The Province of Kenya issued a statement on Wednesday, June 13, 2007, announcing its intention to consecrate The Rev. Canon Bill Atwood as a Suffragan Bishop “to support the international interests of the Anglican Church of Kenya, including support of Kenyan clergy and congregations in North America.” Their further “goal is to collaborate with faithful Anglicans (including those in North America who are related with other provinces). A North American Anglican Coalition can provide a safe haven for those who maintain historic Anglican faith and practice, and offer a way to live and work together in the furtherance of the Gospel.”
So, what does this mean? It is illustrative of the truism, “nature abhors a vacuum.”
In this analogy, nature is the Anglican Communion. What is the vacuum? The lack of leadership from the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I have long been a supporter of the Archbishop’s leadership and the difficult position that he has been in. I have gleaned his writings and comments for those tidbits that would give an indication of the direction in which he would lead the Communion.
He has been quoted to say that “actions have consequences,” leading me, and others, to believe that he would allow the TEC to suffer the consequences of their decisions in some form of discipline. He said that he gave a September 30th deadline for the assurances from the American Episcopal House of Bishops so that invitations to Lambeth could be sent out or withdrawn in response to the American bishops’ responses. He said that the primates would decide what course of action they would take.
This all made sense in light of his perceived ecclesiology: he did not want to make an arbitrary decision that would give subsequent Archbishops of Canterbury more power that might be abused later; he had a conciliar view of the authority of the church and its bishops. All this made sense to me until the invitations to Lambeth were issued in an untimely manner, and the actions of the American Episcopal church bishops that consented to and consecrated the bishop of New Hampshire that has caused this rupture in the Communion.
The act of issuing these invitations at this time has shown that some actions have not had any consequences. The American House of Bishops’ response to the Primates’ Communiqué from Dar es Salaam clearly rejected the pastoral scheme of the Communiqué and dismissive of the underlying concerns of the Primates.
Since the actions of the American Church seem to have no consequences with respect to the full Communion, contrary to their stated concerns, we are left with the consequences of inaction. The inaction of the primates as a whole and our Archbishop of Canterbury have resulted in the consequences of yet another Anglican bishop being consecrated by another foreign (African) province to provide oversight for churches who want to leave the Episcopal Church because the actions of their American bishops have been shown to have no consequences at the international level.
In short: nature abhors a vacuum. Because the conciliar vision expounded by the Archbishop of Canterbury is either not working or not being followed we are left with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes (Judges 17:6). This has led to the multiplicity of foreign jurisdiction Anglican bishops in the United States, lawsuit upon lawsuit, inhibition and deposition upon early resignation and retirement.
How does Jesus view us? I suspect just as he did when he saw the crowds: “he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.”
We are a bishop-based church. Whether one believes that bishops are of the esse or the bene esse of the church, it is time for our bishops, both primates and diocesans, and especially the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in consultation with the Archbishop of York, to step up and bring some order out of this chaos. We are witnessing the breakup of the Anglican Communion before our very eyes. It has been given to the primates to enforce their own Communiqué. If they do not, the Anglican witness in the United States will truly be diverse, with a multiplicity American-born Caucasian bishops from Bolivia, Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Venezuela, overseeing their little niches of Anglicans in the United States, while the greater cause of Christ is hampered by our sad divisions that speak the lie to all our self-affirmations of unity. Maybe this is what God wants. Maybe this is what Anglicanism deserves.
–The Rev. Canon Dr. Neal O. Michell is Canon Missioner for Strategic Development in the Diocese of Dallas; this is posted here with his permission
It is getting “hot” out there again. I urge commenters please to stick to Canon Michell’s arguments. I would also be grateful if you send this to others if you would acknowledge the source. Thanks.
… and if they do not enforce it together as a body, surely they will enforce it separately — as they now appear to be doing.
Like Canon Mitchell, I am completely at a loss to find any reasonable explanation for +++Rowan’s sending out the Lambeth invitations before the deadline. I really thought he was more committed to the Communiqué.
I did not want to make the very first comment on the substance, but now I want to say that nothing has broken my heart more than Rowan Williams’ decisions about the Lambeth invitations.
This is a thoughtful statement from Canon Michell, and reminds me of this article from last week by Jordan Hylden in First Things which I HIGHLY RECOMMEND: “Anglican Summertime Blues” http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=767
Hylden, like Michell, remarks on the recent silence from the Primates and ++ABC and why the orthodox need to cling to the Sept. 30 deadline and the covenant process in general.
What breaks your heart about the invitations, Kendall? Whom he did invite? Whom he didn’t invite?
It is my fervernt hope and prayer that the Primates will come together to bring some order out of the chaos that is North American Anglicanism. Most reasserters cling to the feeble hope that +Cantuar will “take back” his invitations after Sept 30th or at the next Primates meeting.
With +Orombi, +Akinola, +Venables, and two others all supporting Canon Atwood, I am guardedly optimistic that some order will be brought out of the AMiA, CANA, NAAC triumvirate and that the “Pastoral Scheme” will be implimented outside of the Presiding Bishop’s approval and include the Network/Camp Allen/Windsor bishops.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
All I can say from long conversations with Senior leaders in the C of E is a kind of befuddlement about reactions to +RDW’s announcement. Now please don’t shoot the messenger! They see him as making nothing but provisional invitations, and eliminating +NH so as to underscore the seriousness of his actions, and his plan to take counsel with the Primates, either individuals or as a whole. +RDW is in Georgetown on Leave. I cannot believe he is not reading newspapers or otherwise seeing the nature of anglicanism within the US zone, up-close. So whilst others see his invitations as a negative and a blank check, I am not in that tribe.
I did see Schori’s letter to the HOB. I am aware that the meeting with the HOB is now to include the Standing Committee of the Primates as well as the ACC Exec. They will have a meeting on the Monday following. Speculation about this will, I predict, soar to stratospheric heights. It could augur well (a quick verdict) or not. Unlike Canada when +RDW visits, I doubt there will even be an effort to fig leaf SSBs — and of course revisionists will condemn the idea.
Pressure needs to come from Primates saying the communique is all of theirs, and that they intend to see it through.
Perhaps Rowan is being led by his conscience. Here’s a few, um, clauses from an exchange he had with students at Uganda Christian University just prior to being named ABC:
Young man: “Homosexuality is becoming a problem for [the] Anglican Communion. What is your view about it?”
…
Williams began, “…I feel I must answer [this question] because it preoccupies many people.” He went on to reveal that his personal view is that what the church has said about homosexuality through the ages does not reflect our current understandings,” and expressed his wish that he could “more wholeheartedly” agree with “the traditional teachings of the church.”
Source: Miranda Hassett, “Anglican Communion in Crisis”
So what you have is an Archbishop of Canterbury who is not wholeheartedly in agreement with the traditional teaching. And an Episcopal Church that is not either. I’d like to know why we should expect Rowan to use force, and why you should anticipate that force or threats would change the Episcopal Church.
Appraisingly yours,
John, those are questions RW believes needs to be explored which as a theologian it was appropriate for him to ask. He is in a different role now and he sees his task as to uphold the teaching and practice of the Anglican Communion as a whole.
There’s little to say in response to Canon Michell. He is – and I say this with great sorrow – completely right.
For Anglo-Catholics, such as I consider myself, this situation might have been salvaged if Archbishop Williams had invited the bishops of these various initiatives to Lambeth. In that case, one might make the rationalization that what we have is akin to the situation of American Orthodoxy: multiple jurisdictions still united in a common Faith. Not a result we might wish, but very tolerable in the near- to mid-term.
This not being the case, it is 50/50 that we will see a fragmentation of the Anglican Communion. Of course, it is still possible my above scenario could happen organically; despite the imaginings of the reappraisers, I don’t see much competition between CANA, AMiA, &c. So, they might well end up existing as organizationally separate, but in full communion and exercising much coordination.
While this situation won’t cause a lot of Protestant evangelical Anglicans to miss a beat, I’m afraid that many of the Catholic-minded are simply concluding the writing is already on the wall, and acting accordingly.
But for a few measly months of patience on Rowan Williams’ part, the discussion would be entirely different. As it is, I think this is going to end up being the grievous error that ruined a long string of what I think were pretty savvy decisions by Williams. It’s tough to blame him: he was handed a nearly impossible tightrope to walk, and, at the last second, he looked down. I don’t know if a lot of us could have done better.
I’ve never gotten the impression that Neal Michell has been entirely comfortable with these foreign initiatives, so to read this analysis ought to be sobering for us all.
It has been given to the primates to enforce their own Communiqué.
The question becomes ‘What can they enforce?’ They can break communion, invade Dioceses and issue statements all they want. The fact remains that the ABC is still the key to the whole process. As Neal Michell points out, he is one of the weakest leaders to ever hold the position – this is what will cause the schism.
As a very recent former member of the Diocese of Dallas, I find it a bit amusing that Neal Michell would be shooting darts, though completely deserved, at the Archibishop of Cantebury, when in the office next door, in my humble opinion, Bishop Stanton is not providing the leadership the Diocese of Dallas really needs either. We are walking away from our buildings because we cannot even get you guys to respond to our emails or phone calls…very sad to act this way in such a critical time of church history.
Off topic. Please comment on the post.
Brian, quoting Rush! Yet another reason why you’re everybody’s favorite reappraiser.
“We are a bishop-based church”. I have just about come to the conclusion that this is the core of the problem. I know that this view comes from the reformed side, and is not widely held. Consider the effort that is being expended today in trying to hold this jalopy together. While we are increasingly on the side of the road, other Christians are whizzing by in Mercedes as they proclaim the Pure Word of God. There is room in the Mercedes for us; but we choose to stick with the Jalopy. Why I don’t know. Maybe it is time to let it go.
Seitz+ brings up an excellent point – ++Rowan is on leave and remains silent. This is another fundamental leadership flaw. To issue no statement regarding the invasions is ridiculous. I don’t believe that he needed to say anything about Executive Council since he has already commented on the HoB rejection of APV. If Canada approves SSBs and no statement is forthcoming, we can only confirm that he chooses not to lead. I do know that his sabbatical should be for him and he should be left alone for reflection, but seismic shocks need to be addressed, even if by a spokesmen on his behalf.
Seitz: So how do these CofE leaders explain Michael Ingham’s invitation? Let’s accept the “provisional” argument. So Ingham is provisionally accepted provided that he continues to completely ignore the will of the Communion? Rowan Williams did not have to do this. He could have “provisionally” NOT invited those bishops who have clearly and deliberately violated the mind of the Communion. But Rowan didn’t do that. He provisionally invited them. The clear and obvious message was that “based on your behavior up to this time, I am justified in inviting you to Lambeth.” How can the Brits not see this?
Hi Kendall, yes I know he’s said that because he is in a leadership he can and will do what is contrary to his heart. I’ll belabor my point just one more time on this thread by way of example: bishops who oppose women’s ordination (for example) have not done that. They are led by their conscience. Ultimately I believe that’s who Rowan will be led as well.
Not only have +++Rowan’s actions greatly exacerbated the division within the AC, but also his inactions. The writing was on the wall back in 2003, when ECUSA began its program of heresy and division, yet Rowan failed to do anything but provide the most perfunctory lip service to the crisis and, true to form, empaneled a gaggle of clerics to issue a report that has been uniformly ignored by TEC. The result is that an infection has now blossomed into a fully-gangreous appendage that threatens the entire body of the AC…yet Rowan dither on. His inaction at the moment ECUSA charged into direct conflict with the Communion has been the defining moment of this affair.
I seriously doubt he has any sympathy for the particulars of Peart’s politics, however.
Consquences of inaction is a good way to put it. Like James W and others I would guess, I don’t understand Ingham’s invitation, nor the invitations of those who participated in the consecration of VGR.
Jimmy,
That could very well be the case: diocesan bishops and their staff, assured of a stream of endowment income and parish assessments, unaccountable to any individual congregations. Obviously the inherent unaccountability gets worse at the national level.
In retrospect, I see little justification for the national church and General Convention. The bishops could just elect one of their number annually to preside and he could do so from his own diocese. And when liberal bishops argue for everyone just doing their own thing, at that point I ask why we even need bishops.
In Response to the following:
14. Jimmy DuPre wrote:
“We are a bishop-based churchâ€. I have just about come to the conclusion that this is the core of the problem… and “While we are increasingly on the side of the road, other Christians are whizzing by in Mercedes as they proclaim the Pure Word of God.”
Your comments about the other Christians is interesting. To be in the will of God, we must have both Orthodoxy (Right Belief) and Orthopraxy(Right action). While many fine Christians have wonderful Correct beliefs. (Something many in the Anglican world do not-including many who call themselves “Orthodox”) they do not have proper practices. And I say this as a Former Presbyterian, the lack of Bishops (the having of which was set up by Our Lord) makes any “Church” at least deficient (which is not to say that the members of such a “Church” are not fine believers.) One can be a mistaken Believer in the field of Church Government. I would prefer a truly right beliving Presbyterian or even Baptist to many of our Anglican brothers.
I don’t think we have to make a choice however. It is possible to have both proper belief and proper practice with wonderful Orthodox (truly Orthodox!!) Anglican Bishops.
RECCHIP
Sorry to Disagree with Scottk in #4, but Jordan Hylden’s piece was disappointing. I was interested that Dr. Harmon didn’t post it here, which usually means a lot in terms of omission.
Wholesale non-invitations is tantamount to throwing all liberals out of the AC. Obviously, some wish this to happen, but I don’t think that RW would want that as an ideal – considering that a significant proportion of the CofE is sympathetic to TEC.
Bryan in #13, I am sure the diocese of Dallas’ leaders will be pleased to address your concerns, but they are not properly made here, but better directly to them.
I think it is important to remember that many people on one hand are wanting to give some of the instuments of the communion authority they don’t or haven’t had and on the other wanting to take away authority from instruments that they have or have had.
The people making these suggestions and claims are on the one hand happy to hand over new authority when the parties in question agree with them and then on the other hand are eager to take authority away when an instrument doesn’t agree with them.
If we are a church under authority (here I am saying both bible or tradition) then we have to accept that authority when it is exercised.
Upto this point in the history of the anglican communion the Primates Meetings have not had the kind of authority they are being asked to provide: disciplining a province, bishops, etc. The primates meetings have been consultative. The individual primates exercise the appropriate authority in thier own provinces but not others.
Upto this point in history it has been under the authority of the Arch-Bishop of Cantuarbury to give invitation to the Lambeth confrence of Bishops. No other instrument has that authority. The Archbishop has issued those invitations. It might be worth noteing that there were several border invasions prior to this Archbishops time, and prior to this set of invitations. This action was his and his alone to take. You can disagree, but if you are under this authority, then that is how we are playing the game.
In my own perception, I think not inviting Bishop Gene Robinson, has in effect, put the diocese of New Hampshire out communion with canturbury. This isn’t being talked about, but perhaps should.
The archbishop of canturbury inviting the rest of the american bishops simply says what is a reality. The American Church is part of the anglican communion.
Some may not like this, but it is what the authorities are saying.
I might remind you that the Communieque from Dar only said that if the american church didn’t do what it ask that “There would be consequences.” What those consequences would be is not stated. It was never under the Primates Meetings authority to issue invitations to Lambeth. That is the perogative of the Cantaur.
I think we have found the one area in which reasserters and reappraisers completely agree.
I do, however, think that to consider the invitations as provisional as written is a bit tooloose and to consider them as the abandonment of communion as too harsh. We have already seen ++Orombi’s reaction. We will have to wait for ++Akinola, et al to declare in earnest
Phil-I just got back from seeing them in Tampa, I would recommend the tour.
Jeffersonian-Neil Peart is an avowed atheist whose politics follow a Libertarian bent ala Ayn Rand
Charles in #5, I dont understand your questions, as what Archbishop Rowan Williams did is in the public domain.
#25, I do not hear Neal Michell saying the Archbishop does not have the authority, he is just questioning how it is being exercized. This prematurely undermines the Tanzania communique in the minds of many.
Re: The comments on authority and the episcopate:
Even the Episcopal Church’s system, with well financed and endowed Bishops running diocese with only token observation from a “First Among Equals” type at 815 can work just wonderfully as long as they are willing and able to agree on a core set of values and qualifications AND be willing to discipline their own when they step away from those values.
If they are unwilling to pass judgement on each other at every level, including pre-ascension screening and during tenure, then the whole system cannot fail to collapse.
Due to this weakness of character, the crumbling is all around, is it not?
KTF!….mrb
I will take the minority position of disagreeing with Canon Michell’s assessment. I believe that the Archbishop has acted assertively by initiating the invitations now with a mid July response. Many of us are hoping that he will resolve the tension in the Communion; instead he has thrown down the gauntlet, increasing the tension, to see how all the parties will respond. For the Archbishop’s openness to reconsidering the ethics of sexuality, I have seen nowhere his questioning of the identity of Jesus Christ, the centrality of the Cross, the nature of Scripture, or the acceptability of the Creeds.
By not inviting the Bishop of NH, he has provoked a crisis for +GVR’s supporters. If they accept their invitations before Sept, they risk being seen to have betrayed +GVR; it they decline their invitations, the ABC’s hand is strengthened in Sept because they have chosen not to attend even before he disinvites them (if they walk further apart); and if they simply refuse to respond, the ABC can disinvite them either for cause or simply because they did not answer. Of course, the reasserters must stand together with the ABC. If they abandon him, then he has less reason to follow through in his conversations with the HOB in September and with disinviting some in October.
On this point I will however agree with Canon Michell, the Primates must stick by their Communique’ and each other. If Kenya is acting on its own, then Canon Michell is correct that this is an act of filling the vacuum. If Kenya is acting in concert, it would seem then to be aimed at preparing for the departure of TEC, and the institution of a temporary Primatial Counsel leading to a new province. Here I must admit I may have crossed over into speculation!
#29 sorry for my ignorance, but what does KTF! mean
Let us remind ourselves that the invitation list is not final. As puzzling and frustrating as the earliness of the invitations was, the ABC has himself stressed the fact that some may in fact be withdrawn, etc.
Let us withhold our despair and conversions to Roman Catholicism (or whatever else) at least until the invitation list actually is finalized, until after Sept. 30. Let’s see what happens. The fat lady has not sung.
This prematurely undermines the Tanzania communique in the minds of many.
Not to mention Canada’s General Synod!
Kendall –
You said… “I did not want to make the very first comment on the substance, but now I want to say that nothing has broken my heart more than Rowan Williams’ decisions about the Lambeth invitations.”
What part of his decisions broke your heart? I.e. the fact that he didn’t invite ++Minns? Or that he did invite those who voted for ++Robinson?
By not inviting the Bishop of NH, he has provoked a crisis for +GVR’s supporters. If they accept their invitations before Sept, they risk being seen to have betrayed +GVR; it they decline their invitations, the ABC’s hand is strengthened in Sept because they have chosen not to attend even before he disinvites them (if they walk further apart); and if they simply refuse to respond, the ABC can disinvite them either for cause or simply because they did not answer.
The problem with that strategy is that it is an enormous risk. Assuming that the GS Primates meant what they said in The Road To Lambeth, then the reaapraisers in TEC only need to send one Bishop who consecrated +Gene. So a single TEC Bishop could use this gambit by the ABC simply as a political move to disenfranchise the GS Primates. This is of course assuming that anyone other than ++Orombi meant what they said.
Precisely.
#34, thanks for the clarification.
The heart of the concern is why it was done when it was done, why it was done how it was done, and why if done at this time in this way the numerous bishops ministering in clear defiance of Anglican teaching and practice were invited.
There were a whole host of better options to be chosen than this route.
Sorry…KTF means simply “Keep the Faith”. A big challenge nowadays, for me anyway.
Kendal, I’m in agreement. To me it seemed as if someone handed +++RW a branding iron and he let the calf go free instead of making a lasting mark when he had the chance. I thought, from my humble perspective, that his early and widespread invitations offerred too much chance for several in the HOB to draw SUPPORT from their invitations, VGR aside, instead of a message of disapproval at their disdain for Windsor and Dar es Salam.
KTF!…mrb
Fr WB, you know I’m a fan of your blog and we agree on much, but I’m having a lot of trouble agreeing with your #32. My problem is that ++Rowan gave absolutely no incentive or urgency for reform and amendment of life to the bishops in Canada or ECUSA who have done the most to break Communion. I addressed this on another thread a few days ago:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/3626/#64800
Basically, if +Rowan had said he was putting certain bishops in provisional invitation status, he’d have given them incentive to conform to the Windsor process. But by issuing the invitations as he has with no indications of what could cause him to withdraw an invitation makes me believe the chance of such withdrawal is virtually non-existent. I wish I could believe otherwise, but I just don’t see it. And if this is some kind of gamesmanship as some have suggested, I say shame on +Rowan. What we need now is clarity and transparency, not some kind of trial balloon or hoping that by doing A, person or group “A” will do “B,” and cause person or group “X” to do “Y.” No, he has undermined his “actions have consequences” rhetoric severely in terms of causing us to believe that there will be consequences for ECUSA & Canada.
The only irony is that others have stated here, he is reinforcing the “actions have consequences” (or inaction has consequences) reality by his own actions at this point and time. It’s just not the actions and consequences most of us had been led to believe would be forthcoming. Yes. Actions DO have consequences, direct or indirect. I wish ECUSA and +Ingham would be held directly accountable and made to face clear consequences of their actions. But barring that, the chain of actions and consequences just gets messier and convoluted.
I don’t really believe this is the case, but IF +Cantuar is in fact biding his time before taking strong action, then the invitations make a sort of sense. Rescinding the existing invitations, and extending others, perhaps a “radical exclusivity” to some other bishops in the REC and Continuing Churches, would have a much greater impact than just waiting. Not likely, but possible, and desirable.
Off topic: I am reminded again how the DIO TN missed a great opportunity to pick +Neal as their bishop. Had they done so, I would probably still be a member, instead of a mere Anglican. Kendall+, consider me flogged!
#7 writes: “So whilst others see his invitations as a negative and a blank check, I am not in that tribe.”
But what evidence is there to support any notion that the current invitations will later be withdrawn?
Consider Michael Ingham as a case in point. He and his diocese are not living according to the teaching of the Communion. There is for them no September 30 deadline. But an invitation has been issued.
On what possible grounds could this one be withdrawn afterward by Rowan Williams?
Look there were other ways to proceed if Dr. Williams wanted to move before he left for sabbatical. He could have issued some invitations and said about others “I haven’t decided yet and I will later” or “I will after consutation with the Primates” etc. He didn’t.
Michael Ingham has had no consequences, as Neal Michell rightly points out. AND there will be none.
Rowan Williams is also not known for being someone who issues invitations and then later withdraws them.
#41 APB I also regretted DioTN’s knee-jerk reaction mostly from retired liberal clergy that kept Neal Michell from being elected our new bishop. Perhaps 🙂 the Lord knew best, that Michell+ would be needed in Dallas and that +Bauerschmidt would be a faithful bishop as well, which I am sure is the case, having met him and heard him speak and reading his sermons and positions taken at his previous church in LA. So we got 2 highly-placed reasserters for the price of 1! Think about coming back to DioTN, it should be an adventure in defending the faith with a faithful successor to +Herlong.
Kendall writes (# 37)
Kendall’s concern is in line with Jesus’ own emphasis on false teaching as well as false practice in Matthew 5:19: “Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
The problem is not just the problem of Gene Robinson but of all those bishops who confirmed him and continue to support him as “an example of godly living.”
A couple of points:
(1) When I was a kid, my parents often gave me a deadline for when I needed to be in bed. Sometimes I talked back and said I wasn’t going to comply. Nevertheless, my parents never acted before bedtime had passed. When the Primates issued a Sept. 30 deadline, the obvious implication was that they would not act until that deadline passed. Another implication was that they (whether my parents or the Primates) would act together, not individually. If one of America’s sins is unilateralism, it cannot be cured by imitating TEC’s example of acting alone. At the current rate, every one of the Global South primates is going to be running his own North American church. How does that show forth the Gospel?
(2) How many of you folks have ever had to organize an extremely busy two-week residential conference for almost 900 full participants (a significant number of whom do not speak the majority language), plus at least that many more spouses, staff, and such? Do you suspect that the people responsible for housekeeping, food, and technical support might need considerable advance notice of the maximum number of people who might show up? Might that not make it a practical necessity to issue early invitations RSVP to everybody who might attend, subject to later reduction, as opposed to issuing a minimal number of invitations, subject to later expansion? Might this particularly be an issue when the person who is responsible for the guest list is going to be out of the office for three months of necessary prayer and study?
#45, Rowan Williams, by acting himself WITHOUT the primates, has exercized the very kind of unilateralism you deplore. These invitations are Rowan’s to give, but the instruments of unity/communion need to work together. Here they have not.
I understand the practical concern about leadtime in terms of international travel, etc (anyone know incidentally WHEN the Lambeth 1998 invitations went out?). But there was a way to do this also, which is to give the clear invitations that could be given, and say I need to wait and take further advice on the rest.
As I pointed out in the original stand firm interview discussion when the Lambeth invitations news broke, there was another way to proceed, which was to ask for an episcopal and a diocesan commitment or pledge to certain acknowledged things as our common life commitments at the present time. The content of this I realize would be difficult, but it was doable.
Then bishops would have chosen–on the same basis–to come or not to come. Then none of the actual decisions would have been Dr. Williams but the basis would have been.
Just thought of something that I don’t believe anyone has commented on. It came to mind because I originally misread #46’s closing words to be referring to ++Rowan’s rest (i.e. Sabbatical)
need to wait and take further advice on the rest.
It dawns on me that my misreading was actually of interest. Many of us supported and were cheered with the news of ++Rowan’s sabbatical at this time. What is more needed now than a season of prayer and seeking God’s face for wisdom? Some of us had hoped that ++Rowan was entering in to such a time in order to be strengthened and refreshed spiritually and to know the Lord’s wisdom in these matters.
That is just one more reason why his early issuance of the invitations is disappointing. Of course he can still seek the Lord and His wisdom, and I pray he will. By grace he can still rescind invitations of those who continue in intransigence and defiance of the Communion. Yet he now has a much harder path in front of him than he might have had if he had waited.
Perhaps we are not past the point of no return, but I think we are quite a fair distance further down the slippery slope and much more heroic measures are going to be needed for rebuilt trust and restoration than might have otherwise been the case. Was it NT Wright who called the Windsor Report / process our only obvious way to “back away from the edge of the cliff” (or something like that?). Well it seems like we’re now over the cliff and standing on a very fragile ledge part of the way down… Yes, there’s still hope of rescue, but the situation is much more dire than it was.
Dale:
Some responses to your question. In your bedtime example, there were no serious negative consequences associated with your parents waiting till your specified bedtime before acting. In the current TEC situation there is – namely the continued persecution of the orthodox by the TEC liberals. (Can anyone say Mark Lawrence? Can anyone say Peter Lee? Can anyone say parishioners leaving in droves?) A better analogy would be UN sanctions against a country building a nuclear bomb. If the UN says that all bomb making capacity must be stopped and a deadline is given, but the country in question blatantly refuses and steps up its bomb making, it just might be appropriate for the UN to take interim steps to intervene.
Second, the DES Communique said the following
The word is “remains” damaged, it does not say “will become damaged.” Let’s also not forget that earlier primatial decisions asked that TEC and ACC bishops not able to adhere to Windsor ought to absent themselves from Communion bodies.
Accordingly, the correct path for Rowan to follow would have been to withhold invitations from all non-compliant TEC and ACC bishops (i.e. all who permit SSB’s and all who consented to or partook in Robinson’s consecration) pending their acceptance of the mind of the Communion, as expressed throught the acceptance of the Dromantine and DES Communiques.
A very good argument can be made that Rowan Williams acted apart from the Communion disciplinary process which has emerged to this date, and that his actions have undermined this process.
As Neal says here – whether one agrees with this latest move by the ACK or not, the fact is that Rowan’s dawdling and inaction is seriously undermining the credibility of the Communion and the Communion disciplinary process.
Let’s go back to your bedtime analogy. It would be like your parents saying to you “Dale, if you aren’t in bed by 9, then you won’t get to go to the amusement park tomorrow.” Then it is 8:55 and you are loudly proclaiming that you aren’t going to bed, you haven’t put on your PJ’s, you haven’t brushed your teeth, you haven’t put your toys away. Then your dad comes in and says “heh, Dale, when we take you to the amusement park tomorrow, would you like a nice hamburger for lunch?” What would that do to your parents’ credibility?
I am truly sorry the invitations to Lambeth so distressed Kendall.
I have a reservation about them – but from a different perspective and my reservation could have been set aside with a little thought.
I must say though that I am surprised at such a reaction from Kendall.
The clear “message†for the last several months has been that all bishops with a recognised jurisdiction would be invited – the only doubt was over Gene – and that has (almost) been the result.
I am sure that Kendall must have known this – it was hardly a secret.
As to the Dar es Salaam Communiqué, surely everyone knows of the duress that went on rather too visibly “behind the scenes†here. As a result the final document was rendered impotent and many Primates were unable to secure the support needed for it at home. There was no real consensus and it fell apart as it was declared.
Some may regret that, but I see no merit in pressing the matter when it has clearly been rejected as a way forward. Indeed I wonder quite what lies behind the thinking of those who constantly harp upon it and appear to feel that their support for it can somehow restore its status.
The Primates Group are fallible and in Tanzania they were forced into making a mistake that was not going to work. I see nothing wrong or necessarily bad about this, they have the opportunity to meet again and rediscover a way forward that might work – it’s quite simple.
I understand that many are anxious and impatient – I can be too! But if we are to find a lasting and enduring solution then we have yet some way to go. I guess we will all have our hearts broken a couple of times yet – but I am sure that with God’s help a way of keeping our Communion reasonably intact will be found. I am not sure that will eventually mean that bishops and their diocese will have to pledge some oath of allegiance or some such thing – but it will mean we agree somehow to work together more closely in the future – I think in part that has already been achieved.
For the record, since I and others have bandied it about, here’s ++Rowan’s exact words from last summer re: “actions have consequences” — it’s from his long reflection published shortly after GC06.
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=13925
This seems to me to be a lot of discussion and debate over a matter of no consequence. Why should anyone care whether Robinson was invited or not? He and TEC are now out of the barn of their own choice. Why try to close the barn door? You people discuss the same matters endlessly and to neither a conclusion nor to any avail. Hasn’t the case become both simple and clear: The traditional Anglican Church has no use for and no need for TEC.
Who has not been invited to yet another conference in an apparently endless string of conferences has no effect on either side of this pas de deux because the partners have chosen to dance alone. Nothing will change, but the sheer amount of hot air
would heat Westminster all winter and the cost of t his hot air would pay the salaries of a baseball team. Why do you care at such length? Nothing hangs on the issue. LM
RE: “As to the Dar es Salaam Communiqué, surely everyone knows of the duress that went on rather too visibly “behind the scenes†here. As a result the final document was rendered impotent and many Primates were unable to secure the support needed for it at home. There was no real consensus and it fell apart as it was declared.”
LOL. You mean the politicking and strategizing by the various groups there?
Then in that case, I’m sure you’ll say the same thing about the “duress that went on rather too visibly “behind the scenes— at Executive Council by the Integrity crew . . . ; > )
We’ll all wait breathlessly for that statement.
Hi Friehofer,etc–Can you state categorically that you know that +RDW will not consult with the Primates? My hunch is you can’t. But I think it fair enough to let you reveal things that you may know through private sources. I think people are very anxious, and filling up the space created by what they do not know, and worry mightily about, is the new vocation of the ‘blog.’ But there may be information–solid, sure, confirmable–that can be shared and I’d welcome new information of any kind, if it is in the hard fact category. God bless you and prosper your ministry in Him.
God Bless you dear Sarah.
The early invitations have emboldened and increased the intransigence of the HoB as evidenced by the executive committee’s arrogant pronouncements. It has caused the sides to diverge further, nearly guaranteeing schism.
To those who say wait till Sept 30, let us zoom forward till that date and let us assume that miraculously the HoB accede to the other two requests. They have still rejected the alternative oversight and cessation of lawsuits. Is that enough? No. In as much as they have definitively rejected the APV scheme and lawsuit requests, the primates can move forward right now with whatever consequences they had in mind with respect to ensuring appropriate oversight. When (not if) the HoB has rejected the other two, they can deal with that, too, say by pressing the ABC to withdraw invitations.
RE: “We’ll all wait breathlessly for that statement.”
Guess it won’t be coming??? ; > )
The ABC said that he would consult the primates with respect to the invitations. From the hue and outcry, he did not (save from a few, say Schori and Hutchinson?) Now, we are suppose to believe that he will consult them on invitation withdrawals? Sorry if I don’t hold my breath till Christmas for that.
#54, Chris,
I cannot state categorically that +Rowan did not consult the primates. However, given the statements of +Orombi, +Akinola, and +Nzimbi, it seems as though he did not. Certainly his pattern of behavior seems not to be very collaborative, unless he does so behind the scenes, but from all indications it is very much behind the scenes.
It appears that his issuing of the Lambeth invitations was preemptive of the primates’ input as well, otherwise he might have referenced their counsel in issuing the invitations that he did and when he did.
+Rowan has made many good decisions all along the way. I do not envy him his responsibility. However, part of my frustration with him is that his public pronouncements are not as transparent as the needs require. We are left with seeking hints and innuendo that indicate what he might do or what he really meant. I realize that I am both an American and a Texan that prefers much more plain-spokenness than +Rowan is wont to do.
With his latest actions (inactions) he has managed to disappoint so many people that the very thing that he did not want to happen, namely, the fracturing of the Anglican Communion, is the very thing that is happening. I really don’t think we would have seen these unilateral actions and threatening not to attend Lambeth if he had been in consultation with the primates.
I think that at the heart of the matter and riding parallel with the battle between orthodoxy and revisionism moves the growing maturity great heart of the Churches of the Global South. The ‘original’ (for want of a better word) AC has yet to completely understand the significance of this and for better or for worse, the Anglican communion simply cannot remain what it has been for so long and what it still sees itself as; namely, the Church of England along with its coequal consorts, ECUSA and the Churches of Canada and far off Australia, and one or two others.
Anglicanism has grown far beyond those boundaries and unlike Rome, has determinedly avoided a Papal Magisterium (if that is the correct term). Rather the See of Canterbury is, in the 21st. century, a muddled construct of benevolent primacy with biblical authority and tradition tainted with political and cultural motivations. I pity ++Rowan as I would have pity for whoever else might have been in his position at this time. Nonetheless, I feel as Kendall does, that ++Rowan’s unnecessary and premature decisions have brought a great deal of pain into a time in Anglicanism when the Church needs all the clarity and charity and grace it can muster. Instead, I fear we are down on that ledge that Karen mentioned.
I know that God’s will in this matter for us all is purity of heart and fullness of belief but as a life-long Anglican, remaining within the promise of Our Lord’s ‘peace that passeth all understanding’ feels like a terrific struggle right now which is precisely when Karen B would say brings us down on our knees.
Kendall+ argues: “there was another way to proceed, which was to ask for an episcopal and a diocesan commitment or pledge to certain acknowlegded things as our common life commitments at the present time. The content of this I realize would be difficult, but it was doable.” However, I suggest that such a strategy was out of the question before the covenant process is completed. In fact, such an action by the ABC would preempt the whole covenant process. The ABC chose to act when no one was expecting his action. It was a brilliant move and it succeeded in catching everyone off-guard. It de-links the invitation process from the Sept. 30th HOB meeting. which, I suspect, was the objective. The ABC has made it very clear that he is not a pope, he is primus inter pares in a thoroughly concilliar church. He will not “kick out” the TEC, he will, however, also not stop them from walking apart from the historic Communion if that’s what they choose to do.
By removing the Lambeth ’08 invitation process from the center of attention, the ABC has put the focus squarely where it belongs, on the HOB meeting on Sept. 30th. When the TEC bishops act they will be doing so without the shadow of threat that invitations to Lambeth might not be extended. They are free to act as they feel the Spirit is moving them. The ABC is most certainly NOT trying to force them to do what they do not want to do. At the same time, he has sent a powerful message that their actions may be “prophetic,” but they are, in all likelihood leading the TEC out of the Communion.
If the majority of bishops of the American church are, in fact, convinced that the Spirit is moving them to prophetic action, and if they have any moral integrity, I think it will be VERY HARD for them to attend Lambeth next summer unless the Bishop of New Hampshire receives a full invitation to participate. +Chane and others are already sending signals that they won’t attend unless circumstances change. I suspect that the pressure will only grow for them not to attend. The ABC did not need to draft a complicated list at this point of whose coming and whose not. He needed to send a signal, and he sent a VERY powerful one. By his exclusion of the duly elected and consecrated bishop of New Hampshire, the ABC has sent a remarkable message. The announcement that Minns would also not be invited is not even remotely in the same category as the decison, at least for now, of not inviting +New Hampshire.
The ABC always has the option to extend further invitations, or to retract ones already made, so he has lost nothing by shifting attention and decouppling the invitation process from the response of the HOB and the Sept. 30th deadline. Since the Dar al-Salaam comunique the TEC has spoken twice, and both times they have clearly rejected what the Primates asked of them. On Sept. 30th they will formally reject what has been asked of them for the third time. After that, those bishops of the American church who embrace the new theology of the TEC, and who have integrity, will stand with the Bishop of New Hampshire. As the ABC has made clear, by their OWN actions they will CONTINUE to walk apart from the Communion. No one will force them, no one will push them, they will just continue to walk away on their own. To think that the ABC is going to take some precipitous action before Sept. 30th, I think, is to miss the larger picture here of what’s going on at the Communion level. This is NOT a weak or indecisive ABC. This is, from my perspective, and I suspect history will record, one of the greatest archbishops to have ever served in the See of Canterbury. He understands the nature and authority of his office perfectly, and he is showing us how a non-papal archbishop, serves as primus inter pares, of a genuinely concilliar global communion in the internet age. I’m sure it’s frustrating to many on both sides, but if you take the long historical view, the actions of +Cantaur are truly a marvel to behold.
Chris Taylor: I think my take on this is somewhat similar to yours. I am not sure of the exact tactical benefit of issuing the invitations at this time, but it would be interesting to know at what date invitations were issued for previous conferences. Clearly there are logistical issues involved in organizing these conferences that may require significant lead time in issuing the invitations.
If that is the case, it is hard to see how the ABC could have proceeded differently. Since TEC has not yet reached its trial date, should not the maxim of “being innocent until proven guilty” apply? Under that guideline, it would seem that all properly consecrated bishops would be eligible for invitation. The fact that certain TEC bishops may have chose to “illegally” consecrate Gene Robinson does not of itself invalidate their own consecration. If they are “convicted” on September 30th, their status may change and the validity of the invitations can be reexamined. On the other hand, I think a case can be made that the consecration of Gene Robinson did not conform to the “rules” of the communion and therefore at this time he is not eligible for inclusion. Should TEC be found “innocent” then his status may change and he may become eligible for invitation. If this logic appears odd, think of Gene Robinson as being “bail” for the TEC bishops. They may be assumed to be innocent, but their “asset” is still held captive (and out of play) until they are proved innocent.
I think similar arguments can be made for Bishop Minns. On the one hand, he is not eligible because previous guidelines excluded missionary bishops. On the other, CANA could be considered an unauthorized and discouraged intrusion which is linked via the Windsor report to ECUSA’s “trial”. The African bishops may also be assumed to be innocent until proven otherwise but again their “asset” is their “bail” (and therefore out of play).
Brilliant Rowan Williams? The archbishop has, as I stated, emboldened the TEC, and strengthened the divergent forces virtually ensuring schism. Expecting a bold move from the ABC in October? Why? When has he acted anything but timidly? He tried to undermine the DeS meeting with the loathsome subcommittee report and, again, afterwards with the early invitations. You mistake nebulousness for brilliance.
Others have pointed out the very real possibility of the primates standing committee giving a blessing on the American HoB, whatever arrogant stand they take in September. (Remember KJS is the newest member.) With the primates standing committee and the ACC good will, opposition to the TEC will be weakened.
I disagree with Chris Taylor in #61. It is true if it were done incorrectly it could be perceived to preempt the covenant process, but the way to avoid that trap would be to cite existing commitments (The Windsor Report, etc.) and ask for a commitment to them as the current teaching and practice. Note that such a commitment could be made by many who expected that teaching and practice to change in the future.
There were all sorts of ways the Archbishop could have proceeded differently. The simplest would have been to issue no invitations until after September 30th, or after a subsequent Primates meeting, and to communicate that reality at present and to say “I realize there is anxiety but this seems to most prudent way forward.”
#3 & #64 So sorry Dr. Harmon – I wish I could say that I understood it – but I don’t. But I do still trust in the Lord and pray that he will guide all through this.
Re #63: I would suggest that if three of the Instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Primates through their Standing Committee) all agree on something (and the fourth Instrument, Lambeth, is not in a position to disagree), that “something” is the position of the Anglican Communion. I don’t happen to think that the Primates or even the ACC are necessarily boarding that particular ship, but if they did, it would represent a striking degree of agreement across the major part of the Communion, even if that agreement would not be acceptable to the far reappraiser end of some provinces (TEC, Scotland, Canada, CofE, etc.) or to the far reasserter end of some other provinces (Rwanda, South East Asia, Nigeria, Southern Cone, Kenya, etc.). It clearly would not be acceptable to most readers here, either.
However, the Archbishop was not appointed to meet the demands of people on the ends, but to hold together some form of communion for the great bulk of Anglicans in the middle—both the middle of his own English church and of global Anglicanism. He is clearly determined not to save the Anglican Communion by destroying what makes it unique. He recognizes, even if many others do not, that he cannot save a collaborative style of collective discernment by imposing his own will (or the will of a vocal minority of Primates) autocratically when the consensus of the Primates and ACC is to pursue a more gradual path. I know that many of you feel that the present situation justifies napalming the village in order to save it, but I cannot disagree with +Rowan’s longer-term perspective.
For the avoidance of doubt, my text was
“and his plan to take counsel with the Primates, either individuals or as a whole”
This refers to +RDW taking counsel when he has discovered TEC’s response, in toto, when the 30 Sept deadline arrives. I thought the language was clear.
(In addition, however, he has also since said he has been in contact via correspondence with +Nigeria and +Uganda).
The best news would be a clear statement from the Primates of their intention to enforce the plans for TEC they all agreed to at Dar, but as Dale says above, things will have to happen in their own time.
I thought +Uganda was on the Primates Standing Committee. Am I wrong or has he withdrawn and left the work to +Malango and +Anis?
I am certainly not for napalming the village in order to save it. The question though is what Dr. Williams has done by issuing the Lambeth invitations prematurely to those to whom they have been issued.
It looks like a classic Anglican fudge move, lop off the two perceived “extremes” and then try to stand over it all and hold it all together. By doing this he has done two things: given huge encouragement to the reappraisers in TEC and the Ang Church in Canada, and bypassing the primates and other commitments in terms of the future place of TEC in the communion.
The action of certain of the Primates belie the fact that Rowan has done the right thing from their perspective. He is well on his way to losing the Communion. What a tragedy.
#66 Dale. You always post sensibly and with much thought however
Whatever the difficult processes getting there all the Primates [and I do mean all] did speak with one voice in their Communique from Dar-es-salaam. The question is how do Dr. Williams’ subsequent actions fit with the collective will they expressed through their Communique?
I do not favour the extremes over the middle and love the village too much to want to napalm it.
Re#54, Seitz-ACI is asking about the future. I do not have the kind of contacts that someone like Bill Atwood or others do to know the answer to that. What is at issue, however, is what has occurred in the present and what has occurred in the past.
This does not accord with what Seitz-ACI is saying. The invitation to Michael Ingham is a good example. There is no September 30th deadline that applies there.
As for #61 “The ABC always has the option to extend further invitations, or to retract ones already made.” Certainly the first, as a recent Living Church article observed. But does anyone really believe that the current Archbishop of Canterbury as he has acted and led in the past would actually do this? All indications are that he wants as many at the table in Lambeth 2008 as possible.
He is acting toward that goal–the question is the cost in the process. As #68 says he apparently thinks the cost will be minor, and has (as it is alleged by the Bishop of newark) already been engaging in behind the scenes talks to enable Gene Robinson to attend as what will be an inevitably prominent guest.
The action of certain Global South Primates indicate that the cost may be quite different. And those actions may not be over.
With charity, maybe what is ‘not in accord’ is misunderstanding what was asserted. I can repeat.
I douby my inestimable friend Bill Atwood has the kind of information to which I was referring! Facts are:
1. +RDW said he would consult;
2. +RDW said he is in communication with +Uganda and +Nigeria
3. +Ingham is not an automatic invite in the light of 1) and 2) and the need to make category assessments in the light of TEC and also the work of General Synod in Canada; this work must, in the nature of the case, be done before proper response can be given;
4. every bit of information I have received says +RDW issued invitations in the light of pressures referred to by Dale Rye above, and he maintains maximal leverage and ownership, which means only the obvious cases were dealt with in the first instance.
And, as I am repeating:
The best news would be a clear statement from the Primates of their intention to enforce the plans for TEC they all agreed to at Dar, but as Dale says above, things will have to happen in their own time.
I thought +Uganda was on the Primates Standing Committee. Am I wrong or has he withdrawn and left the work to +Malango and +Anis?
To steveatmi5 – you are correct in that it would be better if the Diocese of Dallas leaders would respond to our concerns…they have chosen not to and have been given multiple chances. My point in bringing this subject up in this forum is that what +RDW did certainly affects us. It would be better for all concerned if he would send a clear message to the TEC and back it up with action. However, what local leadership is choosing to do affects us even more. Transparency and clarity are missing from leaders at all levels…no one can follow if you don’t light the path.
Seitz-ACI (?Chris Seitz) has a series of things wehich he claims to be facts. They are not.
#1 and #2 are facts. #3 and #4 are Seitz-ACI’s best discernment about the implications of those facts.
But facts are stubborn things. The #fact is that Bishop Michael Ingham now has a Lambeth 2008 invitation. Is there anything in what the Archbishop of canterbury has actually done or written to back Seitz-Aci’s interpretation of this? It does not say in the invitation itself that it is not an automatic invite. There is nothing in Archbishop Williams’ letter to indicate such, except a huge reading into one phrase in that letter: “or withdraw” But withhold or withdraw could simply be an overall descriptive phrase unless there is anything in the letter which indicates otherwise. Where is the evidence?
I think my point was generally clear, detective, but for the avoidance of doubt!
1. It is a fact that RDW has said he will consult and that he reserves the right not to invite, later in the game.
It appears to be the opinion of you and others that this is a vain thing. Fine. I prefer to wait and see.
2. It is a fact that in answer to queries about the invitations to those close to +RDW, the operational challenge and the imminent sabbatical were given.
I’m sorry if these facts are unhappy ones.
I also judge it prudent to assess what the point of all this speculation about +RDW–factual or not!–really is. I put it beyond doubt that if, 1) Lambeth is for all and sundry, and is a empty event, boycotted and reduced in purpose, 2) Dar falls to the side, either because the Primates are divided due to initiatives they do not share–here I have in mind, W Indies, SE Asia, Burundi, Tanzania, Congo, C Africa, et al–or because of events overtaking them, 3) ACC moves into the power vacuum, 4) TEC marches on, the end of the Anglican Communion will be patent, in the form it has heretofore found life. Then there will be sometimes competing, sometimes cooperating franchises of erstwhile anglicans, or various stripes. I suppose the Women’s ordination challenge will get a fresh currency, and also disputes about the character of confessions, etc, to be embraced by all, if not also questions about the relation between this new denominated reality(ies) vis-a-vis churches that already hold these views (LC-MS, PCA, et al).
I am prepared to wait for the Communion to make its hard choices. The alternatives do not appeal to me.
May God bless us all richly in this time of trial when he is asking us to learn in fresh ways from Him!
Facts are:
1. +RDW said he would consult;
2. +RDW said he is in communication with +Uganda and +Nigeria
3. +Ingham is not an automatic invite in the light of 1) and 2) and the need to make category assessments in the light of TEC and also the work of General Synod in Canada; this work must, in the nature of the case, be done before proper response can be given;
4. every bit of information I have received says +RDW issued invitations in the light of pressures referred to by Dale Rye above, and he maintains maximal leverage and ownership, which means only the obvious cases were dealt with in the first instance.
Assuming these as “facts,” how do you explain ++Orombi’s statement:
“On 9th December 2006, the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda, meeting in Mbale, resolved unanimously to support the CAPA Road to Lambeth statement, which, among other things, states, “We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution are also invited as participants or observers.â€
We note that all the American Bishops who consented to, participated in, and have continued to support the consecration as bishop of a man living in a homosexual relationship have been invited to the Lambeth Conference. These are Bishops who have violated the Lambeth Resolution 1.10, which rejects “homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture†and “cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.â€
Accordingly, the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda stands by its resolve to uphold the Road to Lambeth.”
If ++Rowan is indeed acting in consultation with ++Uganda, then the finality of this statement is simply inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory.
And, as I am repeating:
The best news would be a clear statement from the Primates of their intention to enforce the plans for TEC they all agreed to at Dar, but as Dale says above, things will have to happen in their own time.
I thought +Uganda was on the Primates Standing Committee. Am I wrong or has he withdrawn and left the work to +Malango and +Anis?
The entire problem here is that the Primates can not “enforce” anything. They have no actual authority to make anything happen. All authority rests in the hands of the ABC. Certainly the Primates can exercise enormous pressure on the ABC, but in the end the decision (or most likely lack of decision) rests with him.
+RDW said several weeks ago he is has written +Uganda. Your material predates that. It is not relevant to the modest point I made, which you quoted. As for your final sentence, it is an opinion/construal that I would not state that way. God bless.
To #73, and partly pursuant to #61, Chris Taylor: this is not in direct address of your concern “detective,” but I believe it has not been properly emphasized in discussions of Rowan’s invitation letter: not only has Rowan not included +Gene on the guest list, but he has articulated (as in his letter to the primates following Dar, some ten days after) how any progress whatsoever will be made by the Communion overall in its interdependent life, namely, by focusing on “the Windsor Report and the Covenant proposals. My hope is that as we gather we can trust that your acceptance of the invitation carries a willingness to work with these tools to shape our future,” wrote Rowan in the invitation letter. He is, therefore, stipulating the terms of the discussion at Lambeth, and effectively pinching the conscience of those who would think of coming in order simply to subvert the WR or Covenant, or change the terms.
I do think the “withdraw” language permits him another tack also, should the HoB come up with some fudge in September that purports to be a “yes” to the primates’ requests but really isn’t; and as Seitz has been emphasizing in this field, Rowan did explicitly say (in S. Africa this spring, I believe, in response toa question), that post-Sept. 30 he views it as his task to bear the response of TEC’s bishops back to the primates. *Meanwhile, however, I think we also must recognize the extent, quite apart from the invitations question, to which Rowan is constraining and shaping ahead of time the conversation that will happen at Lambeth, not only the structure but the content/substance of the conversation, namely, on the terms of Windsor-as-received by primates at successive meetings (plus the ACC, by a narrow majority in 2005). For many of our self-identified bishops on the left, to participate in such an event, on those terms, would ipso facto be an admission of failure at best, a sell-out and betrayal of the progressive cause at worst.
It is hard to see how there can be meaningful provisionality to the invitations if there is a compelling logistical need for numbers now. Either the logistical requirement is a pretext and there is real provisionality or the logistical need is real and provisionality is a mirage.
As usual Dr. Seitz makes excellent points and great sense. For me the focus is turning from what the TEC establishment will do to what the various strands of the orthodox Anglican mainstream will do. Barring some completely unforseen miracle, I think it’s highly likely that the TEC will just keep walking away. They are becoming less and less relevant with each passing benchmark. They are not the future of Anglicanism, either globally or nationally, so they hold progressively less interest for me. What does concern me greatly now is the capacity of the orthodox Anglican mainstream to hold together. Havnig talked at some length and many times with a completely orthodox member of the Primate’s Standing Committee I know with certainty that there are forces among the orthodox that are pushing too hard and too fast and are indeed threatening in their own way to tear the fabric of the Communion, which is already quite fragile.
Dr. Seitz states:
“Then there will be sometimes competing, sometimes cooperating franchises of erstwhile anglicans, or various stripes. I suppose the Women’s ordination challenge will get a fresh currency, and also disputes about the character of confessions, etc, to be embraced by all, if not also questions about the relation between this new denominated reality(ies) vis-a-vis churches that already hold these views (LC-MS, PCA, et al).
I am prepared to wait for the Communion to make its hard choices. The alternatives do not appeal to me.”
I really think we need to devote more attention, and prayer, to these very real tensions among the reasserters. For my money these challenges pose a MUCH greater threat to the future of the Communion than anything +Ingham and the entire American HOB might do. Some of the extreme hardliners on the reasserting side seem increasingly to me to be positioning themselves perfectly to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If there was ever a time for patience, this is it! This may, in historical perspective, turn out to be one of the great defining moments of Anglicanism. The question is not what the TEC and the reappraisers will do to the Communion, but rather what the various forces of orthodoxy within the Communion will do in response. In short, the real question is whether the center can hold. I bet it can, but it’s going to take hard work and I don’t think it wise to take it for granted that the center will hold. In this respect the logic of AMiA, CANA, and now ACK makes absolutely NO sense to me. I wait with bated breath for breaking news that still another handful of orthodox parishes in the U.S. are to be “saved” by yet new convocations of orthodox Anglicans from Burundi, South India, or Melanesia! This is starting to look absurd. What is to be gained by this endless fracturing of the orthodox Anglican presence in the U.S.? How many jurisdictions will there be? How will they relate to each other? Isn’t the experience of the Conintuum enough of a lesson? It’s always harder to put things back together that have been torn apart than to keep them together from the start! People should be coming together, not rushing to open yet another orthodox franchise. It’s almost like the colonial powers rushing to carve up Africa in the late-19th century — except this time in reverse! I think we need less concern about the invitations to Lambeth and what the HOB will do in September and A LOT more attention on what the orthodox are doing to themselves!
Seitz, Taylor and others: A few thoughts.
1. I believe that a big problem brought about by Rowan’s Lambeth invitations has been a breakdown of trust between several primates and Rowan. As Seitz says, Rowan said he would consult. Yet all the evidence suggests that Rowan did not consult the primates before issuing the invitations. Perhaps he will as regards withdrawing them, and perhaps this is in his communication to Orombi and Akinola. The events however strongly suggest that a certain number of GS primates lack trust in Rowan, and the events also suggest why this is so.
Suppose my wife and I are looking to buy a new car and we agree that we will consult each other before settling on which one we will get. Then one day I drive home with one, having chosen it all by myself. Now, I could say “well, I have a 3 day period to change my mind, so if you don’t like it, I’ll return it”. Is that the same as consulting? Because that is what the evidence suggests that Rowan Williams did. So, yes, I can see that the GS primates are a bit ticked off with him.
2. Dale and others – Lambeth, the primates, the ABC and the ACC have all agreed on Lambeth 1.10 is the teaching of the Communion. Therefore, it would not have been arbitrary for Rowan Williams to set as a minimum for attending Lambeth the acceptance that Lambeth 1.10 is the current teaching and that attending bishops are expected to respect that teaching even if they disagree with it.
3. Regarding invitations and logistics, I really don’t buy it. How are the Lambeth planning folks any closer to knowing how many bishops to expect then they were a month ago? They would have as good an idea if they simply estimated. Now we have threats and counter-threats of boycott, and still the possibility of whole Provinces being disinvited (or shall I say disinviting themselves).
4. I can accept that Rowan simply blundered, that he has realized his blunder and that he has sought to patch things over with Nigeria and Uganda in hopes of minimizing the damage.
5. What I do know is that all is speculation till after September 30. At that point, we will know what the primates do and what Rowan Williams will do. I still think we need to prepare for all possibilities, but that we should hold back on definitive non-Communion sanctioned action until the aftermath becomes a bit more clear.
RE: “If the majority of bishops of the American church are, in fact, convinced that the Spirit is moving them to prophetic action, and if they have any moral integrity, I think it will be VERY HARD for them to attend Lambeth next summer unless the Bishop of New Hampshire receives a full invitation to participate.”
“. . . and if they have any moral integrity. . . ”
Chris Taylor, if the invitations are not withdrawn, the vast vast majority of ECUSA bishops will attend Lambeth. Out of the 105 or so diocesans, I predict that no more than 10 will not attend because of their “moral integrity”.
So I don’t think we should be at all depending on most of the ECUSA bishops who consecrated/voted for Gene Robinson or who have approved ssu’s not attending Lambeth. They’ll be there.
I agree with Sarah in post #82. If the TEC liberals see a political advantage in attending Lambeth, they’ll be there. And their rationale will be that although it was a difficult decision to make, they had to do it to be the voice of the oppressed GLBT community to the worldwide church. And they will probably figure out a way to get in a protest with Robinson. In all likelihood, Robinson would urge all of TEC’s liberal bishops to attend, thus providing even more cover.
My only disagreement with Sarah is that I would predict that ZERO would stay away because of their “moral integrity.”
jamesw,
1. “A certain number of primates” have long distrusted Rowan; don’t forget the letter that ambushed him in the press on the morning the C of E Synod began in the Fall of 2005, right after he returned from the third south-to-south encounter in Egypt:
[link is here]
The letter was apparently drafted by Akinola et al., and several ostensible “signers” immediately disassociated from it upon its arrival in the blogosphere, saying they had never seen it before. Rowan responded several days later: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/releases/2005/051117.htm
And one recalls as well the ambiguous excision of references to communion with the See of Canterbury from the Church of Nigeria’s Constitution —apparently in the face of Windsor’s advice (itself borne of decades of inter-Anglican consultations and recommendations), and also ACC-13’s “approval” of Windsor’s suggestion that “the Archbishop of Canterbury be regarded as the focus for unity” (resolution #2).
So who is responsible for the relationship and the regaining of trust? All of them, I am sure. And yet some working relationships are strained more or less permanently, and cooperation is difficult. All reports from Dar indicate that Rowan was pressed pretty hard by six or so primates to the right of him; but then, not as hard by many others. What to make of this in God’s providence is anybody’s guess. Seitz has suggested that +Orombi may be a kind of Assyrian rod in the Lord’s hand, and I find that idea interesting.
2. I believe that by stipulating in his letter of invitation that the terms of Lambeth will be Windsor and the Covenant draft, he effectively said: “Lambeth 1.10 is presumed, and it will not be helpful to try to undermine it.” I assume this not least because he has said as much continually since he was a finalist for AbC, and esp. since the appearance of WR. It has been a principle thesis of every primates’ communique since he became AbC, and basic to every substantive statement he has written since GC06. But he of course wishes to draw as many along into the heart of “communion” as possible, and his approach seems to be more of the carrot than the stick variety, for which I commend him on Augustinian grounds (the mixed body–wheat and tares, and all that).
3. Here I agree with you. As Mark McCall put it, there was no compelling logistical need. I think rather it was along the lines of applying pressure in the lead up to 9/30, a pedagogical invitation-on-certain-terms.
In light of the foregoing, your #4 does not interest me; and I’m not sure who the “we” is in #5, so I’m probably not a part of it.
Cheers,
CSW
jamesw, to promise consultation is obviously not to promise that one will yield to whatever it is that the person you promised to consult with wants. Let me try another analogy on you that I think is closer to the mark in this case. Let’s say that I promise my wife that we’ll go and pick out a new car together, and we go. Once we get to the dealer she really wants the pink convertible and I want the red sedan. We talk about it and we can’t reach agreement, so I propose a mutual compromise and suggest that we exclude BOTH the pink convertible AND the red sedan and look for a third car that is something we can both live with. At that point she flies into a rage and says: “NO! I want the pink convertible and you PROMISED to consult!” Consultation does not imply yielding to the demands of the person with whom you are consulting. The ABC is consulting with many Primates, not only 6 hardline Primates. I don’t think we can infer from their dissatisfaction with his actions that he has not consulted with them.
I can assure you that not all of the Global South Primates, and not even all of the CAPA bishops agree, especially on matters of strategy. There is a hard core of about 6 very important Global South Primates who, from the perspective of the majority of orthodox Global South Primates, are pushing too hard too fast. ++Abuja is the heavyweight here. Everyone treats him with the respect that he deserves, but not everyone is pleased with his actions – you can take that to the bank. The example that Christopher Wells cites from the fall of 2005 is a very good case in point. There is NO disagreement among the orthodox Global South Primates about the problem, but there is serious disagreement about how to deal with the problem. We hear a great deal from and about the 6 or so hardline Primates, but the majority who disagree with their tactics are not heard from so much. That doesn’t mean they don’t have different ideas, or that their ideas are any less important. ++Drexel Gomez is a real leader to watch among this crowd. These are Godly men who are as deeply concerned about the state of affairs in the Communion as anyone, and they are no less concerned about orthodox Anglicans in North America. This group is much closer to the ABC than ++Abuja. He respects them and they respect him. I think that this ABC consults very widely and very genuinely. He looks for the consensus in the mind of the Communion. He is respected precisely because he doesn’t try to sell his own ideas or ally himself to particularly vocal forces within the Communion. He listens carefully and honestly, something TEC bishops as a group do not do.
Dr Seitz et al,
i was present at a public meeting between +Uganda and clergy several weeks ago where he made clear the following:
1. +Uganda IS on the Primates Steering Committee, had received an invitation from KJS to the Sept TEC HOB, had heard NOTHING from +RDW about the invitation, and had no intention of responding to the invitation of another Primate on the Steering Committee because it was bad protocol, undermined Dar, and was without endorsement by +RDW;
2. +RDW’s Lambeth invitations of American Bishops who “tore the fabric of the Communion” prior to the Sept 30th deadline undermined the work of the Primates at Dar; specifically, +Uganda stated “Why couldn’t he wait until after the Sept 30th deadline?” He also stated at that time, before the release of the statement from the Ugandan HOB, unequivocally, that no Ugandan Bishops will be present at lambeth. period.
3. +Uganda praised +Nigeria for taking action to protect and “rescue” the orthodox in America by establishing CANA and consecrating +Minns.
He repeated these same remarks in subsequents public sessions I attended.
+Uganda spoke with a heavy heart and acknowledged his personal friendship with +RDW– as always, speaking truth with love and exceptional grace.
I conclude from his remarks, and the subsequent statement of the Ugandan HOB, that +RDW did NOT in any meaningful way communicate with +Uganda prior to his decision to visit the TEC HOB and issue invitations to Lambeth.
I find it difficult to come to any other conclusion than (a) +RDW has blundered in his invitations, betting his relationship with his fellow Primates against the hope that somehow he can pull a rabbit out of a hat at the TEC HOB gathering, or (b) +RDW has tacitly decided to throw his weight with the Global North and simply refuse to put any teeth behind Windsor, Dromantine and Dar, and to let the chips fall where they may.
Either way, what +Pittsburgh predicted at Plano 1 is already in process– a division between a Canterbury based Global North AC that is resource rich but poor in spirit, and a Global South based AC that is rich in spirit and missionary fervor, and poor in resources.
I’ve chosen rich in spirit and poor in resources as the best hope of saving the Anglican experiment in conciliar authority and the best hope for ecumenical relationships with the RC and Orthodox that will repair the tear in the fabric of world Christianity and Anglicanism. IMHO, the handwriting is and has been on the wall: TEC’s posturing indicates a relentless march against the orthodox remnant that will ultimately consume the time they might otherwise spend in evangelism and mission fighting rearguard actions against threatened inhibitions, depositions and litigation…
Let us hope and pray that +Uganda involves himself in the work of the Standing Committee alongside +Anis and +Malango. Beyond that, your note hamstrings me as it would be inappropriate to comment about dynamics within the Primates themselves, and esp within the GS primates, of which +Uganda and +Nigeria are but two.
Boy this is difficult, covering the same ground. I said that +RDW would consult, as he said he would, after 30 September about withdrawing invitations. That is what I said. I did not say he consulted before going on sabbatical, for the reasons given above, but I would not speculate further, or inappropriately.
Phil—sincere thanks for the update. Glad to hear that +Uganda is solidly behind Dar. It is crucial that he join in the work of the Primates Standing Committee, for obvious reasons. That he judges the KJS invitation askance may be appropriate, but if not, it is an opportunity to bring his godly judgments to bear. +Anis and +Malango will need support. I think the basic disagreement on blogs is to do with the seriousness with which +RDW intends to consider withdrawals. Canada and US will be making some crucial decisions. Some believe these will figure critically into his deliberations and consultations. Others don’t. They judge the idea frivolous or toothless, or both.
Christophers Three (Wells, Taylor & Seitz): I find that what you write to be very very encouraging, oddly enough. I personally believe that the Gomez moderates probably give Rowan Williams too much slack (I still don’t see how the standing committee report presented at DES can be explained away in Williams’ favor). The hardcore GS Six, however, seem to be pushing too hard.
I would submit to you the proposition that the hardcore Six probably push Rowan Williams towards the Gomez moderates in a way that he wouldn’t otherwise be pushed. The Abuja group thus forms the “bad cop” and the Gomez group becomes the “good cop.”
It is my hope and prayer that the hardcore six continue to push hard enough to make Gomez’s group and Williams uncomfortable, but not so hard as to seriously damage relationships.
Based on past evidence, it seems that Rowan Williams’ preference is to find a way to excuse TEC to the greatest extent possible. But then the hardcore GS primates push back and threaten dire consequences. Then Rowan seems to turn to Gomez’s group to bail him out, which they do.
I am hoping that you all are correct that this will prove true yet again, and that this time, real consequences will be attached to TEC’s refusal to adhere to the mind of the Communion.
jamesw, I agree with everything you have said. I do believe what I wrote earlier, but I also think you’re right that without ++Abuja and friends pushing this very hard we would be in serious trouble now. My suspicion is that this is mostly about strategy, although I fear that to some extent personalities also play a role (they usually do!). My feeling is very optimistic about the orthodox position in general right now, but as we enter the last phases of this very long struggle for the soul of Anglicanism, it’s essential that the orthodox not turn victory into defeat by pursuing a whole series of different and contradictory strategies. With patience, humility, and charity the future will be bright indeed. All blessings!
I have observed that not every communication between the ABC and his fellow Primates is made public; case in point: his letter to ++Akinola concerning the installation of +Marty Minns. Only the two of them know the true content of that letter and neither of them is talking. For that reason I would not care to speculate on the consultation or non-consultation with the Primates prior to the issuance of Lambeth invitations. It appears that we have become a nation of eaves-droppers and gossips, poking our collective noses into other persons’ concerns. I’m as curious as anyone else, but I am most interested in how God works this all out in the end.
43. Milton, I will post this now as it is far off topic, and things have quieted down. I look forward to rejoining the DIO TN when it is a member of the coming new traditional Anglican body in North America. At present, it cannot even bestir itself to join, as a diocese, the ACN. Working with both a Continuing Church, and a new CANA parish, I can work actively to bring this about as well as do the things which churches normally do when they are not distracted by schism.
As a cradle Episcopalian of 58 years, the feeling when I left was that of truly having a great weight lifted from my shoulders. Very different from battling an influential rector who is personally faithful, but who with more candor than he probably realizes, has said that he will allow nothing to endanger his pension, and a vestry which worries about losing pledge units and looks at you as if you are addled to even suggest that they have a duty to keep their parishioners informed.
Milton, come on out! The water is fine, and perhaps a bit holier.
APB