The Most Revd Dr Josiah Atkins Idowu-Fearon has been appointed to be the next Secretary General of the Anglican Communion.
Dr Idowu-Fearon currently serves as Bishop of Kaduna in the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) where he has earned a global reputation in the Church for his expertise in Christian-Muslim relations.
He was selected out of an initial field of applicants from Oceania, Asia, Africa, Europe and the Americas.
Since 1998 the Most Revd Dr Idowu-Fearon has been Bishop of Kaduna, and he is the current Director of the Kaduna Anglican Study Centre. Before that he served as Bishop of Sokoto, Warden at St Francis of Assisi Theological College in Wusasa, and Provost of St. Michael’s Cathedral in Kaduna.
An answer to prayer! This is wonderful news on so many levels.
Well, certainly a Canterbury/TEC-compliant model as he has shown recently, he is more than happy to toe the line and from his recent trip to Rome with the former and rabidly revisionist TEC Bishop of Washington,John Chane shows, the suspicion is that nowadays he is prepared to obey instructions and get onboard with TEC-led events as a Welby stooge.
Did anyone in the Communion have a say in this, or has it just been imposed as usual? Were the Primate and House of Bishops of Nigeria asked? Were the other Global South Primates asked?
If the answer is no, what credibility will he have for the Global South to have any real confidence in him, any more than they have had with the TEC-financed James Tengatenga who is still on the so-called ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion?
He wears the dog tag too as well as the ubiquitous six preacher dog lead.
Fetch the ball – there’s a good boy. Well done Fido.
Woof woof, pant pant, woof woof.
Interesting. The political reasons for appointing somebody from the Global South appear rather obvious.
Bishop Idowu-Fearon was a member of the Lambeth Commission [hey — remember that good old “Windsor Report?], and has been a fairly consistent speaker at some ACI-promoted/sponsored events.
I think the most telling feature of his church politics are these ineffective, somewhat ludicrous, and rather pathetic ideas he presents for making the Instruments of Communion more effective:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/50838
I expect he’s a nice, good man who probably shares my theology about homosexuality and also shares the same faith and the same belief in the Gospel — far more than I can say for most bishops in The Episcopal Church.
He appears to believe that conservatives and liberals [ie — those who do not believe the Gospel] in the Anglican Communion should be building understanding and “learn to accommodate one another.”
Obviously I don’t share those foundational propositions. Nor do I believe that the Instruments of Communion may be reformed from the inside of those same instruments — which is why they should be repudiated and boycotted, publicly, so as to strip them of any perceived credibility, influence, or authority. Since they are irreformable from the inside, than those involved within them will merely be sucked into the unreformed maw and further co-opted — and that’s what I expect for Bishop Idowu-Fearon.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Fascinating to see him vilified at liberals blogs.
In many ways what is remarkable is not his views on sexuality–he lives in Kaduna State, where shariah Muslims predominate, including Boko Haram–but that he is alive at all.
This is a world miles away from attacking grannies in the Hoosier state for losing business not catering a lesbian nuptials reception…
#5 You must be reading different liberal blogs from me, Professor Seitz.
Although, it is fascinating to see the Canterbury spin machine and its little helpers going into overdrive:
-on the one hand: first secretary general from the two thirds majority world, first African, first Nigerian…blah…blah…blah
-on the other hand to the liberals: links with TEC diocese of Connecticut; wrote against boycotting Lambeth 2008, respects other views, not for silencing those who disagree, lets all get on together…blah…blah…blah…
It is what it is. Yet again an attempt to divide and rule using anybody and anything Canterbury can persuade or coopt to go along with its plans.
Then be in the dark no longer!
The Lead. Thinking Anglicans.
I have been reading TA – even Davis Mac-Iyalla is positive. Mind you, there is some Glaswegian nutcase ranting on as usual.
I don’t read The Lead these days – it is a sad thing wailing in the wind since its recent ‘relaunch.’
At TA. 1 weakly positive comment out of 20 soundly negative.
I wouldn’t say they were soundly negative, by TA standards, and more than one is weakly positive, by TA standards. However, comparisons are odious. I grant you having read it, that commenters on The Lead are having an attack of the vapors.
Nevertheless, that would have been the case whoever had been appointed, with the possible exception of James Tengatenga, but he has been coopted anyway.
The fact remains that someone who is not in accord with his province has been appointed, and looking at the history, I am not at all sure that he has the confidence of the Church of Nigeria or of many African countries. It looks like the desire to do an end run around GAFCON has clouded judgments, and that is what has played in Canterbury’s favor. Divide and rule, divide and rule, same old game. Conservatives would rather favor the opposition, if it allows a kick at another group of conservatives. The Canterbury pipsqueak has played this well.
Thinking about it, this may well backfire on Canterbury, it may just get peoples’ backs up. Oh well – games continue.
I do share some of PM’s concerns, but clearly Dr. Seitz knows Bishop Idowu-Fearon well, and until proven otherwise, I am going to suggest that we give the bishop some time to prove himself in his new office. Given the quotes here, I do see why TEC is up in arms:
http://newtelegraphonline.com/no-going-back-on-stand-against-gay-marriage-anglican-communion/
If GC were starting tomorrow, the deputies would vote themselves out of the AC by Monday.
If the outcome of this is for TEC to withdraw monetary support for Lambeth and ACC (which is the usual way they indicate displeasure, I don’t anticipate them having either the honesty or the guts to remove themselves from the Communion), and thereby lose influence, this will be a very good appointment.
#11 Perceptive.
May this Good Friday renew our minds as Christ would have them.
I understand that one of the major factors in his selection has been that he is a good friend of Justin Welby.
Look on the bright side – he doesn’t have to do much to be more effective than his predecessor… 😉
On a personal note, I wish him well. I expect that he is a devout and sincere man, although that won’t be nearly enough for the position he has accepted.
When will you ever learn TJ?
I don’t think TEC will be showing its displeasure. +Connecticut [I admit the link with Kaduna is news to me] and KJS are both on the Standing Committee which took it on itself to endorse this appointment, without the approval of the Primates. They have nothing to fear from a tame bishop who wants to keep them in, however badly they behave, will accept them and their innovations, even if he personally does not agree with them, will allow them a platform to promote them, and will continue to take their money in the ACO while doing their and Canterbury’s bidding with it.
There is some interesting discussion saying that Fearon was demoted by +Akinola for going against Nigerian HOB advice in relation to Lambeth 2008. Be interesting to know what if anything there is in that. Does Fearon have the confidence of his own province? Is that why he has been wooed so asiduously by LamPal? They do seem to be trying to find dissident voices in GAFCON provinces to coopt. Just look at who has been purporting to represent the Anglicans in the recent TEC-inclusive discussions with the RC’s!
thanks Dr Seitz and PM for the references to Thinking Anglicans and Episcopal Cafe. Always amusing.
When The Cranmer Institute and Wycliffe College brought together the leaders of CAPA, Gafcon, and the GS for the anniversary of the Toronto Congress, +Josiah was one of the core group. This included +Kenya, +Indian Ocean, +Cairo, +Burundi, and a +SE Asia rep. These men all know one another well. +Eliud is a Wycliffe grad and +Josiah teaches Muslim-Christian relations at Wycliffe.
#11. I see calls for TEC to cease funding for ACO have begun in earnest. My prayer is that this appointment begins a move to have the AC properly represented by those where the growth and strength are. Good Friday blessings.
RE: “it is a sad thing wailing in the wind since its recent ‘relaunch.’”
You’ve noticed that too, Pageantmaster?
; > )
I note that Dr. Seitz and his friends at ACI have moved up several notches in the estimation of the Episcopal Left and now rank above +Peter Akinola and just below +Mark Lawrence on the TEC blacklist. It is now being suggested by the folks over at Episcopal Cafe that regardless of theology or stance on gay rights, the appointment of Bishop Idowu-Fearon should be opposed by all good Christians because of his known association with Dr. Seitz and Dr. Radner, and his willingness to speak at the various conferences they organize.
#19, tremendously tolerant and open to discussion, aren’t they? Congratulations to Drs. Seitz and Radner for their new status. Well-done, thou faithful servants.
As far as EL’s concerned, I could really do without the giant pictures and they really need Jim to pop by more often but otherwise, they’re okay.
Josiah sounds like such an extreme institutionalist with his negative remarks to the “extreme conservatives”. But no matter. ++Justin and +Josiah are such huge improvements for leaders of the Anglican Communion we should only celebrate. My desire to complain asks, “but God, why didn’t you put these men in place sooner?” But that is thinking on my timelines. God has his purposes and by no means is he done with the AC. The “Protestant-itis” thinking that we have a new Anglican body (GAFCON, et al) that will march on without the rest is very myopic thinking for us “extreme conservatives”. Remember Rome at the time of the reformation? Compare that to Popes John Paul or Benedict. I for one never intend to be anything but Anglican, even as I serve in the ACNA. God will bring his purposes about in spite of the paganism of the extreme left, the impatience of the extreme right or the befuddlement of the fearful middle. (ACI, etc. not withstanding). May God bless him.
I don’t think that we can judge Idowu-Fearon by the reactions of TEC’s extreme left. They will oppose anyone who doesn’t full out campaign for their ideology.
It will be far more interesting to see the reactions of clever liberals like Ian Douglas. You also *know* that Idowu-Fearon was put into this position for a reason. It seems to me that this speech that was transcribed makes that reason pretty clear, especially in light of Welby’s other statements and initiatives.
While it would be nice if TEC’s liberal extremists would shoot themselves in the foot by cutting some ties with the Lambeth Establishment, I doubt they will.
FWIW, the TEC liberal extremists are those “extreme liberals” that Idowu-Fearon suggests should be written off (he knows they won’t go anywhere). He is pushing for centralization of power in the ABC now that discipline of TEC and ACoC is off the table. That means that the power that is being centralized in Welby’s office will be used to effect Welby’s political objectives.
I think we know what those are – to remove doctrinal standards from the Anglican Communion, while maintaining the fiction that everyone is united and “moving forward together in ministry”.
That said, I really do hope that Dr. Seitz and tjmcmahon are correct.
Jamesw- As I have written elsewhere, even if I ascribe to +Idowu-Fearon the best of motives, I do not expect success either for him or for the ABoC. Something that I like about him is that I think he is potentially the “smartest guy in the room”- he has an adept mind, and I doubt very much that the average western bishop holds a candle to him intellectually. Which is to say, I think he is quite well aware that the western churches are out to manipulate him, his office and the ACC, for their own purposes.
Welby is desperately hoping that when the CoE jumps off gay marriage/gay bishop cliff (sometime in the next couple years), only Gafcon provinces will leave the Communion, and everyone else will stay. Keeping everyone else is the purpose in putting +Idowu-Fearon in the office as Secretary General. Can’t see it working (I expect a much more dramatic outcome- although it may take a few years), but that seems to clearly be the point of the exercise. And note, while TEC liberals are up in arms, the TEC leadership BACKED the appointment (assuming stories that the vote of the standing committee was unanimous are accurate). Which I take as an indication that TEC was outmaneuvered by the ABoC.
However, I think that +Idowu-Fearon believes that he can take steps to restore some legitimacy to the ACC. In some ways, although he speaks from an African perspective, in terms of people who we might know better, the appointment is the functional equivalent of raising Ephriam Radner to the episcopate, and making him secretary general. I would be ok with that. Bishop Josiah is not a solution to the problems of the Anglican Communion- I do not think anyone could be, other than Christ himself. However, I do think he is a good man, and will do his best for Christ and the Church.
As I said, when CoE adopts gay marriage, or appoints partnered gay bishops, I think the game is over, regardless. But in the meanwhile, I hope that +Idowu-Fearon follows through on leveling the playing field in the ACC, giving the GS churches representation comparable to their size, and rids the ACC of the racist “regional” voting, that gives the tiny western churches the advantage because they control 3 (Americas, Europe, Australia/NZ/East Asia) of the 5 blocks- even though Nigeria alone has as many Anglicans as the 3 western controlled regions combined.
I see no reason to believe that TEC was outmanouvered in this appointment. TEC has two representatives on the Standing Committee in KJS and Ian Douglas of Connecticut among a white liberal dominated Standing Committee. TEC is the major funder of the ACO programs and a funder of Welby’s programs such as the Coventry Bishops meeting he invited TEC, ACoC and African bishops to. At this level, people just do not leave to chance the possibility that funding will be put at risk. It will have been pre-cleared by the committee before any decision was made.
For the same reason I do not see any reason to believe that ACO funding from TEC is now at risk from this decision; indeed the ACO would collapse if it did.
There is a possibility of a grassroots revolt in TEC, given some of the issues which have arisen over the weekend, but having thought they would sneak this news out just before Easter, the Lambeth/ACO PR people have had to spend their Easter holiday in the office putting out statements and spinning for all they are worth as their plans were looking like they were heading for derailment.
I do agree with TJ about the aim of Welby to ensure that there is no discipline for TEC, for the consequences of his ‘facilitated conversation’ programme if the CofE follows his lead, or for Welby.
I am also not sure it will work. Have you noticed the complete silence from two sources? The TEC hierachy on the one hand, never short of words when they disagree with something, have not said anything, which supports the conclusion that they have received what they want to be made content with this appointment.
However on the other hand, from Africa, and in particular Nigeria, as far as I can see there have been no welcomes, congratulations, or indeed any public comment. The two African news items I was able to find were initiated by ACO staff and Idowu Fearon himself. The silence is deafening.
When African people go completely silent it can mean that they are very deeply offended. I might be getting more than a little concerned at what I had done if I were Justin Welby.
Today there is one informally given report that the Church of Nigeria is going to “wait and see.” Pretty lukewarm – nothing from the other African/GAFCON provinces coming up to what will be a week tomorrow.
RE: “I see no reason to believe that TEC was outmanouvered in this appointment.”
I agree — the subcommittee voted unanimously for him, and that only means that they support him in that position. I think the reasons they support him in that position are fairly obvious.
RE: “However, I think that +Idowu-Fearon believes that he can take steps to restore some legitimacy to the ACC.”
I’m sure that he will try. I hope he does not succeed. My hope is, as I mentioned above, that the ACC will continue to be repudiated and boycotted, publicly, by as many of the Global South provinces as can be mustered, so as to strip it of any perceived credibility, influence, or authority.
My recollection of the Toronto talk–his was one of many in a full day–was that +Josiah realized the Primates were crucial to the AC, but the ACC’s running the agenda thwarted their effectiveness. Please remember the Primates in the room: +Indian Ocean, +Cairo, +Burundi, rep for +SE Asia, as well as the +Toronto AB, and +Welby by Skype. He wanted the ACC to become a partner with the Primates and not their opponent, controlled by Western money.
I don’t think there’s any great mystery that apart from her fan club inside TEC, most regard +KJS as a problem and have already amortized her departure. The ABC is looking forward to the post-KJS era in much the same way most look forward to saying goodbye to Obama.
#25, not denying what you say is true about “African lukewarmness” to this appointment.
BUT…., may I add that last week was Holy Week – the busiest week of the year for Christian clergy, PLUS there was the massacre in Kenya. There’s also an upcoming GAFCON Primates consultation to prepare for (April 13-17), so… I think the GAFCON leaders have been a wee bit busy and putting out press releases about this may not have been their highest priority.
Let me also add as a P.S. to my #28:
African leaders may prefer to talk in person to Bishop Idowu-Fearon before issuing a press release. African time frames and Western time frames are not the same, and relationships take priority in much of Africa over tasks and deadlines. The preference is to deal face to face, not by issuing dueling press statements. African leaders WILL publish statements when necessary, but it is not necessarily their “default” mode. So expecting some kind of written statement about this within 7 days of the announcement is not realistic.
For instance look at the time frame involved in the issuing of a public letter stating the concern over the TEC Indaba meeting that Abp. Ntahoturi was involved in. I believe it was more than a month after the fact, and only published AFTER their private correspondence had gone unanswered…
The list of supportive endorsements from the institutional palefaces continues.
Still if the rulers in London and New York keep shouting loudly enough. With friends like these…
Anyone care to exegete this recent [url=http://anglicanink.com/article/new-acc-secretary-rejects-anti-gay-label?utm_source=emailcampaign167&utm_medium=phpList&utm_content=HTMLemail&utm_campaign=Anglican+Easter+News]statement[/url]?
[blockquote]Again, my position is clear. For the majority of African Christians, the Bible judges culture, including African culture. As African Christians we must accept other cultures and the way they also understand the Bible’s relationship with culture. I accept and promote a culture of respect for such differences.[/blockquote]
Dr Seitz at #27, its not just Mrs K Schori. Bp Fearon has received enthusiastic endorsements from PB Frank Griswold and Bp Ian Douglas – see Pageantmaster’s link. This cannot be viewed as a case of the ABC getting any advantage over TEC, but of ABC working in wholehearted agreement with TEC – all of its leadership, not just KJS.
The transcript of his talk at Toronto is worth reading, carefully. As are other statements – note Dr Noll’s reference at #31.
I am starting to suspect, however unpalatable it may be, that Dr Noll’s reference epitomises Bp Fearon – he is a master of liberal double-speak, and is capable of saying simultaneously what disparate groups want to hear, without being himself committed to any of them.
I wonder if the courageous Bishop MacDonald will appreciate the reference to ‘paleface’? He bore the full ire of the TEC PB. He will be the solid face of conservatism amongst Canadian First Nation Christians.
I found intriguing the need to drag +Griswold out of his sequestration, in order to get some kind of TEC response. Long time, no hear.
+Eliud, +Ian Ernest, +Mouneer Anis, +SE Asia rep, +Burundi were all together with +Josiah in Toronto in 2013. As solid GS leaders it would be their collective response that would matter most.
Dr Seitz, nobody has suggested that +Griswold was “dragged out of his sequestration”. It appears that he speaks as one who has known +Fearon for a long time, and enthusiastically endorses his appointment. The same applies to +Douglas.
Moreover, the Episcopal News Service is well known for not reporting anything inconvenient to 815 – the fact that it carries this article puts paid to any idea that TEC has a problem with the appointment. And as Sarah points out, there were no dissenting voices. It appears that 815 and Lambeth are as one on this.
“+Eliud, +Ian Ernest, +Mouneer Anis, +SE Asia rep, +Burundi were all together with +Josiah in Toronto in 2013. As solid GS leaders it would be their collective response that would matter most.”
They have been in lots of meetings with liberal contributors and they do not always comment – in fact they usually don’t. So I am not expecting any response from them on this. But we are discussing why +Fearon was appointed, and what his views are. And at present, I find some of the things that are coming to light quite alarming – I would rather deal with an open aggressive liberal than yet another expert in institutional double-speak.
#34. The comment may well be lost on you. +Griswold has been completely invisible for 8 years. He batted back Booth Beers when he was PB and allowed individual Bishops to negotiate with parishes. Suddenly he reappears. Saying more than +KJS.
I am quite confident you find things disturbing. We have a constant diet of that. You are entitled to your dyspepsia!
I have very strong confidence in +Mouneer and have worked closely with him…not least in connection to SC.
When he speaks his mind about why this is an appointment that benefits TEC, I will pay attention with earnestness.
Happy Easter.
Idowu-Fearon spoke of the small groups of “extremist” conservatives and liberals. The language mirrored that of Welby’s cronies and henchmen in the CofE. What do those terms mean to Idowu-Fearon, David Porter, Justin Welby, etc.?
Here is what I think:
“Extremist” liberals = Those who believe that everyone who is not fully on board with the gay agenda are horrid bigots who should be shunned and cast out of leadership roles.
“Extremist” conservatives = Those who believe that Anglican doctrine and practice should conform with Lambeth 1.10/Windsor Report, etc., and that any Province which violates this should be disciplined and/or suspended from the Communion.
Moderates = Those who may personally oppose the gay agenda or favor it, but who is willing to set aside doctrinal or belief standards in favor of institutional “unity.”
Dr. Seitz – is this what Idowu-Feason believes or not? Based on the transcript from the other thread and his appointment by Welby, I would have to think so.
If so, then I am not at all surprised that TEC’s reps on the ACC approved his appointment. Although Douglas and KJS are very much “extremist liberals” within TEC, they are also practical enough to realize that that approach won’t work in the Anglican Communion as a whole. And so, practically, Douglas and KJS would, of course, be supportive of someone who will fight against any discipline of TEC.
Similarly, most of GenCon’s delegates and the liberal blog posters would be “extremist liberals” in all contexts, at least publicly, and so would, of course, oppose Idowu-Fearon and call him nasty names.
My question is this – is my supposition about Idowu-Fearon as described above correct or not, and what evidence can be seen to support that conclusion?
I refer to the following Idowu-Fearon quotation:
And I am also referring to these comments from/about David Porter:
That such similar comments are made by two individuals appointed by Welby suggests that there is a common thread. I think that that thread is pretty obvious.
What evidence is there that Idowu-Fearon does not follow the Welby/Porter line on this?
As I have pointed out on other threads, Bishop Idowu-Fearon used a numerical definition (sociologist in him, no doubt). If the 15% who are most conservative leave, you will lose 10 million conservatives, approximately 25% of the total membership of the Gafcon churches. If the 15% who are most liberal leave, you will lose virtually the entire membership of TEC, CoE, Wales, Scotland, Canada, New Zealand and Brazil. 10 million is the entirety of the western Anglican churches, but only a fraction of the total Global South.
Dear James:
It would be my understanding that +Josiah is a defender of Lambeth 1.10. Not least because it is Biblical and because Communion gatherings declared it to be the teaching of the Church. I have never heard him say otherwise.
This being my assumption, which I believe to be correct, ‘extremist liberals’ in his language would constitute in today’s TEC iteration practically all of TEC. By their own mission and aspiration.
If I were asked to correct +Welby’s math, or +Josiah’s if he is dependent on this, I’d say the portion of the 38 Province AC which departs in serious and formal ways from Lambeth 1.10 is probably 15%. Portions of Wales, SEC, CofE, ACoC, etc.
I do not know what is meant by 15% at the other end of the spectrum. I judge this to be a rhetorical comment which is false, strategic, or uninformed. For obviously if the ACC under +Josiah were to be truly representative of the AC as a totality, as he wants, then ‘extreme conservative’ would need to be something that would object even if the ‘extreme liberal percentage’ were allowed to go their way.
Doubtless the coming days will enlighten us all. I hope this brief comment helps in some way. I put my trust in God Almighty and the GS leadership.
No, I would not describe TEC Priest and Bishop Mark MacDonald serving in the Anglican Church of Canada as a paleface, so far as I know. He did stand remarkably firm for a while under enormous pressure from the Presiding Bishop when she tried to voluntarily renounce his orders. I was surprised however to see his name among those who were on Welby’s TEC [Trinity Wall Street] funded ‘Bishops Conference’ at Coventry, along with some other surprising, and some less surprising names.
The issue is not about the bishops who attended the Toronto Conference, nor is it about the interesting work done there, it is about the new Secretary General, though I continue to be disappointed in the inability of Global South Primates and others to work together and to be running different agendas which only benefits the institutionalists who seek to keep it that way. It is much the same disappointment I feel about US conservatives, and don’t get me started on my own country.
We are seeing the conservative divisions which opened the way for the liberal takeover of TEC played out again at an international level, which can only help the liberal paleface managers to keep control by dividing and ruling. That is the conservative unity I pray for, but this week it seems further away than ever, and the sad thing is those involved seem not to care; they would rather score points off one another. It is a tragedy.
I apologise if my comment was too subtle.
Bishop MacDonald is an indigenous Bishop. He is one of the people speaking on behalf of +Josiah and so I assumed you meant he too was a ‘paleface.’
The Toronto event means nothing in and of itself, except to the degree that all the major leaders of the GS were there and were in prayer fellowship and conversation with +Josiah.
If they wish to speak up and voice their concerns, they will do so I am sure.
#41 Thanks, Professor Seitz – I am aware that Bp MacDonald is an ‘indigenous’ Indigenous Bishop [or bishop for the indigenous], but I haven’t enquired too closely.
By definition therefore, he probably couldn’t be a paleface, even if he is a bishop in a mainly paleface church.
[blockquote] “I do not know what is meant by 15% at the other end of the spectrum. I judge this to be a rhetorical comment…” [/blockquote]
Why?
Sorry, but you have lost me here: Why would Bp Fearon’s reference to getting rid of 15% of “extreme liberals” be considered non-rhetorical, whereas his comment (in the same breath) about getting rid of 15% of “extreme conservatives” be judged “rhetorical”?
[For any readers wondering what this is about, please see the transcript of Bp Fearon’s speech at the 2013 Toronto conference at http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/59676/#comments ]
[blockquote] “…which is false, strategic, or uninformed” [/blockquote]
I agree that these possibilities make more sense. But they differ markedly in their implications for Bp Fearon’s acceptability to orthodox Anglicans, wouldn’t you think? If his statement was “uninformed”, well that can be fixed. But if his statement was “false”, then that raises serious issues of trust. And I really have difficulty in seeing how a statement that is “strategic” is really any different from a “false” one, in this context.
[blockquote] “I’d say the portion of the 38 Province AC which departs in serious and formal ways from Lambeth 1.10 is probably 15%.”[/blockquote]
That may be, but Bp Fearon seems to have been referring to proportions of Anglicans, not provinces.
[blockquote] “It would be my understanding that +Josiah is a defender of Lambeth 1.10.” [/blockquote]
Why?
The reasons you state are convincing to you and me, but as you yourself point out, Bp Fearon does not seem to have ever made a public pronouncement on that issue. So why make any assumption at all about what he believes on this issue, one way or another?
Because I know +Josiah well?
I am sorry Dr Seitz, but that cryptic remark is not sufficient to shut down debate, nor to silence objective questions which demand answers.
Of course not. It was simply the truth.
When +Josiah repudiates Lambeth 1.10 and the leaders of the GS speak up against him, I will gladly give you my equally cryptic ‘I don’t know the man.’
Thank you Dr Seitz. It seems we are talking about two different things. You are stating why you personally believe that Bp Fearon supports Lambeth Resolution 1.10, and that is fine. For the rest of us who do not know him and must therefore go by objective criteria, we cannot make any assumption about his beliefs one way or another.
And of course this cannot be an answer to my first point in post #43 above, which it is expedient to repeat at this point:
“I do not know what is meant by 15% at the other end of the spectrum. I judge this to be a rhetorical comment…â€
Why?
Sorry, but you have lost me here: Why would Bp Fearon’s reference to getting rid of 15% of “extreme liberals†be considered non-rhetorical, whereas his comment (in the same breath) about getting rid of 15% of “extreme conservatives†be judged “rhetorical�
The meaning of the words used is quite simple, and there is no reason at all to believe that Bp Fearon meant anything else but the plain meaning of what he said.
I actually don’t question whether Bishop Fearon supports Lambeth 1.10. I’m sure he does.
Problem is . . . he’s not for ditching the provinces who do *not* support Lambeth 1.10, thus establishing an appropriate discipline for the Anglican Communion as a whole — and in his mind, those who are for that discipline are in that narrow and fundamentalist 15% which he also wishes to claim are on the fringes.
That being the case, he falls into the category that Rowan Williams, Justin Welby, and all the other “this is not an intrinsically communion dividing issue, why can’t we all be quite reconciled, the one side believing their Gospel, and the other side believing their particular other custom little gospel, and all of us be one big happy Communion together” folks fall into. And that being the case, I’m hopeful that the Global South provinces who fall into the supposed 15% will continue merrily along their way and cast the Fearon appointment as an irrelevance of not much particular importance, while noting Welby’s strategic and political appointment.
“he’s not for ditching the provinces who do *not* support Lambeth 1.10, thus establishing an appropriate discipline for the Anglican Communion as a whole”
1. First of all, it is hard to know what it would mean for +Josiah personally to ‘ditch’ those who do not hold to Lambeth 1.10
2. But I understood his remarks to mean that Provinces which ‘ditch’ Lambeth 1.10, or the 15% of Anglicans that have this attitude toward Lambeth’s 1.10’s substance, are an extreme wing which does not choose to stand with the Anglican Communion’s mind as expressed in Lambeth 1.10.
It is easy enough to find quotes addressed to TEC, for example, in which he says this.
Rhetorical. For ease of expression. “There is a broad consensus with extreme at ends. The extremes like being independent and don’t think in Communion terms.”
If one wanted to be precise, I’d say that the percentage of the Communion which does not believe in the substance of Lambeth 1.10 as articulating the mind of the AC might be 15%. Large swaths of the celtic belt, TEC, CofE liberals, etc.
I am also aware that many conservatives are happy to exist in their own context and find the idea of a Communion unwieldy or unnecessary. Does this rise to the level of 15%? I don’t know. I don’t think I’d call this wing ‘extremists’ as much as independents.
I think it is simply much easier to describe the left because they are so much more vocal in saying they are happy to be on a new trajectory and don’t like the idea of conciliarity or deference to traditional standards (Bible, BCP, 39 Articles, etc) or a bona fide Communion. ‘Walking apart’ is an imperative.
RE: “First of all, it is hard to know what it would mean for +Josiah personally to ‘ditch’ those who do not hold to Lambeth 1.10”
I agree. Very hard to think of any Anglican Communion leader at all *personally* doing any such thing, other than simply breaking fellowship with TEC revisionist leaders. But it is fairly easy to know what it would mean for Bishop Fearon to *support* ditching such provinces, since so many many other bishops and Primates support that action. But he doesn’t support such an action, as he’s made clear in his comments. Just like Welby and Williams.
Dear Sarah
I am more optimistic about a new season in the AC leaving TEC and others isolated and sidelined than you are. Happy Easter.
My thinking is based on a simple calculus.
1. Will the two leaders of the largest bloc of Anglicans, +Mouneer Anis and +Ian Ernest, ask that Lambeth 1.10 be dismissed? No.
2. Will +Josiah Idowu-Fearon stand against these GS leaders? No.
If he were to do that, there would be a Communion centered around them and their constituency, and one around a moribund remnant of western liberals and their friends.
I base this view not on some personal loyalty to +Josiah. I base it on my knowledge of the GS leadership.
Dr Seitz, your post at #53 appears to be going off yet further on a frolic of your own, as Lord Denning might have put it.
To explain what I mean: Questions were raised earlier on this thread as to what Bp Fearon meant by his reference to “extreme liberals and conservatives” in his address to the Toronto conference. For example, where he said:
[blockquote] “And we discovered that the 15% on the left are what I, Josiah, would call Extreme Conservatives, and on the right we have Extreme Liberals.
Brothers and sisters let us not deceive ourselves, within this Communion we have conservatives and liberals. We have Extreme, and I use that word Extreme as a student of Islam, because we no longer use Fundamentalism for Muslims who are terribly radical, we call them Extreme Muslims.” [/blockquote]
Leaving aside the entirely inappropriate comparison between ANY Anglican that I can think of and “Muslims who are terribly radical”, this raises a major issue as to who Bp Josiah viewed as the 15% of extreme conservatives and the 15% of extreme liberals. I think it is pretty plain when read in context, that he means anyone who opposes his vision for centralised control of the Anglican Communion.
But in your post at #39 you assured us all that what Bp Fearon really meant by “extreme liberals” is those liberals who “depart in serious and formal ways from Lambeth 1.10”. You have repeatedly insisted on this and continually drawn the thread onto a discussion of that issue.
The only problem is, Bp Fearon at no point in his speech mentions Lambeth 1.10! Not even obliquely. It simply doesn’t figure at all in a long and detailed sermon.
On the contrary, and as I have stated above, it is fairly clear what he means by extremists – those who buck what he sees as the rightful authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
This then leads into you in #53 trying to answer questions that no-one is asking.
Hi Mr Michael–
Lord Denning is my hero.
My concern is simply to state what I believe is the will of the GS, and how +Josiah fits into that. Shadow boxing other matters–including my confidence in JI-F as a topic unto itself–doesn’t interest me finally.
The Anglican Communion Institute is interested in the Anglican Communion. I believe the appointment of +Josiah is an advance — esp. over against Kearon et al.
Grace and peace.
PS–please pray for +Mouneer in Cairo. Good Friday is tomorrow for him and Easter this Sunday. Let’s pray there is no violence.
#56 – Amen to that pray for peace in Egypt as they celebrate Coptic Good Friday & Easter. May the witness of the 21 martyrs be the spark the Lord uses to ignite faith in the hearts of MULTITUDES in Egypt this Easter!
There was an interesting comment [the repeatable bit anyway] from Martin Reynolds on the Lead on Bishop Idowu Fearon’s analysis and on the figures of 15% being bandied about:
This bizarre figure of around 15% that keeps coming out of Lambeth Palace apparatchiks. It came up a while back from David Porter both in relation to the Communion and the CofE, and seems to be part of the [mis]calculation being made in Lambeth Palace. It explains how completely mad not to mention out of touch is the thinking in Welby’s inner circle.
#53 Professor Seitz:
“two leaders of the largest bloc of Anglicans, +Mouneer Anis and +Ian Ernest”
Good gracious, thanks for that interesting news, everyone seems to be joining GAFCON nowadays.
#59 What great news! A rising tide lifts all boats.
The Gafcon increase ought to be great news for the larger group within which they find their mission! Every Gafcon increase is a GS increase, and both are where the communion’s future lies.
PM at #59, I was rather bemused by that assertion as well – I did not know that Mauritius is one of “the largest bloc of Anglicans” (+Ian Ernest ceased to be Chairman of CAPA three years ago).
+Mouneer Anis and +Ian Ernest are co-heads of the Global South group.
http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/
A statement from the Primates of the Global South and the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans
1. The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis, Bishop of Egypt and Chairman of Global South
2. The Most Rev. Ian Ernest, Primate of the Indian Ocean and General Secretary of Global South
The Most Rev. Stephen Than Myint Oo, Primate of Myanmar
The Most Rev. Hector “Tito†Zavala, Primate of the Southern Cone
The Most Rev. Bernard Ntahoturi, Primate of Burundi and the Chairman of CAPA
The Rt. Rev. John Chew, representing the Primate of South East Asia
The Rt. Rev. Francis Loyo, representing the Primate of All Sudan
The Diocese of South Carolina is being supported by the GS.
+Mark Lawrence has indicated that the Primate of the Southern Cone will be the first visitor as Primatial Vicar to his faithful people.
He has also said that the GS Standing Committee as a whole exist to provide extra-provincial support.
#60 🙂
Dr Seitz, your link in #64 is to a statement that does not mention ++Ernest.
I think what you mean is that ++Ernest is the General Secretary of the Steering Committee of the Global South. That does not mean that he is “co-head of the Global South Group”.
#64 was sent to show the GS leadership more generally. In most formal correspondence from the GS, both +Mouneer and +Ian sign. The point is not complicated.
When TCI brought the GS leadership to Toronto in 2013, +Ian was there as General Secretary of the GS and former head of CAPA. +Eliud was present as head of Gafcon and member of the GS. +Mouneer was present as the President of the GS.
RE: “This bizarre figure of around 15% that keeps coming out of Lambeth Palace apparatchiks. It came up a while back from David Porter both in relation to the Communion and the CofE, and seems to be part of the [mis]calculation being made in Lambeth Palace.”
You know, PM, I think the better “definition” — the one said behind closed doors — is not “those revisionist radicals in TEC/Canada/Brazil and those conservative radicals who don’t want the Anglican Communion to be together” — is that the 15% on either side represent the number estimated to be the ones who won’t put up with Option A or Option B.
To look at the revisionist side, the 15% are those who won’t surrender their special little custom-made gospel. To look at the conservative side, the 15% are those [i]who will effectively leave the Anglican Communion once the special little custom-made gospel gains ascendancy.[/i] — In other words, those for whom, indeed, [i]the special little custom-made gospel is intrinsically a communion-breaking decision.[/i]
With *that* definition being in play, I’m not so confident that Welby/Williams/Fearon’s estimates are not correct.
I don’t know that more than 15% *of the provinces* will “move on” from the Communion should the special little custom gospel of Bennison/Chane/Schori/etc rule.
The unsaid calculus for “the 15%” is this. When the COE does its cultural cave, how many Primatial leaders will cast out further fellowship with the ABC/COE bishops who participate in that cave?
My guess right now is maybe — *maybe* — 9-10.
That’s a bit more than “15%” — but it’s not the rupture of the entire Global South and more.
I’ve said for many many years now that there will be ultimately two bodies — the old Anglican Communion and the new whatever-entity that it’s called. The only question is — how many Primatial leaders/provinces will be in the new body and how many will be in the old.
I consider the approaching slow-motion loss of the old Anglican Communion very heartbreaking and sad — but the last several years and the approaching ones are all about [i]simply managing the losses on either side[/i].
I don’t think that anyone will formally leave the Anglican Communion per se – neither liberals nor conservatives. And so I would interpret the 15% “extremist” numbers somewhat differently (but similar to Sarah). But I think it is vitally important to understand the motivations for each of these groups.
Extremist liberals – Those who won’t abide by any Communion agreements that seek to curtail same-sex blessings/marriage. They are not pushing (yet) for their trendy, new gospel to be forced on the rest of the Communion, but rather their immediate goal is to have their trendy, new gospel be recognized as a sanctioned option within the Communion.
Extremist conservatives – Those who will refuse to seriously engage with the “Instruments of Unity” (i.e. Communion apparatus controlled by white, western liberals) unless those Instruments of Unity make it clear that the trendy, new liberal gospel (aka same sex blessings/marriage) is NOT a sanctioned option within the Communion and will result in meaningful discipline. They are also not looking to formally leave the Communion, but are treating and will continue to treaet the current Instruments of Unity as discredited and irrelevant to the future of the Communion.
Moderate middle – These are people who may or may not support the trendy, new liberal gospel and same-sex blessings/marriage, and may or may not support Lambeth 1.10. Their core objective is that everyone does whatever they need to do to pay lip service to the Instruments of Unity and project the appearance of an Anglican Communion “united in mission.” Their goal is for everyone to show up for Primates’ Meetings, Lambeth Conferences, ACC meetings, and for everyone to accept the ABC’s control over these things.
And so, it seems to me that Idowu-Fearon could be someone who says “yes, I support Lambeth 1.10, and yes I oppose the trendy, liberal gospel with its fake marriages and sexual immorality. But I will not impose my ecclesiology and theology on the rest of the Communion. I believe that these purveyors of the trendy, liberal gospel are genuinely Anglicans and I have come to realise that if we want to stay as a family, we have got to checkmate each other, and so I am okay with Lambeth 1.10 or the mid-2000’s Primates agreements not being enforced. Checkmate means that they can’t enforce gay marriage on me, but I can’t enforce orthodox Christian practice on them.”
I wonder if the GS leadership is going to “wait and see” for a year on how things progress with Idowu-Fearon in place. It seems to me that the “moderate” approach, championed by Welby and Porter for sure, just so happens to match up with the extremist liberal goals, even if their rhetoric may diverge. At the end of the day, for both moderates and extremist liberals, there is no doctrinal boundaries for the Anglican Communion, and everybody should be happy with that. The prospect of these extremist liberals actually *leaving* the Communion is mythical, so long as the moderate game plan is implemented.
On the flip side, it seems to me that the conservatives have already started the process of disengagement from the Instruments of Unity. The question is who might be enticed back and for what meeting(s). There doesn’t appear to be anything on the horizon – other then Welby wanting to call a primates meeting. So what does it cost the GS leadership to wait and see on Idowu-Fearon for a year? If the CofE cracks up, the game is probably over anyway.
It seems to me that Welby, Porter, and TEC’s leadership, clearly believe that Idowu-Fearon will take the line which I suggest above – that while he “personally” supports Lambeth 1.10, he won’t “impose his theology” on the Communion. Dr. Seitz believes, and suggests that the GS leaders believe, that Idowu-Fearon will push for Lambeth 1.10 to be accepted in the Communion and that this will sufficiently upset the extremist liberals that they will leave.
The available public evidence seems to support Welby, Porter and the TEC leadership’s take on Idowu-Fearon, but I am ever hopeful that Dr. Seitz’s analysis will end up being correct. We shall see.
“Dr. Seitz believes, and suggests that the GS leaders believe,
that Idowu-Fearon will push for Lambeth 1.10 to be accepted in the Communion and that this will sufficiently upset the extremist liberals that they will leave.”
My view is that the GS leadership and +Josiah understand themselves to hold the same view, viz., communion conservatives. If so, should +Josiah decide to move into a new paradigm he would lose their support. I do not believe he or they expect this.
As for extreme liberals. If we are talking about TEC, much will turn on whether they effectively make ssb/ssm mandatory at GC 2015 — not allowing any diocesan exemption, use civil discrimination pressure. I do not think the GS will accept this kind of behavior if TEC should also want to be involved in Instruments/Communion life in any meaningful way.
Dr. Seitz,
So, if SSB/M is NOT made mandatory, but the defacto position of TEC, ACoC, CofE, CofW, ECS, etc., is that SSB/M are fully acceptable within these churches but that there are “opt out”/conscience clauses for conservatives, what would Idowu-Fearon and GS do? Would they be okay with the leadership of such Provinces being in charge of the Instruments of Unity?
We all know the approach that extremist liberals take, and it is very context specific and politically savvy. Push for liberal policy to be “optional” when you can’t gain the majority. Once you have the levers of power, push the the policy to be mandatory, unless that would complicate things politically in your next theater of operations.
It seems to me that if the line in the sand is whether TEC makes SSB/M “mandatory” or not, then nothing will change. The Anglican liberals have always been pushing for legitimacy for their position, and permitting it to be done (even if not mandatory) is a victory for them. GS has already begun moving away from Instruments with Anglican Communion when a much lesser standard has been breached (i.e. permitting SSB/M). Why would they go back UNLESS something has changed (e.g. new move to make SSB/M not permissible)?
Also, what is Idowu-Fearon’s take on the Diocese of South Carolina situation, and what will he do about that, if anything?
“So, if SSB/M is NOT made mandatory, but the defacto position of TEC, ACoC, CofE, CofW, ECS, etc., is that SSB/M are fully acceptable within these churches but that there are “opt outâ€/conscience clauses for conservatives, what would Idowu-Fearon and GS do? Would they be okay with the leadership of such Provinces being in charge of the Instruments of Unity?”
I am not confident any ‘opt out’ clauses assured at GC 2015 would be durable in the light of individual LGBT challenge, everywhere, and very quickly. TEC is a juggernaut when it comes to this issue, and these cannot be organized.
The SC situation was something discussed and thought through down to details. You will have noticed that +Welby has not opposed what has developed, and that no public campaign from +KJS has been mounted.
Dr. Seitz,
James W clearly has a point. SSB/M is ALREADY the standard of practice in CoE, TEC, ACoC, etc.- has been for years, the only difference is that for the last few years, they have been honest enough to use the term “marriage” for what they intend rather than such euphemisms as “same sex blessings.” The “conciliations” made clear that no deviation on the part of the episcopate will be allowed. They may personally object, but can no longer raise such issues publicly, and their silence for the last years is testament to this. Acquiescence is already required.
That the ABoC and CoE have recognized as legitimate the many non-canonical depositions is further evidence. Welby’s having stated that the ABoC and CoE are no longer in communion (or the indication that the “impairment” is so severe as to no longer be other than potential ecumenical partners) with several of the bishops invited to the last Lambeth conference (+Ackerman, +Iker, +Duncan), and no longer recognizes +Lawrence or his diocese due to the break after his non-canonical deposition, demonstrates that point.
#76. I think you may misread my point as intended in #73. I was simply indicating a kind of ne plus ultra. I think the optics of having a church in which ssb/m is mandated, with discrimination threats, etc; no diocesan canons or integrity; ‘bishops’ as agents of GC but lacking episcopal authority over rites, etc; mandatory giving — this is a church that will have passed into a new era of definition and explicitness. This is what we were trying to communicate in our letter re: lawlessness.
In a place like the Diocese of Dallas, e.g., when GC 2015 shows this kind of face–and I believe the time has come for no more playing footsie from progressives–it will drive the reality home. We have diocesan canons that define marriage. GC will drive home the point that it believes its actions are de facto constitutional. The BCP and TEC constitution will be mere placeholders. So this will serve notice in a finally complete way. Should conservative laity have seen this coming years ago? Doubtless, yes. But there it is.
Whatever happens in the CofE will not be salutary, and will have all kinds of problems, and indeed we see them now. But there is a conservative bloc that — in my estimation — will not face the music in the same way as in TEC. There is simply too much power collected in historical patronage and parishes and institutions. That has vanished in TEC and it has not been in institutional place for ages, if ever it was. TEC is a church of the culture, by the culture and for the culture. There has always been a pocket of informed resistance to that and so this has retarded the otherwise precipitous decline. But in my view GC 2015 will represent a denouement, and a mopping up exercise. I do believe this will present a clear definition and this will have its wider effect and distinct impact.
Re: SC. +Welby attended the GS meeting in Cairo where the extra-provincial arrangement was discussed and set up. I have not heard him speak against it publicly. I would well imagine +KJS asked him to do precisely that.
Thank you Dr. Seitz, #77 makes your position more clear to me.
On your #78, no doubt the GS would have liked the ABoC to speak in favor of the idea (and the various other recommendations of the Primates meetings of the last decade). However, he has not done that either. The ABoC clearly has his own agenda.
#79. Re: ABC and GS wishes. Not at all.
The GS position is better if it comes from them. They are Primates.
This gives them the ability to offer solid leadership.
What was to be avoided was +Canterbury not being on board.
But to have the GS speak solidly and in solidarity models a very good development.
I am inclined to agree with Jameswm – if various provinces haven’t left the AC now, what could make them leave in the future? Consider:
* TEC has been pretty provocative over the past 12 years. This has resulted in a majority of provinces declaring themselves in impaired communion with TEC. However, it hasn’t result in any province saying that they can’t be in the AC with TEC.
* CofE has so far avoided being as provocative as TEC. But lets assume they go further – suppose they consecrate Jeffrey John or someone of similar nature as bishop, endorse same sex blessings, and the next ABC makes some comment that denies a fundamental tenet of Christian orthodoxy. So that puts CofE on the same level of TEC – why should that cause any greater response than has already occurred with TEC, i.e. declarations of impaired communion?
I don’t want to give the impression that I think impaired communion is a trivial thing. But if all these provinces have been able to be in impaired communion with TEC for so long, yet remain in the AC, then why should CofE be treated any differently?
Further to my last, an important point seems to have been missed from the discussion (my apologies if I have just overlooked references to it):
The Global South has always expressed concern for the faithful within TEC. They have specifically stated that they support those who don’t agree with TEC’s apostasy and they maintain communion with them.
Why would that factor change, just because the leadership of TEC become yet more oppressive?
And why would that factor not apply with equal force if the leadership of CofE turn apostate or heretical?
It is therefore difficult to see why the GS would do anything more in the case of CofE than what it has already done in the case of TEC, i.e. declare itself in impaired communion with the leadership, and maintain communion with the faithful.
‘Extra-provincial’ is a way to support the faithful in TEC. SC paves a way.
[blockquote] “Whatever happens in the CofE will not be salutary, and will have all kinds of problems, and indeed we see them now. But there is a conservative bloc that—in my estimation—will not face the music in the same way as in TEC. There is simply too much power collected in historical patronage and parishes and institutions.” [/blockquote]
I caution against such optimism, except possibly in terms of timing. Orthodox of any stripe have steadily been eliminated from the CofE house of bishops where the real decisions are made, to the point where their influence is already negligible, and continuing to fall.
Certainly they will not be easily shifted from their existing parishes – that is indeed a difference between CofE and TEC. But even this factor is only a matter of time.
If one wants to draw an analogy between the respective trajectories of CofE and TEC, then I would say we are at about 2001. This is when the path that the leadership was taking was clear, various sporadic efforts at alternative oversight were given focus with consecration of two border-crossing bishops in Singapore (i.e. the start of AMiA) but it was still not very co-ordinated, and an openly homosexual bishop had not yet been consecrated (but was clearly being pushed).
Now that is only an analogy, but if it were to hold true then wholesale depositions and removals in CofE are a good five years away yet.
Dr Seitz at #83, just to be clear, I have no doubt that if any other TEC diocese asks for provisional oversight from the Global South, it will get it.
#85. I don’t know who you are, but I am glad you add your prayers. The work inside TEC will be hard won.
#84. Thank you for your caution. I will trust my own take on the CofE.
Easter strength to you and yours.
RE: “I do not think the GS will accept this kind of behavior if TEC should also want to be involved in Instruments/Communion life in any meaningful way.”
The GS did not accept TEC’s behavior back when it consecrated a non-celibate gay bishop either. But I think it’s been thoroughly demonstrated over the past 12 years now by two ABCs [Williams and Welby] that TEC will have all the involvement in Instruments/Communion life that it wishes to have, and that the best that various provinces of the Global South can do is simply refuse to engage further with involvement in Instruments/Communion life since TEC will be allowed involvement as it pleases.
I cannot conceive of the ABC changing his practices now, at this late date, since he’s already compliant with TEC behaving as it has for the past 12 years [not “happy” but “compliant”].
I do expect further incremental withdrawal by various Primates of various provinces of the Global South from Instruments/Communion life as TEC leadership further demonstrates their nature in the coming years. And we’ll all watch Welby and his enabling allies continue to natter on about reconciliation between the practitioners of the two antithetical and mutually opposing gospels.
RE: “I don’t think that anyone will formally leave the Anglican Communion per se – neither liberals nor conservatives.”
Hi JamesW — I think we agree on this. I also don’t think any province will announce a departure from the Anglican Communion — and I think they would be foolish to do that too. That’s why I used the words “effectively leave the Anglican Communion.”
By “effectively leave” I mean that various Primates will — once the COE leaders completes its capitulation with the culture — 1) announce that they are no longer in fellowship with various COE leaders, including the ABC, 2) refuse to engage in further meetings with the ABC or those bishops who are a part of that capitulation, 3) of course, continue to refuse to participate in Primates meetings and Lambeth meetings, and so on and so on and so on, while in the meantime, continuing to build its subset group within the Anglican Communion and moving all such meetings and engagements to that subset.
And . . . as Gafcon has demonstrated [and getting back to an original point of mine] I don’t think that will be a large group of Primates/provinces, either.
I think it will be around 9-10, max.
So you’ll have around 20-25 Primates/provinces continuing to engage with the COE/Welby [while some of them denounce its actions].
That’s not quite 85% — but having 9-10 Primates refuse further fellowship with the COE/ABC leadership is not really far from that 15% that Welby/et al are counting on. Hence, I think their bargain — their predictions of the divide — are not far off the mark.
Do I like this? Not at all!
But I think it’s pretty realistic — Welby is counting on not a whole lot more Primatial leaders casting out of fellowship the CEO when the ABC/COE bishops participate in further cultural capitulation. The only question is—how many Primatial leaders/provinces will be in the new [subset] body and how many will be in the old larger formal AC without engaging in that subset.
Well, TEC may be melting down.
But Jordan Spieth, who reads to his autistic sister and plays cards with his 82 year old grandfather, between Masters rounds, reminds us what solid (lay) Christianity is all about. May his tribe increase.
“casting out of fellowship the CEO…”
I expect this was a typo, but its a very apt one!
I doubt that +Idowu Fearon was speaking of 15% of the provinces (either conservative or liberal)- he was speaking of 15% of Anglicans on either side. Nigeria by itself is about 30% of the Anglican Communion. If Gafcon were to formally separate, the Anglican Communion might be left with 85% of its provinces, but only 1/2 of its membership. On the other hand, you could lose all the British Isles provinces (unless Ireland holds out), plus all of North America, plus the liberal churches in South America, and everything in the Pacific other than Sydney, and you would not be up to 15% yet.
RE: “If Gafcon were to formally separate, the Anglican Communion might be left with 85% of its provinces, but only 1/2 of its membership.”
And the provinces — the regional footprint and the *heritage* too — is what the current leaders want.
Or to put it another way . . . “the shoe on the other foot” — if conservatives had had 60 dioceses leave TEC, TJ, I couldn’t have cared less if those dioceses were the size of San Joaquin and Quincy [as opposed to Texas] and I would have smiled at the protestations of the liberals that having Texas was more valuable than having five other smaller dioceses. I’m much more about the “foothold” then I am about a particular state or diocese or province having a vast vast number of Anglicans.
Further, I’m fairly confident that Bishop Fearon was speaking just precisely of the number of provinces. 1) He’s thoroughly “westernized” in his language and thinking about these issues. 2) The number of provinces is, actually, more important than having the 3-4 monster provinces [in terms of numbers of Anglicans] for the purpose of the brand, the heritage, the footprint, and the possibilities of further evangelism/converts/parishes/ — if you told me I’d have to “restart” the Anglican Communion based on a) one province of 10 million or b) five provinces of 500,000 apiece, I’d easily choose the latter as the better alternative — and the same with restarting TEC as well. 3) Finally, at least the Westerners [and I suspect some non-Westerners as well] make the claim that dioceses and parishes and provinces change in numbers, decade by decade by century, nor can the numbers of clergy or laypeople be *counted on* to be as “conservative” or “liberal” as the leaders of the provinces. Numbers are “changeable” — flexible and may grow or decline depending on any number of factors, and having all of Texas or all of Nigeria doesn’t necessarily mean that one has all of those people as “revisionists” or “conservatives.”
So for those reasons, I think Fearon — and Welby and Williams and scads of other “moderates” and “institutional-let’s-go-slowly-with-all-these-nice-changes-liberals” and quite a few Communion Conservatives — have made the estimation of their 15% of provinces on either end of the poles.
It makes sense, too, because if they’re comparing the 3-4 monster provinces and their numbers with the other end of the pole [TEC/Canada/weenie other liberal provinces] obviously those numbers don’t add up as equal — but they do if one is counting *provinces*.
When I heard the talk, I did not think +Josiah was speaking of provinces but of raw numbers. It seemed rough-and-ready more than some kind of technical analysis. ‘There are extremists and there is a communion majority.’ If one had said, ‘hey, are extremists on the right only 7.3%?’ he might well have said, ‘that’s possible.’
“He’s thoroughly “westernized†in his language and thinking about these issues. ”
And yet, he gives us right wing liberals and left wing conservatives.
His “familiarity” with western language appears less than advertised. In point of fact, I am not entirely sure that he is not equating “liberal” and “catholic”, as when he talks about the AC as being made up of “Evangelicals and liberals.”
The 15% that he identifies as “extreme liberals” are the same folks that we identify as “progressives”- those who want to keep the church in sync with the “progress” of western society, and indeed, put the church at the forefront of social change.
The Gafcon Primates are meeting this week. Let’s at least see what they have to say, as no doubt this will be mentioned in their communique. My own prediction is that it will be consistent with other recent statements on Communion matters. It will include a welcome to the new General Secretary, as statement on the best future course for the ACC, and a warning that in order for the Communion to hold together, certain minimal changes are necessary and certain other behaviors are unacceptable. Thus far, the ABoC has walked something of a tightrope- on the one hand, no one trusts him- because his actions are inconsistent and his words tailored to whoever he happens to be speaking to- apparently forgetting the internet exists, but on the other, he has not openly contradicted or opposed the past communiques from Gafcon, the GS or CAPA, which indicates that he takes Gafcon and the broader GS at their word. Granted, his actions are not consistent with those communiques, but unlike TEC, he is not declaring the GS to be “unAnglican” or, as in some recent things written on Episcopal Cafe, “heretics.” (maybe that last was reserved to the few remaining churches that do not ordain women- when they get to ranting over there, it is sometimes difficult to tell whether the particular insult is directed to the “homophobes” or the “misogynists” or both).
What I don’t understand in this thread is why there has been no suggestion, from the folks who so vehemently object to this appointment, of some candidate who would have been preferable. From what I have read, Idowu-Fearon was selected from a list of candidates from each of those geographical voting regions that I am so adamant about. Would you rather a revisionist bishop from NZ, or perhaps David Porter, or Ian Douglas or one of his clones nowadays so popular in the TEC pointy hat club?
Heck, there are TEC deputy types complaining because Idowu-Fearon is a bishop (you know, the power elite appointing another bishop to a position that, in their mind, should go to Bonnie Anderson). If KJS had her way, the job probably would have gone to Mary Glasspool, which would have gotten rid of Gafcon once and for all.
For myself, I am hoping to find a photo of +Idowu-Fearon with +Jack Iker and +Mark Lawrence, which I can email to every deputy at GC about 3 days in.
I can assure you that +Josiah knows the SC situation very well.
The “70% middle” is a common statistical approximation for one standard deviation (and yes, I have spent enough time teaching economics to have heard most of the “humorous” definitions of “standard deviation”). In a normal bell curve distribution, the first standard deviation is 34.1% either side of the mean, or 68.2%. You might well see the same standard used to define “average American”.
+Idowu-Fearon holds a PhD in Sociology, so it is in no sense unusual that he would see things this way, and indeed, would base his estimate on “total population” and not “by province.”
#96–that purports with what I thought he meant, in a rough sense. ‘There is a wide agreement about Nicene Christianity and practice in the AC, and a sense that the Communion is of value. Then there are those who wish to walk apart.’
“If KJS had her way, the job probably would have gone to Mary Glasspool, which would have gotten rid of Gafcon once and for all.”
Do you really think it would? I expect it would just make Gafcon’s determination to stay all the stronger. Not to mention the non-Gafcon provinces who have been protesting for several years now against TEC’s apostasy, and who outnumber the Gafcon provinces.
“Then there are those who wish to walk apart”
Who would that be talking about? All the conservative primates have made it clear that they have no intention of leaving the Communion.
For example, in 2010 some 20 primates affirmed the decision by ++Anis and ++Orombi “not to participate in meetings of the various Instruments of Communion at which representatives of The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada are present.” Less than one third of these primates were members of Gafcon.
So there is just no reason to think that any conservative provinces, Gafcon or otherwise, intend to leave the Communion.
And on the other side, I know there are liberals who fulminate on their blogs that their churches should leave the Communion, but I can’t recall that any of their church leaders have ever suggested that.
So who is he talking about?
#99–I am telling you what I believe the broad and imprecise statement, when I heard it, seemed to mean. I think analyzing it for deep technical meaning makes no sense. I already made it clear that certain segments of the AC don’t care very much about it as a world-wide reality. They prefer local mission and church growth. I agree with the comments of Mr Mcmahon. I also think there is limited value in making a 70% Communion majority do anything more than describe a majority of Anglicans. The point was important for the Canadian context. Viz, ‘most Anglicans in the world wide communion are solidly in favor of traditional communion faith and practice as well as accountability along these lines.’ The Anglican archbishop of Toronto was present.
As we are called to seek the mind of Christ, I have tried to envision Christ using a 70/30 paradigm, and it just doesn’t work. I cannot imagine the man who gave us the parable of the lost sheep using this paradigm. However, I can envision the man who said ‘What is truth?” making just such a political calculation. May God have mercy on us all.
If British political and military history can be our guide, the 30% on the left and the right represent the current progressive and conservative leadership and activists. If the leaders and activists are obliterated (by choice or by design) then the remaining 70% are leaderless and the unfolding schism is neutralized.
bb
RE: “+Idowu-Fearon holds a PhD in Sociology, so it is in no sense unusual that he would see things this way, and indeed, would base his estimate on “total population†and not “by province.â€
I’ve no idea what his degree would have to do with *which population* he was referring to — everybody I’ve heard describe the two ends of the poles in the AC have referred to provinces, not raw lay numbers, which is frankly a ridiculous thing to refer to since the raw lay numbers have no power to make any decisions whatsoever of political impact. The only folks who refer to raw lay numbers are 1) the conservatives when they have nothing else going for them in a particular situation [that’s okay, we’ve got the entire Province of Nigeria, you TEC bishop failures!] and 2) the liberals when they have nothing else going for them [as in, haughty sniffs and rhetoric about the teensiness of the Diocese of Quincy or Fort Worth].
If *you* want to refer to raw lay numbers, by all means do so. But it’s a relatively meaningless number in terms of power to actually accomplish anything *within the levers of institutional politics*.
Fearon is probably pretty close to accurate in his assessments of who will break fellowship and who will not. And for the past several years now it’s been all about “which provinces we choose to lose” from both sides, and limiting those losses by urgently trying to divide the Global South.
RE: “from the folks who so vehemently object to this appointment, of some candidate who would have been preferable.”
Who’s done that on this thread? I’ve pointed out the good political reasons for Welby to appoint Bishop Fearon to this position, while pointing out that it doesn’t move the needle either positively or negatively [I doubt that the Gafcon Primates will be moved to change their strategy, nor the overarching Global South Primates to change their *different* strategy], and I couldn’t care less if David Porter or Ian Douglas were appointed as Secretary General, as it makes no odds either way [although it wouldn’t be as clever a move politically for Welby] — recall that the instruments of Communion were effectively rendered irrelevant under Williams, and Welby’s goal is to get the Gafcon Primates [or at least a sufficient number of Global South Primates, in order to declare victorious relevance] to re-enter the political game and attend a Primates Meeting and all enjoy a happy reconciliation, while lending the Primates Meeting a greater degree of credibility and authority than it has enjoyed.
Obviously I’m not at all for that. But I recognize that plenty of others are all for the leaders of various Provinces re-entering the political game again and lending various instruments their credibility and issuing further statements that will not be enacted any more than the previous ones have.
My hope is that at least the Gafcon Primates [and hopefully a few more] will hold firm and say “enact the previous Primates Meetings statements, and then we’ll attend the next one.”
RE: “as in some recent things written on Episcopal Cafe”
I don’t come to any conclusions about the political advantage of various decisions based on the hysterical rantings of the sexuality activists. What they’re *opposed to* is irrelevant to my analysis since much of their ranting is simply histrionic display, affectation, and parading for public effect. “Artificial outrage” is one of their calling cards.
RE: “For example, in 2010 some 20 primates affirmed the decision by ++Anis and ++Orombi “not to participate in meetings of the various Instruments of Communion at which representatives of The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada are present.â€
And then most of those Primates proceeded to participate in various Primates meetings, with the exception of the folks whom Fearon is referring to who haven’t gotten with the reconciliation program.
I agree that nobody’s going to issue any formal departures from the Anglican Communion.
[blockquote]If British political and military history can be our guide, the 30% on the left and the right represent the current progressive and conservative leadership and activists. If the leaders and activists are obliterated (by choice or by design) then the remaining 70% are leaderless and the unfolding schism is neutralized.[/blockquote]
Hear hear, BB!
RE: “And then most of those Primates proceeded to participate in various Primates meetings, with the exception of the folks whom Fearon is referring to who haven’t gotten with the reconciliation program.”
Only one Primates meeting, actually, since 2010. I just checked. So my “various Primates meetings” is inaccurate.
A quick review yields 12 fairly conservative Primates didn’t attend the 2011. Wiki only cites seven who formally explained that they didn’t attend due to a boycott — Indian Ocean, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Nigeria, Uganda, Southeast Asia, the Province of the Southern Cone in South America and the Province of West Africa — but another five came up with rather poor excuses [I’m not counting Mexico or Burma or Congo based on their past records] — Kenya, North India, Sudan, Rwanda, Tanzania.
I suppose it’s possible that one or two of those 12 were legitimate and real excuses but I think I doubt it.
So 12 Provinces is a better haul than I would have thought — out of the 20 who “affirmed the decision by ++Anis and ++Orombi . . . ” not to participate. I’m wondering how much Primatial turnover there was in that year.
Unfortunately the Primate of the Sudan is on the ACC Standing Committee — so affirming the decisions of Archbishop Orombi and Anis “not to participate in meetings of the various Instruments of Communion at which representatives of The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada are present†didn’t mean he took on the idea himself. Plus Burundi and West Indies Primates are on the list of alternates for the ACC — so those two provinces are not a part of that previous list of 20 either.
It would be fascinating to see which Primates *now* would not attend a Primates meeting — I expect we’re back down to the 9-10, what with Primatial turnover and also that some are more than happy to affirm decisions by others, while continuing on participating. I hope we have that number anyway.
I suspect +Josiah believes there is a way for the Primates Meeting to have a different character. One of the complaints has been the role of the ACC. He has already said he wants the ACC to be more representative and also more of a partner with the Primates when they gather formally. I know that +Anis wants a Primates Meeting, but now one differently constructed. So the main line of communication between these two will be crucial.
I’m reading this appointment and its context similarly to Chris, thus I am encouraged by these developments. As I’ve stated at Coventry and ATV, and many other places, before and since,TEC ‘s 2003 actions created schism and merit discipline. Discipline, for brothers and sisters, is not primarily punitive but restorative. Restoration to the teaching and ethical life of the Communion must be the goal. I do think Archbishop Welby is building a team that will, over time, move more of us toward that fuller communion, even as the nature of that communion changes structurally (and the ABC has intimated what some of those changes may be). Progress will not be a direct line from here to there but rather at first circuitous, faltering, then eventually, pressed down, shaken together and running over. And as one GS bishop recently said, we are in a season of living “with the wheat and tares” in the Communion leadership. Against our Lord’s admonition, tare-pullers are likely to have a field day. More fun than taffy pulling at St Peters.
+Josiah is a very approachable person. He’s teaching at Wycliffe for a couple of weeks. I am confident that if people wanted to ask him about his Toronto talk, he’d be happy to oblige via a response. He is not some princely prelate, but a man with a heart and a love for people who are broken and need a Savior. The reasons to feel bitter and disappointed by what TEC has become and cynical about the future are legion. The entire leadership group in Toronto in 2013–GS, CAPA, Gafcon–understands very well the challenge facing the Communion. They are moved to help and to respond, as they are able. The very notion that we could have a new leader of the ACC who appreciates the actual character of the struggles in the GS and amongst those who support them in the 1st world; and who genuinely cares about the Communion as a Communion, is to my mind a remarkable and overdue development. But in God’s time, everything is on time.
I suggest that trying to equate attendance at ACC meetings with attendance at Primates meetings is an exercise in futility. There are different circumstances and issues applying to each. For that matter, its not that easy to equate attendance at different Primates Meetings – I expect it would depend on the circumstances.
Concerning the 2011 Primates Meeting in Dublin, the figure of 7 primates boycotting was published by Episcopal News Service, as I recall. I am not sure I would trust ENS on an issue like this. By contrast, Christian Today reported that 10 of the primates had informed the Anglican Communion Office that (i) they would not attend if the Presiding Bishops of TEC and ACoC were invited, but (ii) that they remained committed to the Anglican Communion. Those 10 were: Indian Ocean, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Rwanda, Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, West Africa, the Southern Cone and South East Asia. [In fairness to ENS, the Christian Today report came later]
How many would attend if a Primates Meeting was called tomorrow and the PB of TEC was invited? I have no idea. We could speculate that Tanzania or West Africa may have changed their tune, but we don’t know. Equally we could speculate that Sudan and Myanmar are now more likely to boycott, but again, we don’t know.
We could then take it further and ask, what would happen if a Primates Meeting is called after a change in Presiding Bishop of TEC? Absolutely no idea on that one.
However, what I think we can rely on is that the Primates of the Global South will mostly and continually adhere to orthodoxy. They might deal with it in different practical ways, but their commitment will remain the same. For example, there was a time when ++Anis and ++Orombi tried to make membership of the ACC work, but later they decided it couldn’t be done. But I don’t believe they were any less orthodox in either situation – they always saw repentance by TEC as the necessary end-game. In the same way, I expect if the ABC comes up with some new initiative, that some Primates will be more receptive than others – at least initially. But if there isn’t a real commitment to orthodoxy by the ABC and to repentance by TEC, then the end result will be the same as it has always been.
What we do know is that the ABC has not made any concrete steps to call either a Lambeth Conference or a Primates Meeting. That indicates that, whatever we might think about the numbers, they aren’t what he wants. Whether that’s 5 or 9 or 10 or 20 primates that might boycott, its not what he can work with to achieve his ends. And that comes after he has trotted the globe to speak with all the Primates personally.
I *suggest* there are actually two categories of Primate that concern the ABC, not just one. The first is the category we have been discussing – those who are likely to boycott a meeting, e.g. because of the presence of the PBs of TEC and ACoC. But the second I believe also concerns him – that is Primates who are likely to turn up and speak their mind. Note for instance the gathering of CAPA Primates this January. Only one of those present was a Gafcon Primate (Sudan). There were several who would be considered “moderates”, notably Burundi, Southern Africa and Tanzania. Yet they issued a communique which stated:
[blockquote] “We are deeply concerned about the divisions within our beloved Anglican Communion. These divisions emerged when some Churches in the west allowed the worldly cultures, to reshape the message of church to the society especially in the area of marriage and human sexuality. These issues not only contradict the traditional teaching of the scripture but also impede our witness to the Gospel, which is the reason of our presence in this world.” [/blockquote]
And
[blockquote] “We affirm the necessity of the Primates meeting, however we emphasize the importance of following through the recommendations of the previous Primates meetings.” [/blockquote]
I think the ABC does not want Primates turning up to a meeting and saying this to TEC face-to-face, any more than he wants Primates boycotting. Hence, he does the Lambeth Walk and doesn’t call any meetings.
“I suggest that trying to equate attendance at ACC meetings with attendance at Primates meetings is an exercise in futility.”
I did not see anyone claiming this. Can you indicate where it has been held to be relevant?
Dr Seitz at #106, the ACO can reconfigure the ACC if it likes or the Primates Meeting for that matter. That won’t deal with the primary issue. The 10 (or possibly more, as Sarah points out) Primates who declined to attend the last Primates Meeting in 2011 did so because TEC had not repented.
This has nothing to do with “feeling bitter and disappointed by what TEC has become” – I suspect you are projecting your own feelings onto the Primates when you write that. The GS Primates have at all times made clear that they look at this objectively, and what they require is repentance from TEC and ACoC.
#111–I am not projecting anything. I speak regularly with +Mouneer and others in the GS.
Tory at #107, while I agree with your other sentiments, I suggest that “Against our Lord’s admonition, tare-pullers are likely to have a field day” is not appropriate to this situation. Jesus tells us that the parable of the wheat and the tares refers to God leaving the reprobate on the earth until final judgment. It doesn’t refer to church discipline, which may include the expulsion of wicked or unrepentant persons (1 Cor 5:13).
Dr Seitz at #112 – that is a matter for you. My point still stands – the Primates have made it clear that TEC’s repentance is required before reconciliation can occur. Whatever discussions they have, or meetings they are prepared to attend, if that doesn’t occur then the boycotts, withdrawals etc will continue, in one form or another.
#114. Not a matter for me. A matter for the GS leadership, with whom I am in contact. Easter grace and peace!
“the Primates have made it clear that TEC’s repentance is required before reconciliation can occur.”
This is nowhere in doubt and does not pertain to anything I have said.
RE: “I suggest that trying to equate attendance at ACC meetings with attendance at Primates meetings is an exercise in futility.”
I don’t know who was doing this — I brought up the ACC to respond to your point that “in 2010 some 20 primates affirmed the decision by ++Anis and ++Orombi “not to participate in meetings of the various Instruments of Communion at which representatives of The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada are present.â€
The ACC is one of the four Instruments and representatives of TEC and the ACC are present there. Yet various Global South Primates have participated since 2010 either as primary delegates or as alternates, despite the 20 who affirmed the decision of the two Primates. I don’t say that in accusatory tone about them — it is what it is, and I understand why various Primates would make various decisions about engagement or further distance and detachment.
I agree that the Primates of the Global South will mostly and continually adhere to orthodoxy. I think the focus of Welby is simply to make sure as few of them as possible hit the “disengage” button from the COE/Welby once the COE goes into full-blown self-destruct mode and the Communion further implodes. I think he’s counting on or hoping that it will “merely” be the Gafcon Primates, and that Bishop Fearon will help him with the rest of the Global South Primates.
Pass the popcorn — at least I will appreciate the upcoming maneuverings and rhetoric in the midst of the smoking crater that is TEC.
#114 The parable counsels patience in judgment, a judgment we are neither competent nor called upon to make. These “weeds” are not merely reprobates on the earth but actually those culled from the kingdom itself (see 13:41). Apostates can be, and sometimes must be, borne Gullom-like.
However, I agree this is not primarily about church discipline (which is remedial) but final judgment.
I press this because I do think there is an appropriate (though limited) application to our situation and others in the GS – for good reason – will make it.
In this whole long thread, Chris has the money quote: [+Josiah’s appointment] “is a remarkable and long overdue development. But in God’s time, everything is on time.”
I am not sure how +Josiah’s appointment is “a remarkable and long overdue development”
I am sure a leader from the Global South is long overdue, but unsure the extent to which Bishop Josiah fits that bill, particularly when having read:
It reads like real anger, and who knows, perhaps he has reason to feel like that from his treatment in Nigeria, but I do have to question the claim that those who did not answer the Archbishop of Canterbury’s call to attend the last Lambeth Conference and Dublin Primates Meeting are “disobedient” including presumably +Josiah’s College of Bishops and Primate. It seems strange from someone who if reports are correct broke ranks and has not shown collegiality with his brother bishops in the Nigerian HOB, and was censured for disobedience to the line given by the Nigerian HOB and his own Primate at the time to be calling for obedience and centralisation of Instruments upon the Archbishop of Canterbury. He does seem to have been something of a lone voice in the Nigerian HOB, and it does have to be questioned how representative he is, even if I am not in a position to know how acceptable he will be in Nigeria, our most populous church, or in other African churches.
Though it does have to be said in his favour that +Josiah does seem to be a friend of Justin Welby, and increasingly singing from the same song sheet.
The trouble with that is though that +Justin has taken money from Trinity Wall Street for his Coventry consultation Tory+ mentioned, and repeatedly made clear his support for TEC and its presiding bishop, even as TEC is lurching even further into “disobedience”. Yet Welby’s entire programme is predicated on “reconciliation” [with TEC], with initiatives almost exclusively funded by and supported by TEC.
Is +Josiah’s appointment then something which will rebuild trust in the Global South and Africa in particular, even if he is in tune with Archbishop Welby and his programme or something which will, and is perhaps intended to polarise and divide the Global South, both the bit Professor Seitz and his colleagues talk to, and the other bit meeting in England?
Is it also possible that those who with good intentions feel they are contributing to and leading events and have important numbers on their speed dial, are in fact just being used?
I was thinking this last few days of how similar the Anglican situation is to The Great Game, the battle of wills between Britain and Russia over the North West Frontier of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 19thC. Jockeying for position, spying, alliances, subterfuge and deception, bribery of the tribes to keep them onside, changes of allegiances. The British became masters of the principle of divide and rule, and it is still one of the dark arts at which we excel, at least in our own minds.
Yet in amongst all that, tremendous courage and sacrifice, exploration, building of alliances and enduring friendships which changed all who were affected and still left behind a persecuted minority of Christians were the legacy of that time of The Great Game.
Perhaps it is also true of our time for those of us who live in the time of the Great Anglican Game.
Dear PM–No, I don’t feel used by the Bishops who met and prayed together in Toronto, some of whom I count as close friends and work alongside. Both ‘bits’ were present. I also believe they know very well when efforts are afoot to divide them! Easter blessings to you and yours.
re: “living with wheat and taresâ€
Wow what a misuse of the scriptures. Obviously the parable does not mean: live with false teachers. To read it that way flies directly in the face of everything the NT tells us about how to deal with false teachers, especially those who lead people Jesus loves and died for into sin. The revisionist leaders of TEC are not our brothers and sisters. We cannot know about their eternal destiny and we certainly pray for their repentance…but as it stands by their words and actions they are enemies of the cross of Christ and purveyors of a false gospel. To treat them as legitimate ministers and brothers in Christ does grievous harm to the flock and especially to those who struggle with same sex attraction.
I am so very thankful for the clear and forceful way the gafcon primates dealt with the collaborationist actions of ++Burundi and thankful that he has, apparently, pulled back from the faux “peacemaking†and/or “reconciliation†efforts promoted by the ABC.
RE: “I am so very thankful for the clear and forceful way the gafcon primates dealt with the collaborationist actions of ++Burundi and thankful that he has, apparently, pulled back from the faux “peacemaking†and/or “reconciliation†efforts promoted by the ABC.”
That *is* very good news. My understanding was that they rescinded an invitation to Katherine Jefferts Schori a few weeks ago.
#120 Thanks Chris+
I have never thought that “Bishops who met and prayed together in Toronto” are the ones pulling the strings.
All I see having been achieved, and in particular by this appointment of +Josiah is division among the leaders of the Global South. Nothing will be achieved until both the conservatives in the Global South start working together, much as needs to happen among conservatives in the United States, instead of working against one another. Otherwise those divisions and all the efforts pulling in different directions by conservatives will be used by a Canterbury in TEC’s pocket to divide and rule and so promote its own vision.
That I am afraid is how I see it and this whole effort.
PM–I agree that I tend to think the GS primates are now the chief agents in the AC, and far less so Canterbury. It sounds like you still think everything that truly matters will be under the control of the CofE and Canterbury.
“All I see having been achieved, and in particular by this appointment of +Josiah is division among the leaders of the Global South.:
How odd. I haven’t picked up any sense of that from the GS leaders I am in contact with.
“much as needs to happen among conservatives in the United States”.
It may well be that the situation inside the US is not very clear to you. The struggles of conservatives inside TEC are just very different to those who have left. I don’t see anyone not working together. I think both groups appreciate the struggles facing each separate group.
Maybe Sarah can offer her view, but your depiction of lack of cooperation seems out of touch with the reality in the US.
I think it is a great mistake to underestimate Welby or write him off. I think in Idowu Fearon he has got exactly what he wants, and no doubt it is reciprocated.
I also see different US voices giving different advice to Primates – that is the damage I am talking about internally, as well as similar divisions among the GS Primates. Until that is resolved and you all start to cooperate, Canterbury’s exploitation of that division will be the result.
RE: “Nothing will be achieved until both the conservatives in the Global South start working together, much as needs to happen among conservatives in the United States, instead of working against one another.”
Well I don’t think conservative Anglicans [inside and outside of TEC] in the US are working “against one another.” It’s just that we don’t share the same vision of what success looks like or the same goals, other than the very most largest goals like “we’re rooting rah rah for the Global South” and those sorts of things.
So it’s hard for us to “work together.” I mean — who *outside of TEC* wants to chat about TEC parish search processes or who the candidates are in the Diocese of Dallas! ; > ) And who *inside of TEC* wants to chat about the constitution and canons of ACNA or the advantages and disadvantages of affinity dioceses?
Answer: very very very very very few nerds indeed wish to discuss either!
Read carefully what I wrote. No one is writing Canterbury off. Many of us are writing the GS leaders in. That is where the Communion’s future so obviously is.
PM, I trust that the leaders of CAPA, Gafcon, and GS have no problems listening to each other. We saw it in action in Toronto. It is their time to step forward into responsibility.
Where you see ‘damage’ I see a maturing and increasingly influential GS complement.
I note Augustine also sees a “counsel to patience in judgment” in Jesus’ parable of the weeds (Ser 73a):
The field is the world and the church is spread through out the world.
Let the one who is wheat persevere until the harvest; let those who are weeds be changed into wheat. There is this difference between people and real grain and real weeds, for what was grain in the field is grain and what were weeds are weeds. But in the Lord’s field, which is the church, at times what was grain turns into weeds and at times what were weeds turn into grain; and no one knows what they will be tomorrow.
Similar exegetical notes are abundant and endlessly available in the Western Church, from Jerome to NT Wright. I just think Augustine writes more beautifully and memorably than most of us.
Blessings
#127
ACI had probably been one of the very few who has spent time, money, and talent a) fighting for +Iker in TX; b) fighting for +Quincy, c) fighting for SC, and d) fighting inside TEC. Various conservative factions. I know you know this. We have a major contribution re: GC 2015 about to appear.
This is all the more reason to wonder what something like ‘more cooperation amongst conservatives in the US’ would look like, given what you properly identify as different concerns and urgencies.
In the Diocese of Dallas region we have a thriving AMiA parish, ACNA parishes and clergy, and of course our own Diocese. Their ordination candidates attend Cranmer Institute events without any qualification. As noted above, and as you note, we simply have different urgencies and concerns. It is enough for AMiA and ACNA to cooperate in one and the same region.
This is why I wondered if the local reality inside the US is simply hard for Peter Field to understand. I know after ten years in the UK I was often on a steep learning curve, even with a Permission to Officiate in the CofE and licensed in the SEC.
“I just think Augustine writes more beautifully and memorably than most of us.â€
He does indeed, and he repeatedly made clear that Godly discipline includes the removal of false teachers from the Church. He never in sermon 23 suggests contrary to this.
Augustine (and for that matter Jerome and other respected writers of abundant exegetical notes) well understood the teaching of Christ given through his Apostle, which is the Church’s safeguard against the snares of the evil one:
[blockquote] “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolateror slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among youâ€.†[1 Cor 5:9-13] [/blockquote]
We are urged not to endorse false teachers, because in so doing we ourselves take part in spreading their teaching:
[blockquote] “Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.†[2 John 1:9-11] [/blockquote]
It is also important to note that it is precisely *restorative* discipline that can involve expulsion or separation. Sometimes advocating against separation is the reverse of showing love:
[blockquote] “Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed. Yet do not regard them as an enemy, but warn them as you would a fellow believer.†[2 Thess 3:14-15] [/blockquote]
If we really love those who teach falsely, then we will include separation in the measures of discipline and restoration that we use.
Our essay on TEC and Constitutionality is now up at
http://www.anglicancommunioninstitute.com
If we’re going to quote St. Augustine, let’s remember that his ministry years were defined by a long war against the heresies of Donatism and Pelagianism, as well as against non-Christian belief systems. His counsel towards patience in judgment is good, but he would never apply it to teachings that are clearly contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the teaching of the Church Catholic.
From the Gafcon communique…
No conservative province is going anywhere.
Other than that, there is no comment on the Secretary General’s appointment that I can see.
Between the Gafcon statement, and the recent CAPA statement, there appears to be substantial agreement among the various churches of the Global South.