I’m right, you must therefore not just be wrong but Bad. Now I don’t think actually that is how the church through the centuries has conducted itself. We’ve had our differences, sometimes they’ve been quite bitter, but we’ve also had other ways of doing things which reflect more our commitment to the mind of Christ and the way in which Reconciliation between warring factions was somewhere quite central in His ministry. And if we can get this right, and that’s an if, I think we have a gift here that others may want to emulate.
David Porter: And I think that highlights how this is actually different from happened under the Women Bishops Process, because people are saying this is facilitated conversations, and yes the Women Bishops Process was with a goal in mind because the church had expressed its overwhelming mind. It had reached a legislative cul-de-sac and we used facilitated conversation with a goal to move out of that cul-de-sac and get a way forward.
We are using the Process of Conversation, because what that process showed us was that sitting round talking in a different context that isn’t in the debating forum or the legislative forum does change the game. We are using the lesson of that, but not with the same goal in mind. We are not facilitating this towards an outcome. We are facilitating it towards a shaping of the relationship so that when people do get to the point where outcomes are important and important decisions have to be made, this witness to how, is “look how these Christians love one another” because of how they Disagree Well.”
Interviewer: You’ve both been responsible for drawing up some of the materials that will inform the discussions as they go ahead; have you got a word about what people can expect to find there?
Malcolm Brown: First of all I hope that the materials will lead them very gently and carefully through the process that David has outlined so that some of the fears that are not certainly intended to be substantiated are dispelled. There is a lot of anxiety around about what may lie behind these conversations about hidden agendas and things like that. I hope that we’ve unpacked that sufficiently in the light of Pilling indeed to show that that isn’t the case. That this is as David has described it.
So, there is a lot of process, there’s a lot of reassurance I hope, that says that this is what it says it is and it’s not something hidden.
There’s also a certain amount of modestly academic material that we are sharing with participants. This isn’t by way of discussion papers, this isn’t about saying what do you think of this, what do you think of that, but it is so that those who participate will mainly have at least a rudimentary body of shared reading. They will have read the same things we hope, and will therefore at least understand that some of the things they may not have been exposed to before are actually quite serious arguments. So for instance there are some things that the Pilling Report attempted and didn’t do very well, there are other things that Pilling didn’t even attempt.
On Scripture which is very central to all these arguments, Pilling began to open up some of the discussion among scholars, but in the case of the resources for the Conversations we’ve gone to scholars who have a higher standing among Biblical scholars, who I hope are going to be able to present their case in a way that those who disagree with it can at least see the sense of. These are scholars who do not try to overclaim, they are aware of the stronger and the weaker arguments in support of their position but they take very different viewpoints.
We’ve also tried to expand a bit on the international experience of talking about sexuality within the Anglican Communion, and most interestingly we’ve borrowed, with permission, a fascinating paper that was debated at the Church of Scotland General Assembly back in May on how churches through history have dealt with profound disagreement ..
David Porter: and the other material we have provided is some reflection on what a Process of Conversation is about, and the emphasis being that by and large a lot of people will not change their view and their understandings of process of this, but they may change as people and how they hold that view in relation to the Other. And that reflection on what the process emphasises that ”“ emphasises our responsibility to those we disagree with, as brothers and sisters in Christ. It talks about if you do win the argument how do you care for those who are on the other side of that debate. Because this is as important, at how we conduct it is as important, as whatever conclusions we come to. And that is what we are trying to emphasise through the shared conversations. That we need to give attention to this, as much as the issues under discussion.
Interviewer: David Porter Malcolm Brown thank you very much.
Apparently the goal is to learn to disagree well. Further, the claim is made–and one will watch to see if it is substantiated–that no outcome is desired in advance (cf WO).
Many of us will find the goal quizzical or slightly counter-intuitive, and go on to question whether the second thing is genuine, and if so, could it produce an outcome of division, for example.
I can see the idea of disagreeing people being brothers/sisters in Christ (so the claim). What seems odd is the idea that brothers/sisters cannot err. Instead the language being used is ‘bad.’ That seems rhetorically strategic: you can’t say someone is erring without also labeling them bad.
I can see no warrant for this kind of conceptuality in the NT. Paul speaks typically to actual Christians who however err and need correction. Does he major in calling them ‘bad’? No; they are Christians and he asks them to be who they are called to be.
So on my ear the gambit is tilted toward avoiding truth claims about the Gospel in the name of getting a disagreement properly aired. That could be fine. Just so long as the idea that there is truth and error and that these matter as Gospel imperatives, is not flushed away. Maybe the good disagreement will end up being over just that. But that is a cause for concern going in.
As one who still thinks the New Testament is crystal clear about matters of sexual morality, I don’t see why those who believe in the authority of Scripture even engage in these waste-of-time discussions any more. The problem is there are a lot of people out there who call themselves Christians who just want to live in rebellion against God and do not want to acknowledge what the Bible calls sin. And they will just lecture you day in day out on how they are right until you either give in or leave.
I once had to spend several hours sitting in a “listening session” of my former denomination to be lectured on how I was wrong for not supporting homosexuality/transexuality/transgenderism/open relationships in the church. It was a reeducation camp, not a listening session. By the end of that experience, I had made my decision that I was not sticking around that denomination any longer.
You can believe that sexual relationships outside of a God-centered marriage of a man and woman are the greatest thing since sliced bread, but you can’t use the Bible to get there.
I concur that these discussions are intended to benefit those who challenge the authority of scripture. They lend institutional credibility to unbiblical concepts and practices.
Any “Facilitated Conversation Scheme” that is not 100% directed to returning the church to biblical teaching is by definition directed to something else.
“Sheep, meet the wolves. Wolves, may I introduce you to the sheep.”
🙄
The case needs to be made about what is at issue. There is a difference between truth seeking and profiling disagreement in some kindly way. This needs to be called out. It is a matter of first principles.
1 Samuel 3:19 (ESV)
[b]And Samuel grew, and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fall to the ground.[/b]
Matthew 5:17-19 (ESV)
[b]“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.[/b]
Titus 1:2b (ESV)
[b]. . .God, who never lies, . . .[/b]
2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)
[b]All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,[/b]
They are basically saying, “There is no right or wrong, and we found that out by spending two years together listening to each other. You can do this a lot faster if you just repeat after us, ‘There is no right or wrong, there is no right or wrong…'”
Compare these protestations to this old timer,
“Right is right even if no one is doing it; wrong is wrong even if everyone is doing it.â€
― Augustine of Hippo
So fight one’s corner and make sure this is put in the record.
Those who believe in human nature as defined in Scripture should not be fooled by this gobbledy-gook. The definite goal is to normalize same-sex erotic behavior, just as the definite goal in the WO talks was from the beginning to outlaw the traditional view. They’re almost there on the WO debate. This one will go much faster.
From the archives: [url=http://www.episcopalarchives.org/cgi-bin/ENS/ENSpress_release.pl?pr_number=94136]”Continuing the Dialogue”[/url]. We all know how well that worked out.
#9 Golly – that is the Welby Scheme – lifted in its entirety.
I knew that TEC had been through something similar. That’s the Welby game he is playing with likely the same results unless the evangelical bishops stand up to it, not to mention the Anglican Primates to whom Welby offers it as a ‘GIFT’ to the Communion.
More likely a Trojan horse.
It appears that like you, we are being taken where we do not want to go.
I admit to being quite shocked seeing your link, Dr Noll. There have been some very very clever people working out how to swing Christian denominations.
Make sure you are clear about your theological (and philosophical) objections. Put these in clear form, and make the case. In the public record. Model a different understanding of how truth is to be reached. And if this serves to expose the real differences that exist, the job will have been done. There is a Christian responsibility in this regard. If a rival view of ‘truth’ is asserting itself this must be carefully and painstakingly exposed. This will also identify an important theological leadership in your ranks.
Pageantmaster, you can pick up from 1994 and trace the outworkings in the EcUSA here: http://walkingapart.us/tiki-index.php
Thanks you Professor Seitz, Dr Noll and dwstroudmd+ – very helpful.
A wise friend of mine commented that these conversations only have one possible outcome: acceptance of active same sex blessings and episcopacy in the CofE. In fact, the only thing “good disagreement†could possibly mean is that that is accepted and those who disagree accept it.
My experience in “listening” described in #2 was that every time someone tried to assert what Scripture actually said, it was dismissed as being “hurtful” to “GBLT” participants. One person that was of indeterminate gender in my “listening” group actually went on a crying jag every time something “hurtful” was said and said how terrible it was that he/she was being kept from ordination by people like me.
#15 All the more reason to be clear how to organize a solid response that can have impact. In the C of E this should be agenda # 1.
Professor Seitz–Not that I don’t agree with you, I am just saying that in my denomination (essentially this was held in my presbytery prior to the vote on allowing gay clergy), the whole process was rigged from the start.
I doubt that ‘rigged from the start’ should be the attitude of extremely talented conservative clergy and academics in the CofE. If ACI had taken this attitude, there would have been no successful resistance to 815 overreach. In TX, Illinois and SC we see what can come of hard work. Exposing the false arguments and presuppositions of the progressive overreach.
“And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.”
#19. Correct. So let the CofE stand and assert that with force and conviction and win the day in declaring the Gospel truth. Just as did Athanasius and the long line of exegetical theologians before him: Tertullian, Clement, Theophilus, Athenagorus, Basil, Jerome.
There is one, only one, and no more than one purpose for these conversations. That is to keep conservatives onside when the CoE gives up the ghost on homosexuality. They are intended to replace obedience to the Word with respect for the man. That will last only so long as the man himself. It will not cause revisionists to respect the theology held by the man. When the man departs, the disrespect will remain.
For these conversations to proceed, there would need to be some agreed basis for agreement and some consensus of the limits of disagreement. Neither of these could possibly be obtained. It will therefore devolve into relationship exercise in the hope the relationship will sustain unity. This is the fundamental liberal premise built into the exercise.
Follow the lead of Reform. Do not participate. Do not offer strange fire on this altar. No good can come from it.
[blockquote] “So let the CofE stand and assert that with force and conviction and win the day in declaring the Gospel truth.” [/blockquote]
Who are you talking to? If you mean the leadership of the CofE at diocesan level or higher then it is not going to take any notice because it is already thoroughly revisionist.
[blockquote] “In TX, Illinois and SC we see what can come of hard work.” [/blockquote]
Sure, but what does that have to do with the situation in CofE?
There are very many orthodox Christians still in CofE, but their representation at diocesan level (including diocesan Synod) is almost non-existent. There is a clear difference between the situation in TEC in the 1990s (or even in 2008), and the situation in CofE now.
#9 and #13, those are very appropriate links. They emphasise that orthodox Christians in CofE now should disabuse themselves of any notion that they are going to change the minds of the CofE leadership.
Nor are they going to win back control of any dioceses or diocesan Synods, let alone the provinces (York and Canterbury).
The revisionists in CofE only understand strength. The best way for the orthodox to deal with them is to (a) accelerate development of legal defences to their congregations, to cordon them off from episcopal contact or control; (b) establish new congregations that are outside of diocesan influence or control, whether within or outside CofE; (c) take over and rejuvenate dying parishes but ONLY where the legal situation means that the diocese and other revisionists cannot then take over what has been built up.
At the same time, do nothing to assist the CofE hierarchy financially – leave them and the British government to spend their money on upkeep of the 10,000 or so heritage-listed buildings with dying or non-existent congregations. The money they spend on this is money they can’t use to oppress the orthodox.
And finally, by all means research ways to take back the English episcopacy, but don’t bet on it happening – the liberals and those who tolerate them are entrenched and reclacitrant. The CofE episcopate is gone, for at least the next ten years, and probably longer. So write if off and build for the future at a lower level.
In 1998, just prior to the Lambeth Conference, I wrote an essay called [url=http://www.stephenswitness.org/2007/07/no-compromise-on-essentials.html]No Compromise on Essentials[/url].
It included the following headings:
• Why Dialogue on Essentials Is Against the Anglican Way
• Why Dialogue on Sexuality Will Not Bring Peace
• Why Dialogue on Sexuality Will Undermine the Church’s Witness
• Why the Call for Dialogue Involves a Failure of Imagination
My warning to those interested in any proffered dialogue came from a classic limerick:
There was a young lady of Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a tiger;
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside,
And the smile on the face of the tiger.
I think the principles I raised are still valid and the outcome of riding a tiger will remain the same.
#22. Obviously I mean the conservatives in the CofE. Those of us fighting inside TEC don’t have any more representation than you describe in the CofE. No one is talking about getting involved in some vague hope, but rather to challenge the first principles and expose where they are in error. That is a Christian duty. Apart from a few statements I have seen, there appears to be a void of strong public response.
Sorry Dr Seitz, I suspect I misunderstood you at the outset. What did you mean by “In TX, Illinois and SC”? Were you referring to the court victories, i.e. Dio Fort Worth (the re-hearing is yet to come, but the Appeal result was hopeful), Dio Quincy (a good result from Illinois appeals court) and Dio SC (a very good first instance decision, as much for the content of the judgment as the result itself)? But if so, I wouldn’t have described any of them as “fighting inside TEC”.
Surely engaging in the current “conversations” would be just that? (i.e. “getting involved in some vague hope”).
That is why Reform (and apparently also Church Society) are urging their members not to participate in the conversations. And its not because they aren’t “challenging the first principles and exposing error” – they have already done that and are continuing to do it. But that is the point – the bishops of the CofE already know exactly where Reform is coming from, and they intend to use Indaba-style techniques to smother their message, whilst claiming a mutual understanding or even endorsement.
On that basis, the situation seems much closer to Lambeth in 2008 (those orthodox bishops who attended accomplished nothing except to impliedly give their endorsement to ++Williams’ policies) and Dublin in 2011 (the orthodox Primates would have done the same if they had attended, but fortunately they did not, and thereby had a far more effective witness).
I have to say also, in view of David Porter’s strong hints to Colin Coward that the bishops intend to get rid of 10% of the conservative side of the CofE, there must be real concern about whether orthodox evangelicals should draw themselves or their congregations to the hierarchy’s attention. Porter has had every opportunity to deny his comments but has not done so. Don’t get me wrong – I am not suggesting that the orthodox should be afraid of the bishops, and people like Porter and the bishops have in turn served notice that they should never be employed by any orthodox church or organisation. But there is no reason to make their current intentions easier for them to implement.
Just hope that engaged, intelligent, public witness is undertaken, pointing out the logic of facilitated conversations. No point in conceding the field to others on the grounds they are more powerful, have more of the percentage, etc.
Where is the brain-trust such as we saw it in the St Andrews Day statement? Have they just decided it is not worth it?
The arguments in SC, Quincy, TX were all made on behalf of historical TEC polity, as against those hired by TEC to say otherwise. And the judges ruled against hierarchy because they believed the arguments which said TEC was otherwise organized.
At age 82, I will never see a change in ECUSA’s direction or leadership, or the direction the C of E is heading. Frankly, I doubt any of us posting here will either.
Talk with others will have about the same impact as when Golda Meir spoke to the UN about Israel’s willingness to sit down and talk with anyone. Israel was ignored.
Hi Dr Seitz, I think there are some clear points of difference on this, and it raises a very practical issue about how orthodox Anglicans in CofE should react to the bishops’ initiative of facilitated conversations:
[blockquote] “Just hope that engaged, intelligent, public witness is undertaken, pointing out the logic of facilitated conversations”.[/blockquote]
What is logical about them? I can’t see any, so far. The clergy of Reform gave notice some months ago that the CofE hierarchy needed to give assurances that the process would be a fair one. The bishops have tried to fob them off. In those circumstances why should orthodox congregations have anything to do with them?
[blockquote] “No point in conceding the field to others on the grounds they are more powerful, have more of the percentage, etc.” [/blockquote]
As I have written above, I think there is a great deal of point to it, and so apparently does Reform. Why on earth fight on the enemy’s chosen ground? That is why the Primates did not go to Dublin.
And we should not assume that these conversations constitute the whole “field” either. Communication goes on in all sorts of ways and with many different people.
[blockquote] “Where is the brain-trust such as we saw it in the St Andrews Day statement? Have they just decided it is not worth it?” [/blockquote]
The 1995 St Andrews Day Statement contained some sensible theology. But it was ignored by the CofE hierarchy, apart from mouthing some platitudes. It is virtually forgotten.
By contrast, what is remembered and still resonates throughout the Anglican Communion, is that orthodox bishops forced a motion from the floor at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, a motion which ++Carey and the CofE hierarchy never intended to be put. That motion was passed overwhelmingly to become Resolution 1.10 on human sexuality.
Then (and this next part is just as important) when the next ABC signalled that he wasn’t going to put Resolution 1.10 into practical effect, many of those same orthodox bishops declined to turn up to Lambeth 2008. “There is a time to speak and a time to be silent” (Eccl 3:7). The orthodox bishops understood that Lambeth 1998 was a time to stand up and speak, but equally, Lambeth 2008 was a time to boycott. It seems to me that Reform and Church Society have the correct understanding now, that these “facilitated conversations” are not a time to speak.
[blockquote] “The arguments in SC, Quincy, TX were all made on behalf of historical TEC polity, as against those hired by TEC to say otherwise. …” [/blockquote]
Sure, I have no problem with that characterisation. It may well turn out that these judgments lead to the rejuvenation of TEC. But how does that amount to a reason why the orthodox should engage in the CofE’s facilitated conversations now? I just do not understand the connection you are drawing.
I have made the points I wanted to make and they are sufficiently clear for those who are so inclined. I gather the CofE is not your own home context. I have my own friends and colleagues within the CofE context. Best regards.
It is standard operating procedure that if one is standing aside, the public need a full scale account of the theological reasons for this position. This is done to ‘crowd’ those who have set it up in their favor, and also to model a very different understanding of how theological debate is to take place. I don’t see why this is in any way objectionable. The alternative is to stand aside and concede the ground in the public domain.
No one from ACI fought in Quincy, SC or TX to ‘rejuvenate TEC,’ but to bear witness to where TEC had overreached. Fortunately that was a successful effort, praise God. The judges in these jurisdictions have learned that the rough-and-ready ‘hierarchy’ v ‘congregational’ is a way for TEC lawyers to confuse the situation and distort our polity. Someone needed to make that case and work hard to do so, in some cases meriting TEC discipline for their efforts. The judges in TX, Illinois and SC have ‘got it’ the latter two writing extremely durable rulings with hopefully wider effect.
Michael A.:
I am not sure that Dr. Seitz here is saying that the facilitated conversations are “logical”. I suspect that the phrase “pointing out the logic” might also have been written as “pointing out the illogic”.
I suspect that what Seitz is saying here is attend, but don’t be bullied into playing by their rules, but rather attend and don’t be afraid to model a Christian dialogue. It might result in discipline, but the witness would have been made.
#33 Thank you. Or, if you decide not to attend, use the opportunity carefully to dismantle the logic/illogic of what is being held up. Use every public opportunity. Don’t simply hand over the reins to others. There would be no victories in SC, TX or Illinois if we conceded the entire thing was rigged and it was pointless not to reframe and go on offense.
Those conservative leaders in the CofE will know best how to fight this.
Dr Seitz at #31 and #32
[blockquote] “I have my own friends and colleagues within the CofE context.” [/blockquote]
I am sorry but I do not understand the relevance of this – has anyone suggested that you do not? I certainly haven’t.
[blockquote] “It is standard operating procedure that if one is standing aside, the public need a full scale account of the theological reasons for this position.” [/blockquote]
And why are you judging that this has not been done, and is not being done?
[blockquote] “This is done to ‘crowd’ those who have set it up in their favor, and also to model a very different understanding of how theological debate is to take place. I don’t see why this is in any way objectionable. The alternative is to stand aside and concede the ground in the public domain.” [/blockquote]
Who said it was objectionable? The Primates in 2011 stated their case and did not turn up to the Primates meeting. Reform in 2015 has stated its case and (apparently) will not be attending the facilitated conversations. Even if that is “standing aside and conceding ground in the public domain”, so what? The important thing is to avoid being seen to endorse their position. That is what will happen if orthodox evangelicals get involved in the facilitated conversations.
[blockquote] “No one from ACI fought in Quincy, SC or TX to ‘rejuvenate TEC,’ but to bear witness to where TEC had overreached. Fortunately that was a successful effort, praise God. The judges in these jurisdictions have learned that the rough-and-ready ‘hierarchy’ v ‘congregational’ is a way for TEC lawyers to confuse the situation and distort our polity.” [/blockquote]
Sorry but I did not realise this was all about the ACI. But I do think that trying to cast those court victories as anything to which the ACI contributed more than peripherally is a bit of a stretch. Those judgments were brought about primarily because dissenting dioceses were prepared to leave and then to fight and finance a court battle.
Jamesw at #33 wrote:
[blockquote] “I suspect that what Seitz is saying here is attend, but don’t be bullied into playing by their rules, but rather attend and don’t be afraid to model a Christian dialogue.” [/blockquote]
Of course that is what he is saying. And what I am saying is that conservative evangelical leaders in the CofE have taken a different view to Dr Seitz, that the orthodox should not attend the conversations.
[blockquote] “It might result in discipline, but the witness would have been made.” [/blockquote]
No, actually the witness won’t be made, or rather it will be a reverse witness – the orthodox will be seen to endorse the hierarchy’s position.
Dr Seitz wrote at #34,
[blockquote] “There would be no victories in SC, TX or Illinois if we conceded the entire thing was rigged and it was pointless not to reframe and go on offense.” [/blockquote]
If by “we” you mean the ACI as per your post at #32, then I suspect you are significantly overstating its contribution, with respect. No doubt everyone’s prayers and assistance were appreciated, but in the end, the dioceses had to dissent and leave, and they and others then had to put money in for lawyers to make the case in court.
And in any case, what is the comparison between a court battle fought by a dissenting diocese that has left the organisation, and “facilitated conversations” between orthodox elements within an organisation and their own revisionist hierarchy? The bow keeps getting longer.
[blockquote] “Those conservative leaders in the CofE will know best how to fight this.” [/blockquote]
We can hope and pray so. In the case of Reform (and presumably Church Society since they are working together) their position is that their members should not attend the conversations.
#37 with respect, you don’t know what you are talking about re: legal work from ACI in TX, SC, Illinois. But that’s OK as your opinion doesn’t affect anything, fortunately.
#35 Michael A
I think that Professor Seitz is trying to be constructive and like Dr Noll, to give us the benefit of their experience in just the same situation in the States, but 15 years ago. I am grateful for it.
The ACI from reading their papers in the past have researched and continuously asserted the historical polity of TEC. I suspect many in the dioceses have much to thank them for in that painstaking historical and legal research.
As for England, we would be grateful for your prayers and all your wisdom as we are going through what seems like just what TEC was taken through, although we are being rushed through it much faster. Pray particularly for evangelicals, and the still not inconsiderable number of evangelical bishops, that they will not be be beguiled by the superficially attractive but theologically and Biblically unsound schemes being prepared for them by the ‘evangelical’ Archbishop of Canterbury and his fortunately transparent and feckless band of Reconciliati. Fac-Con it is.
Dear Pageantmaster, be assured of our prayers. It has gone the other direction as well. I think especially of all the hard work of +Michael Scott-Joynt and others from the C of E in the years not long past, when “they came over and helped us.” In those days we had as many as 15-20 strong Bishops willing to stand, but we would have been far the poorer for not having +Winchester alongside. I attended the very first meeting of Anglican Mainstream (where its name was given) and it was gratifying to see so much concerned collaboration from leaders in the C of E.
So be assured of our concern and our prayers as you bear witness at this difficult time.
Dr Seitz, if my comments about the ACI were untoward then I apologise. I am unhappy with myself for even responding on that issue, because I regard your introduction of it as a colossal red herring.
I am still at a loss as to why the points that you raise about the ACI, or about litigation in TX, Ill and SC are relevant to the issue of Reform urging its members not to participate in the facilitated conversations being promoted by the CofE bishops.
You have consistently argued on this thread that orthodox evangelicals in the CofE should do the contrary to what Reform leaders have urged, i.e. participate in the facilitated conversations. None of the reasons you cite in support appear to be relevant – litigation is
My apologies, hit the “send” button by accident. To continue:
Participation in the litigation in the USA is simply not comparable. By contrast, if you had cited participation by orthodox members of TEC in facilitated conversations with their revisionist bishops, I could see the parallel.
At the end of all of this I am still left wondering what your objection to Reform’s stance really is based upon.
As you have introduced ‘Reform’s stance’ I am both not challenging it nor do I have it as some sort of baseline I have read and disagree with.
It is now nine years since [url=http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/blog/comments/the_road_to_lambeth_presented_at_capa]“The Road to Lambethâ€[/url] statement was issued, which one could call a shot across the bow of Canterbury from the Global South churches, a shot that went unheeded. Along with two Global South bishops, I had a hand in drafting this statement at the request of Abp. Peter Akinola and with his final revision and the approval of the CAPA Council.
[blockquote]We in CAPA want to say clearly and unequivocally to the rest of the Communion: the time has come for the North American churches to repent or depart. We in the Global South have always made repentance the starting point for any reconciliation and resumption of fellowship in the Communion. We shall not accept cleverly worded excuses but rather a clear acknowledgement by these churches that they have erred and “intend to lead a new life†in the Communion (2 Corinthians 4:2). Along with this open statement of repentance must come “fruits befitting repentance†(Luke 3:8). They must reverse their policies and prune their personnel. It is clear from the actions of the recent General Convention of the Episcopal Church in the USA, including electing a Presiding Bishop whose stated position on sexuality – not to mention other controversial views – is in direct contradiction of Scripture and Lambeth 1.10, that that Province has refused to repent. Accordingly, we commend those churches and dioceses in the USA that have renounced the actions of the Convention and sought alternative oversight.
The current situation is a twofold crisis for the Anglican Communion: a crisis of doctrine and a crisis of leadership, in which the failure of the “Instruments†of the Communion to exercise discipline has called into question the viability of the Anglican Communion as a united Christian body under a common foundation of faith, as is supposed by the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. [i]Due to this breakdown of discipline, we are not sure that we can in good conscience continue to spend our time, our money and our prayers on behalf of a body that proclaims two Gospels, the Gospel of Christ and the Gospel of Sexuality.[/i]
It grieves us to mention that the crisis is not limited to North America. The passage of the Civil Partnerships Act in England and the uncertain trumpet sounded by the English House of Bishops have made it unclear whether the mother Church of the Communion is fully committed to upholding the historic Christian norm. We note, for instance, that it appears that clergy in the Church of England are obliged legally and without canonical protection to recognize the immoral unions of active homosexual church members and may soon be forced by law to bless homosexual “marriages.†Recently, the British media reported that a senior clergyman, supported by his bishop, “married†his same-sex partner, also a clergyman. So far as we can see, the Archbishop of Canterbury as Primate of All England has failed to oppose this compromising position and hence cannot speak clearly to and for the whole Communion.
In light of the above, we have concluded that we must receive assurances from the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury that this crisis will be resolved before a Lambeth Conference is convened. There is no point, in our view, in meeting and meeting and not resolving the fundamental crisis of Anglican identity. We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution are also invited as participants or observers.
We are frankly disappointed that the announced plans of the Lambeth Design Team avoid discussion of Communion order and discipline, which have been clearly strained to the breaking point. We are disappointed that the central issue of an Anglican Communion Covenant is not front-and-centre on the agenda of the Conference. If any group should be expected to consult on these most important issues, it should be the assembled bishops of the Communion.[/blockquote]
A lot has happened since 2006, including the abortive 2008 Lambeth Conference, the Global Anglican Future Conferences in Jerusalem and Nairobi in 2008 and 2013, and the formation of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans and the Anglican Church of North America.
So now, nine years later, the Archbishop of Canterbury is proposing further dialogue in the CofE along the very lines rejected in The Road to Lambeth, and he has declared it to be a model to be extended for reconciliation of the wider Communion.
As I said with regard to TEC, “we know how well how that worked out.†The choice before conservatives in the CofE is which road they will follow.
To support Dr Noll’s point – the following thread about discussions of a somewhat similar nature within TEC about seven years ago is interesting with hindsight. See http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/10506/?utm_source=StandFirm&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=link