The Bishop of Central Florida, the Rt Revd John Howe, said that the group aimed to “provide a visible link for those concerned in the Anglican Communion”. It would exist to “provide fellowship, support and a forum for mutual concerns between bishops”, and “a partnership to work towards the Anglican Covenant”.
Relationships would be “governed by mutual respect and proceed by invitation and co-operation”. Bishop Howe wrote: “Our purpose in meeting with Bishop Schori [on 21 February] was to apprise her of this plan, seek her counsel, and assure her that we remain committed to working within the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church, and that the Primates involved in this discussion are NOT involved in ”˜border-crossing’, nor would we be. We will visit no congregation without the diocesan bishop’s invitation and permission.”
Critics fear that the group would give the appearance of speaking for the Episcopal Church as a whole in the Communion, and sense an attempt to drive forward a Covenant about which, even as redrafted, many have principled objections or deep reservations.
Dr Jefferts Schori has not yet given her approval of the extended scheme, though she has offered a “nihil obstat” ”” no objection. Lambeth Palace would not respond to reports that Dr Williams, who met the bishops’ group on 31 January, had backed the scheme. “We’re not commenting at all,” said a spokeswoman this week.
Border crossing is the only discipline that has been meted out on the apostate TEC. And with those actively or passively working against discipline, it may be the only form of discipline. Let us be grateful for border crossing.
Remember that the Windsor Bishops have dwindled significantly since we initially organized them more than two years ago…in fact many of us thought they had folded entirely given their silence in the face of the HOB’s rejection of DES.
This new group that claims to be the Windsor/Camp Allen Bishops seems by their own definition to consist of only these four bishops and not at all the original larger gathering. Also, by their own admission they have not consulted with significant members of the original Windsor Bishops about this plan.
In other words, this is simply a rogue action–representing a long existing divide within the larger Windsor Bishops group about which the majority had been clear, that border crossings were necessary and not at all an action requiring discipline.
Although there is even more to this story than meets the eye, I think its significance and impact are being overplayed…remember that at the head of every dysfunctional organization is a peacemonger–and this plan serves that sort of disordered end–attempting (although unsuccessfully) to derail the reformation required in the church to prevent its slow death by attrition.
Don Armstrong
Formerly ACI
Well, what Howe said is that this group of TEC bishops and some of the primates will not cross borders. Other bishops and primates have crossed borders out of necessity, of course, and this plan does not address them. It is an informal plan of very limited scope for a handful of TEC bishops, and does not deal with the issues that confront the communion.
What courage by this group!
Just to clarify, given the remarks in #2. There are more than 4 bishops (most public reports say that and it is not in doubt). +Lilliebridge, eg, was in London last week. The TEC bishops who are involved in Common Cause in some way are how many? I get conflicting reports about the anti-WO bishops, for reasons Dr Tighe and others indicate. So it is hard to understand what dwindling means, unless one is saying that some bishops who attended Camp Allen meetings are moving in a different direction. But that is old news. I am not in a position to call involvement from West Indies and Tanzania and Burundi a sign of ‘rogue action.’ Indian Ocean is the new head of CAPA, and Middle East was a warrior at the New Orleans meeting. Other than that, most of this information has already been clarified.
Any plan that requires the good will of the diocesan bishop is a non-starter. There needs to be a plan in place that can circumvent the most arrogant reappraisers.
RE: “There needs to be a plan in place that can circumvent the most arrogant reappraisers.”
I agree with you — but I think we all recognize now after four years that that’s simply not going to happen within the Anglican Communion.
Hence . . . the need and what will be the continuing practice of crossing borders by some of the individual Primates of the Anglican Communion. Since there is no help that is recognized by Canterbury for parishes within hostile dioceses of TEC [as opposed to those parishes in nice sweet dioceses in TEC], the border crossings will continue.
That sort of “separate and diverging paths” issue will, in my opinion, accelerate as the Communion continues to divide.
For avoidance of doubt, parishes in TEC are not in two categories (nice sweet dioceses; hostile dioceses).
Another day in the life!!!!! :/
This is a good and hopeful solution. I pray that it may be used by God for the sake of peace amongst the brethren. Those set against it have hardened their hearts already and will pick apart its imperfections. Not to worry. God is in the business of using the weak, the foolish, the imperfect and the unlikely to his glory and honor.
RE: “For avoidance of doubt, parishes in TEC are not in two categories (nice sweet dioceses; hostile dioceses).”
Indeed — but which type of diocese do you deny — “hostile” dioceses, or “nice sweet dioceses”? ; > )
Because there is no doubt — those in “hostile” dioceses will continue to participate in border crossing efforts with those Primates who do so.
Re #8: “For avoidance of doubt, parishes in TEC are not in two categories (nice sweet dioceses; hostile dioceses)” – some surely are.
#11 — of course they will.
#12 — ‘not in two categories only’ — I thought the syntax was clear.
The HOB rejected the Primatial Scheme because it would “compromise” their authority.
“HAR! HAR! –and YUCK”
That happened when the HOB vacillated, eluded, wavered, and turned a blind eye to canons to make them rubbery enough to work to their OWN individual schemes: open communion, communion without baptism, SSBs, Vickie Gene, 815 expenditures, etc., etc., etc. ad nauseum.
It much like the pregnant bride crying because people talk about the bulge under her dress.
HOB: you did the compromising all by yourselves. You were selectively bishops. Now you can’t control your individualism and small agendas which are shredding the Church. BUT: The Church world is moving on around you and without you because you have become a comedy of errors. You earned it. Live with it.
For the life of me I cannot see what this is supposed to accomplish.
This plan is truly just clapping with one hand. With no structure,no teeth, no goals, etc..etc.. as expressed many times on many threads the plan avoids the most basic tenent of organization ; Those things that can and are measured get done.
If you ran a business this way the doors would be closed before you could lift the blinds.
Intercessor
#17 interesting: ‘no structure, no teeth, no goals’. I wonder how one can know this with such utter confidence? Thanks # 10. D’accord.
This article, like previous ones on this topic, refers to the participation of the primate of Tanzania. It is probably premature to ask whether this will be the current or new primate, but last week when Bp. Mokiwa’s selection as the new primate was announced, I expressed concern as to whether he would follow the policies of Abp. Mtetemela. Dr. Seitz assured me that he would. Further confirmation of the Seitz judgment is contained (with interesting detail) in George Conger’s latest [url=http://geoconger.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/tanzania-has-a-new-primate-cen-30708-p-6/]CEN piece:[/url]
Mark – very good news, as it shows that Bp. Mokiwa will continue the unique Tanzanian bridge-building between the insiders and the outsiders (I really think CommCon, FedCon and GAFCON have lost their accuracy in describing the groups).
+Mtetemela is an old friend of Wycliffe’s Dean and of ACI. He has been a speaker at SEAD conferences in the past. The provincial secretary of Tanzania was guest lecturer here last term and helped us think through this plan. It was known then that +Mokiwa would be taking over. +Mtetemela is a man deeply respected by the ABC. There was never any sense that the transition to +Mokiwa was a departure from +Mtetemela’s direction.
It is all very much a shell game. We keep trying (unsuccessfully, of course) to find the hidden pea — the plan that would allow Biblically orthodox American Anglicans Christians to remain exactly that and in communion with the larger Anglican Communion. The PB, the HOB and this subset of “Windsor Bishops” keep moving the shells, daring us to try to find that pea. But the reality is the pea isn’t under any of the shells that remain on the table. It is all illusion. There is nothing left in TEC worth the cost of continuing to play the game. The only biblical injunction you can be sure to hear regularly preached in TEC is the tithe. Where your treasure is…. Support TEC and you are supporting abortion on demand, the “new sexual morality,” blessing of same sex unions, pantheism, etc. Any plan that has us remaining in TEC and part of its political and social agenda, is simply not acceptable.
DaveG,
No one ever won a battle by leaving the field. There are those of us in TEC that desire to stay and fight and witness to the truth. By God’s grace, I am in a diocese with a faithful bishop (+Stanton) and in a parish with a faithful Rector. I will stay and fight for the Truth until I can fight no longer.
Those who are fighting from the inside and those who are fighting from the outside have the same goals – a biblically orthodox Anglican province in the United States and Canada. We differ in our methods and in our strategies, but we are reaching for the same goal. Please respect us as Brothers and Sisters in our Lord Jesus Christ and pray for us that God will give us the strength and that we will rely on Him for the victory.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Seitz-ACI, have you ever before worked on a plan that has met with such dirision and scoffing? Why do you think this is so?
[blockquote] #17 interesting: ‘no structure, no teeth, no goals’. I wonder how one can know this with such utter confidence? Thanks # 10. D’accord. [/blockquote]
Sorry to sound cynical, but perhaps the plan the ACI has been working on has been [i] “met with such dirision and scoffing†[/i] is because we fail to see the structure, teeth and goals. Is the full plan being kept a secret? Is so, why?
Bill–you can hunt around, as I actually spoke to this already. My hunch was that it is a combination of punditry without facts; anger due to not knowing what is next; concern about whether leaving works; concern about what is going on with Common Cause; feeling generally frustrated and wanting a plan that can solve all problems for all people; distrust of RDW. As for ‘such derision’ — how long is a piece of string? Do I think that T19 is some kind of place where my good friend Mr Gallop would shine his scientific sample badges? Of course not. But again, I took a stab at this some time back. If 20 of the same people–who don’t like anything other than their own (sometimes mutually contradictory) understandings of what ought to happen is meant to be a sample of anything empirical–that would be curious.
I wonder why the Church Times is running this story when it contains hardly anything new. For me, the most interesting and telling part was at the very end, when the spokeswoman for the ABoC flatly refused to comment on the proposed plan. Why am I not surprised??
What I’m about to say is also hardly news. This whole plan is fundamentally and fatally flawed because it is based on the idea that border crossing is verboten, and it commits the Primates involved to continuing such a policy. With all due respect to those involved in coming up with this Communion Partners Plan, that is simply a huge mistake. Border crossing is exactly what we need much MORE of. Massive intervention by the GS is precisely what we need. The Windsor Process and the Covenant is a broken reed. There is no hope in them.
David Handy+
I find Dr. Seitz’s arrogance truly breath taking. Dr. Seitz you may be truly smarter that all of the rest of us combined, but I don’t see what this plan can accomplish or is designed to accomplish. It just is. And it will go no where.
Forging links between Primates, Bishops in TEC, getting this through various internal hurdles given all the commotion inside TEC, seeking Lambeth support, dodging bad press — this takes time and is not a one-stage thing. Br Michael, Lent is a good time to develop new spiritual strengths. Why not see all this as an important challenge to be won by the king Jesus, including your personal exasperations?
#27–of course that is your view and it is not hidden in any way. Fine. It is not the view for a good number of conservative bishops, Primates, cardinal rectors in the US, and so on. There it is. That is not ACI’s creation but a fact.
Dr. Seitz, I truly would not want you as my confessor. As far as my Lent goes I am truly aware of my failings as a sinner and as we approach Holy Week I rejoice in God my Savior because I have done nothing to merit salvation. If the AC is saved it will be through the Lord Jesus and not by any effort of you and the ACI.
Boy, you are right about that!
Pax et bonum!
Dr. Seitz (#30),
I stated my views very dogmatically and provocatively in #27, as is my usual wont and style. But there was no intended animosity in it, not toward you, or the noble ACI team, or the bishops who drafted this plan etc. I am well aware that there are MANY, many honorable leaders in the AC who disagree with me. I did not mean to denigrate them in any way.
David Handy+
A very serious issue with Communion Partners Scheme is that the visitors are not necessarily orthodox. In particular, it includes the obsequious Dorsey Henderson who arm twisted his diocese to fully fund 815 while his diocese is financially strapped just so he can stay in her majesty’s good graces.
It also includes Brookhart of Montana. If y’all haven’t read the Bagdad Bob letter that he released a couple of days ago, you need to. Taking “All is well” to breathtaking new heights. Found [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/10590/ ]here[/url]. Well it seems a reader wrote to him an email questioning his rosy outlook. You can find it [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/10656/#193860 ]here[/url]. The bishop’s churlish, ungracious reply:
[blockquote]Mr. Dewberry:
Your comments are based on fallacious assumptions. You have earned a place on my “do not open†list.
+Franklin
The Right Reverend C. Franklin Brookhart, Jr.
Bishop of Montana, The Episcopal Church
515 N. Park Avenue, Helena, MT 59601
406/442-2230 cfbmt@qwestoffice.net[/blockquote]
Isn’t that sweet? Maybe we can all write to him a tell him what we think. If you do write, you can mention…
The diocese of Montana membership has fallen 15% in the past five years while the general population has increased 5%. The average Sunday attendance has fallen by 11% in the past five years and as of 2006, there are only 2000 people in the pews on a given Sunday. As I said at SF, the only assumptions that appeared to have been made was that growth is generally good and decline is generally bad. Apparently, these assumptions are fallacious in the bishops mind.
Anyone want Brookhart as a visitor? Anyone? Anyone?
Dr. Seitz: Thank you again for your participation in these blogs. To repeat what I have said before (but others continue to denigrate you), I think that you are making positive contributions to the state of things, and are a thoughtful voice.
Now, having said that, I read the following over at VirtueOnline, and while I always take anything reported over there with a grain of salt unless independently confirmed, I did find the following comment interesting:
Is this report accurate? If so, have you any further knowledge? If so, can you comment on it? I would assume that (if true) this would represent concern beyond just N.T. Wright, but probably to many of the “CommCon” primates and international bishops.
Does the Communion Partners plan alleviate or exacerbate N.T. Wright’s alleged concerns? Was the CP plan formulated by the TEC bishops before the primates were brought in? Or vice versa?
I would also think that there is deep unease amongst the CP bishops about KJS’s actions in the Diocese of San Joaquin. According to Dan Martins, one of the “not Southern Cone, but not Remain Episcopal” priests appealed to Bishop Howe, an excerpt of which I quote here:
Can you comment on this appeal?
Just so everyone knows, I am not necessarily expecting Dr. Seitz to respond to all of the points I have raised. I would love to know the answers to all of these questions, but diplomacy doesn’t take place on the blogs. My point is to the several commentators here is that things are obviously a bit more complex then they might at first appear. The next five months will reveal much. Surely we can wait that much longer.
1. +NTW knows exactly what we are doing. (Many here would find that bad news.)
2. DSJ is fully in view.
I am glad that you think I am a thoughtful voice, whatever than means. God bless.
Roy: How do you know that these Bishops are involved in the main negotiations? Isn’t it simply the case that, lacking apparently anything else to do, your chief vocation, as you see it, is to roam around and sniff out infractions of any kind? That is fine, but does it not strike you are finding fault for the sake of it? You do not know whether Brookhart or Henderson are seriously instrumental to a plan that in actual fact needs a minimum of Bishops for Visitations, so long as key Primates, Canterbury and others are involved. Perhaps you could indicate what is wrong–since now this is about assessing individuals–with +Stanton, +MacPherson, +West Indies, +Burundi, +Tanzania? I really cannot understand what your constant carping is about. It just seems specious and personal. Are you opposed to the Bishops and Archbishops clearly involved in this, whose names have been indicated?
OK, say I am in an orthodox parish wishing an orthodox visitor (Unfortunately, I am in a soon to be formerly orthodox parish. We have a female interim from one of the most liberal churches in Boston who will unwelcome the orthodox but that is beside the point. We are speaking hypothetically.) Now, we ask our revisionist bishop for a visitor. He says, sure, if 1) we pay fully our diocesan assessment and 2) we get our choice from 2 of the 8 visitors.
A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Seems like the scheme has at least two links made of tin.
I make it a point of opposing schemes that strengthen the hand of Katherine Jefferts-Schori.
Do we need temporizing half-measures?
Do I have problems with +Stanton, +MacPherson, +West Indies, +Burundi, +Tanzania? Yes, I object to it not being +Stanton, +MacPherson, +West Indies, +Burundi, +Tanzania, +Duncan, +Iker, +Schofield, ++Akinola, ++Orombi, ,++Venables, ++Kolini, ++Nzimbi.
Sorry about my [i]carping.[/i]
Seitz – what do I mean by “thoughtful voice”? Simply this. Many comments on this and other blogs are simply “pile on” comments, ill-informed criticism or personal attacks. Sometimes, I too am guilty of such (but I hope not too much). But there are certain posters – Dr. Radner, yourself, Mark McCall, Craig Goodrich, Sarah (to name a few) whose postings are must reads, thoughtful, analytical, and informative. I don’t always agree with what these folks (or you) say, but their and your comments are what makes reading these blogs worthwhile.
Roy–re: the last 8 names. Having worked with these men and listened carefully, I see no evidence that they agree about a way forward as a group. I do not say this as a criticism. I state it as a fact. Does +Iker see a Common Cause solution with a WO and anti-WO contingent — you can ask him. Did +Akinola see AMiA as something he wanted to join — in several CAPA meetings the question was raised and set saide. You mention +Nzimbi. Kenya is is terrible straits and the previous AB (Gitari) has said some strong things. Southern Cone appears to be doing what he can as an individual PB, but has called his activity temporary and emergency.
So it is unclear how what you propose is workable from the standpoint of the individual themselves and basic facts. Other than that, it is a great idea and ought to be augmented by 20 other Primates (+SE Asia, +Central Africa, +Congo, +W Africa, and on it goes). What you fail to note is disagreement within the parties you have added; disagreement between them and the Partners. This is a fact. I can’t make those go away, even as one can work for as much solid communion presence as possible. Strengthening KJS’s hand? That is becoming a canard.
Yikes, RobRoy, I think your statement above is not clear at all about the total and complete disinterest [and understandably so] in Iker and Duncan and Schofield for being a part of this plan! You can hardly expect the ACI and others to “include” Iker and Schofield when they have already found their own solution, which is going to the Southern Cone. They don’t want to be “included” — unless, of course, it’s an entirely different plan, but as we’ve all noted, such an entirely different plan is not possible now in the Communion, since it won’t be recognized by Canterbury.
There seems to be a huge amount of denial floating around.
Bishops Iker, Schofield, and Duncan do not wish to have or be a part of the Communion Partners Plan. They wish to leave TEC.
On the other hand, Bishops MacPherson, Lillibridge, Smith, et al, do not wish to leave TEC. They wish to be a part of the Communion Partners Plan.
The two are incompatible. Once someone leaves TEC for the Southern Cone, they don’t need “alternative Primatial oversight” — they’re gone, and happy to be so.
That is why I get confused when people say “why didn’t they include Iker in the plan” — Bishop Iker “don’ need no plan” . . . his plan is already taking place.
Now of course . . . had Canterbury been willing to implement Dar, then that’s a different story. I could see the three departing bishops/dioceses wanting perhaps to be a part of that. But that idea is long gone, we’re left with the CPP, and it is what it is. Basically, those bishops who are interested in being a part of the CPP will be so. And those bishops who aren’t, won’t.
But it does no good to say “Iker and Schofield should have been included in the plan — and oh yeh, the plan is irrelevant, so why not make a new plan, and by the way, it should be recognized by Canterbury, or else MacPherson and Lillibridge won’t be a part of it” . . .
Surely folks can recognize by now that the plans that would satisfy one group of bishops won’t satisfy the other group of bishops, and vice versa.
So there will just have to be two plans.
It should be noted that for someone like me — a lay peon — both plans come up with by the two separate groups of bishops are irrelevant and apply in not any sense to my life in the church.
But I’m happy for both sets of conservative bishops that they have their plans and are moving forward with them.
Sarah is correct in large measure. Her comment about being irrelevant (in Upper South Carolina is it?) is her opinion and would turn on how widely traction is got. But then, I always assumed Sarah had a kind of hermetic assessment (No Plan Is Good) and saw the future outside of TEC and Common Cause et al.
RE: “But then, I always assumed Sarah had a kind of hermetic assessment (No Plan Is Good) and saw the future outside of TEC and Common Cause et al.”
There are many plans that would be good — Dar, for instance. But unfortunately none of the plans that would offer 1) structural relief to those parishes caught in hostile dioceses and at the mercy of horrible bishops and 2) real differentiation to those dioceses which are moderate from the heresy and corruption of the national leaders of TEC, [as represented by the HOB, the Executive Council, the General Convention, and the Presiding Bishop] are acceptable to Canterbury.
RE: “Her comment about being irrelevant (in Upper South Carolina is it?) is her opinion and would turn on how widely traction is got.”
I have a perfectly good Windsor Bishop who never attended any Camp Allen bishop meetings — [not that that designation particularly matters anymore since Windsor Bishops and non-Windsor Bishops are treated precisely the same and are equally members of the Anglican Communion] — and am already able to have great Primates visit in the diocese and do Eucharists and wonderful teachings.
The fact that I have such a Windsor Bishop and access — if need be — to great Global South Primates affords no differentiation at all from the corruption of TEC as a whole.
None whatsoever.
TEC is what it is, and I and my parish and my diocese are undifferentiated members of TEC, and will, most likely, continue to be, since no plan that offers differentiation is acceptable to Canterbury.
And so, the beat goes on, and those individual laypeople and clergy in various dioceses and parishes have to do their best little effort at individual differentiation.
Dr. Seitz (#41),
You have a wealth of personal experience dealing with the orthodox leaders in the AC that none of the rest of us commenters on this thread can match. Doubtless, your post #41 represents a mild, perhaps even understated version of current reality, that we on the orthodox side are very, very deeply divided on matters of strategy and tactics. Tis sad, or even tragic, but it’s clearly true, and actually not surprising. These matters are very complex, and there are many conflicting variables and values in play.
But I think you may be underestimating the GROWING awareness that the Windsor Process or the new proposed Anglican Covenant or ANY Canterbury-based form of trying to salvage orthodoxy in Anglicanism is doomed to failure. That is why innovations like GAFCon are gaining strength and support, and why more and more parishes and even dioceses are departing TEC or the ACoC.
But to be more precise, you highlighted the last 8 names on robroy’s list of honorable orthodox AC heroes (see #39) and you stressed the significant differences in perspective that these noble men clearly do have. Fair enough, and I’m not trying to deny those differences, but did it escape your notice that all 8 of these admirable champions of orthodoxy (once again, that’s +Duncan, +Iker, +Schofield, ++Akinola, ++Orombi, ++Venables, ++Kolini, ++Nzimbi) have embarked on a radical course of action that includes “boundary crossings”)? Perhaps you were suggesting that the kind of coalition that these particular 8 guys represent conceals profound inner differences that threaten its long-term viability. And any informed observer would have to agree, the centrifugal pulls toward fragmentation are indeed very strong. But there is also a growing momentum behind those of us adopting a radical approach that accepts that Anglicanism AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT (which is the key phrase) is doomed, and simply will not survive the travails of this terrible crisis.
As you know, I am not dismayed by that frightening prospect. Frankly, I don’t think the Old Anglicanism was all that great anyway, or we wouldn’t be in this terrible mess. I freely admit that, as an enthusiastic supporter of the New Reformation, I am firmly convinced that the best days of orthodox Anglicanism are yet to come, and that the New Anglicanism that is already beginning to arise and take shape before our bewildered and astonished eyes will in fact be stronger and healthier and better than the Old kind. It will be more faithful to Scripture, more theologically coherent, more strict on matters of both doctrine and discipline than the old lax and lenient Anglicanism, and above all, MUCH more aggressively evangelistic than the former Christendom-based Anglicanism ever was.
During this holy season of Lent, I invite you and all those who read these words to look upon the trials and tribulations we are going through in these dark days as nothing less than the DEATH of the Old Anglicanism (which NEEDED and DESERVED to die), in order that the Lord of life may RESURRECT a new and utterly transformed Anglicanism in its place. Like our Master, we seem called to share corporately in his experience of passing from death to life.
I know you have invested enormous amounts of time and energy in desperately trying to save the old Anglicanism. I do not fault you for that. Indeed, I honor you and Dr. Philip Turner+ and +Stanton and so many others who have fought so bravely and tenaciously for so long. I hope nothing I’ve said here appears to you like “carping.”
But I’ve moved on. Canterbury-based Anglicanism will continue to wither, disintegrate, and eventually fail altogether; I judge it to be terminally ill (though I’m not a doctor like robroy). Of course, I may be wrong. “All things are possible with God.” But in the meantime, all my energies will be devoted to the New Reformation and trying to build up the CCP. You appear to have a different call, and I welcome that. I have not the slightest interest in trying to make something like the CPP work (a futile and thankless task, it seems to me). Nor do I have any confidence in the Windsor Process, which ++Rowan Williams continues to undermine in many ways, but which I think would represent inadequate discipline even if he did vigorously promote it.
But in the end, that is perhaps just an illustration of the fact that the Body of Christ has many members, with diverse gifts, passions, and callings. I am well aware that the kind of “enthusiasm” that I have for the New Reformation strikes many good and faithful Anglicans as being all too hasty and needlessly pessimistic (about the current AC) and even fanatical (i.e., illustrating “enthusiasm” in the derogatory English sense of the word). I am acutely aware that we Anglicans have traditionally stressed continuity over discontinuity, and we have shied away from radical, sweeping, rapid change in favor of gradual, incremental change that is far less disruptive and divisive. That is, we have a very strong bias as Anglicans in favor of evolutionary change instead of revolutionary change. And to put it succinctly, revolutionary change in the AC is still simply unthinkable to many honorable and godly leaders in the AC. My reply to them, of course, is: Well, better get used to it. It’s time to start thinking the unthinkable. We are in the early stages of what I am totally convinced will prove to be the most revolutionary and disruptive (and life-giving) changes in Anglicanism since the original 16th century Reformation. And I for one REJOICE in that!
“Let goods and kindred go…”
David Handy+
Passionate advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom style Anglicanism of a decidedly sectarian, Christ-against-culture sort
Presumably, Bp Brookhart is currently in the House of Bishops meeting. Torre Bissell’s prayer is appropriate for the meeting. Also included in Torre’s post is the prayer Bp Bill Love requested. Other prayers, written by Rick Harris, are here, here, here, and here.
Thank you for your prayers, dear friends.
In #43 Dr. Seitz writes:
This shows that you do not know or understand Sarah at all. Have you ever actually had a conversation or interaction of any length?
RE: “I am well aware that the kind of “enthusiasm†that I have for the New Reformation strikes many good and faithful Anglicans as being all too hasty and needlessly pessimistic (about the current AC) and even fanatical (i.e., illustrating “enthusiasm†in the derogatory English sense of the word).”
I don’t think it’s particularly pessimistic [about the current AC] or fanatical — I’m happy that NRA has something that he can be excited about, just as I am happy for Baptists, Pentecostals, and Methodists. It’s simply not a vision of Christianity or Anglicanism that I wish to have any part of — which is quite different from thinking something “hasty” or “pessimistic” or “fanatical.” If it were “slow,” “optimistic” and “restrained” I would still not value the vision that NRA has expressed.
RE: “And to put it succinctly, revolutionary change in the AC is still simply unthinkable to many honorable and godly leaders in the AC. My reply to them, of course, is: Well, better get used to it. It’s time to start thinking the unthinkable. We are in the early stages of what I am totally convinced will prove to be the most revolutionary and disruptive (and life-giving) changes in Anglicanism since the original 16th century Reformation.”
Could be — [although why any member of TEC shouldn’t be “used to” “revolutionary change” by now, I don’t know]. But thankfully, I and most others who think as I do, will have nothing to do with that vision of Anglicanism, since I don’t agree with its theology or values.
And so it goes.
The “new revolutionary” Anglicanism that the revisionists are touting will be significantly smaller, thanks to the departures of so many. And the “new revolutionary” Anglicanism that the . . . I dunno what to call ’em . . . are touting will be significantly smaller, thanks to so many departing Anglicans refusing to sign on to this “vision.”
I think it’ll be the toughest, frankly, on those who will eventually depart Anglicanism — or the “Anglicanism” that is the one of two “new revolutionary” products that ends up being out there — for something unknown. The progressives — most of ’em — will be just fine in the TEC they create, while proclaiming that “quantity isn’t as important as we had once thought”. And the non-Canterbury-yet-not-in-the-Continuing-branches Anglicans will be just fine in the TEC they create, all the while touting the Monstrous Numbers They Have Acquired In Just A Short Time With Double That “In The Pipeline”.
#1 says
Although I do not like the blanket judgment of all of TEC being apostate as I think it inaccurate, this comment highlights on of the many aspects of this terrible plan for the overall orthodox cause in North America.
How so? It provides no means for, nor any pressure for, the discipline of the TEC leadership for their theological decisions, but it continues to put the pressure on the orthodox in most dioceses who wish to try to make some kind of distance between themselves and the leadership. In this way, it plays into the hans of the Presiding Bishop on one side, and common cause on the other.
For the former, it provides a kind of cloak over the pressure campaign occurring nationally and in some dioceses against the orthodox. For the latter, it provides more fodder for the fact that there is no option to provide any distance theologically which will create any kind of space and therefore any hope for the majority of the orthodox.
Unfortunately, I also hasten to add that the dioceses involved in this will also be in danger of being adversely effected. Central Florida has already seen some of this. But there are parishes in West Texas and Western Louisiana, for example, who are toying with the departure option mostly because they see no other choice available. This plan certainly does not provide one.
[b]canard[/b] – a false or baseless, usually derogatory story, report, or rumor.
I have seen no evidence that the Communion Partners Scheme (CPS) won’t strengthen the hand of Jefferts-Schori. Bp Howe’s own words demonstrates it is not baseless. Thus, no canard.
It is helpful to keep our eyes on the prize. I think that all would agree that the prize is the return of orthodoxy to the AC and avoidance of a north/south split. Bp Duncan, who I would propose is a much keener visionary than a lot of the players here, has talked about an inside/outside strategy. The enemies of orthodoxy seek to divide these camps. I am fully aware this is a scheme designed by the insiders for the insiders. What I am calling for is cooperation and coordination between the insiders and the outsiders. If the insiders write off the outsiders (as evidenced by not having the courtesy to call up Bp Iker and Duncan and keep them abreast of the developments), then they will surely fail.
Hi SC (#48). I think I have a very clear picture of Sarah’s views. She views Dar as some kind of ne plus ultra of solutions, and anything less is foolishness. I also reject the idea that U-SC’s fate goes the way of the present incumbent. NR–saving an old anglicanism? That seems silly and an anti-providential idea. I have no interest is saving anything, but in preserving what God may wish to bless. Roy–you might check with +Iker. I gather that he feels no more ‘in the loop’ with Common Cause than he felt out of it with Partners. As Sarah rightly said, +Iker is seeking to find a way forward for his anti-WO position and people. I am hugely sympathetic and he knows that. SC is at best a stop gap. As for Bishop Duncan, he has made his position reasonably clear and is pursuing a Common Cause initiative. The Howe quote was useful for the construction of a canard and many people have so stated. Lenten blessings all around.
#36 consider the source when you quote something. That site is full of bad information.
RE: “Bp Duncan, who I would propose is a much keener visionary than a lot of the players here, has talked about an inside/outside strategy.”
Yes — but unfortunately, the Network fell on the side of the “outside” strategy through Common Cause — in fact, one could now say that the Network [i]is[/i] Common Cause. That’s what happens when an organization attempts to hold the “insiders” and the “outsiders” together, when neither has the same strategies and tactics for action. While one side is planning for resolutions at Diocesan Conventions, the other side is checking the canons for leaving the diocese.
“The enemies of orthodoxy” didn’t “divide these camps” — the camps were divided from the beginning.
The “insiders” no more “wrote off” the outsiders by not “conferring with them” then the “outsiders” wrote off the “insiders” by not giving them a call and inviting them, oh, say, to Gafcon or getting the insiders to “approve” of Gafcon.
The fact is that an insider working on his Louisiana diocesan convention is irrelevant, from a working point of view, to folks going to the Southern Cone — and vice versa. Of course, no Christian is “irrelevant” in the pure sense to another Christian, just as no man is an island — but from a tactical standpoint, the fact that a parish in a diocese of North Carolina has called at last a traditional priest — for the first time in 15 years — is actually a hindrance to Common Cause, as there is less opportunity to “plant a church” near such a parish and glean their upset orthodox parishioners who got another liberal rector.
As RobRoy himself has said — it’s actually a hindrance to Common Cause that the diocese of South Carolina’s orthodox bishop was approved and consecrated as it prevents or “hinders” their “giving up” and joining in with the leavers.
It’s that kind of attitude that makes outsiders and insiders realize that “working together” [note that I don’t way “worshiping together” or “fellowshiping together”] is awfully close to impossible.
Good things that happen for the “insiders” are negatives to the “outsiders” and good things that happen for the “outsiders” are negatives to the “insiders”.
The only Christian recourse, as far as I can see, in dealing with these various actions and activities and events is to rejoice with those who rejoice — even if the things that happened for the rejoicers make things harder for the “insiders” or the “outsiders”, either one. I rejoice that Bishop Iker and Fort Worth will someday be free of TEC — even though, as Brad Drell rightly pointed out once, things will be much harder for Province VII meetings without Fort Worth. I could make a list several pages long of such instances, just as I am sure that the outsiders could do the same for inside actions.
Sarah’s notes here are important to read. She captures a good deal of the reality. One might however conclude that the majority of Network Bishops are involved in the Plan for communion linkage to Primates and Lambeth, that is, +Dallas, +CFL, and unless something happens and the Plan is smashed at the HOB meeting, +Texas, +W-LA, +ND, +SC, +Albany, et al. So in some ways, and in the light of divisions within Network leadership from the very beginning, Network has not become Common Cause, but rather Common Cause has become what Bishop Duncan and the newly consecrated sought to build all along. Roy’s comment about +SC (it would have been better if he had been denied) did underscore how critical it is for him that a single ‘leave TEC’ songsheet was the only way forward. As Sarah says, in the light of that, it is impossible to see how all the rest of the erstwhile Network Bishops would ever find a part to sing as that was not their own best sense of the way forward — they and a significant primatial counterpart.
In terms of the timing of this post, please note that this article is from LAST week’s (i.e. February 29’s) Church Times but it was originally subscriber only. Since it became publically available to all as of yesterday, I posted it.
Thanks for that clarification, Kendall. I admit that when I posted my comment #27 above, I overlooked the date this article in the Church Times was actually written.
But as someone ardently committed to the outside strategy and the CCP, let me strongly endorse Sarah’s point that all of us who are orthodox need to “rejoice with those who rejoice” (and “weap with those who weap” as Paul says in Romans 12). I almost always agree with robroy (the President of my NRAFC or Fan Club), but I’d never say that I regret that SC got to have +Mark Lawrence after all. I’m delighted in their good fortune, especially after listening to the edited audiotapes from the PB’s visit to SC.
In the end, we are all on the same team, the orthodox Anglican team. And someday, hopefully sooner rather than later, there will be a whole new orthodox Anglican province in North America, and it will include a great many of us who currently are divided by matters of strategy and tactics.
David Handy+
Ever the optimist
Sarah brought up the approval of the election of +Mark Lawrence. Needless to say, I was very impressed with his bold leadership that he displayed in the visitation of Jefferts-Schori. What is unfortunate about his approval is that it delays the crisis and the confronting of reality. Time does not favor the orthodox Anglicanism in America as many have said. The laity and to lesser extent the clergy are being bled off. A prime example is the loss of seemingly indefatigable Deb Tenney whose resignation letter [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/10667/ ]Kendall+[/url] has just published.
Simply put the battle must be pressed now. “Peace for our time” measures spell defeat in the near future. The two flavors of orthodox do share a common goal: restoration of orthodoxy without north/south division. Sure, they approach the mountain from different sides. [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/9542 ]Matt+ has written[/url] on what needs to be done. Step 1: give up ecclesiastical fundamentalism, Step 2: coordinate and cooperate. In this regards, ABp Drexel Gomez is ideally suited to be a bridge builder between the two groups. I am very hopeful because he is going to GAFCon.
robroy (#58),
Well done, friend. Actually I hadn’t heard that ++Gomez had committed himself to attending GAFCon. You can learn something new every day by watching these blogs. Yes, that is indeed encouraging. He rightly commands immense respect across the Communion.
But sadly, ++Drexel Gomez also highlights one of the key challenges we face. The guy is getting old, really old. He was consecrated bishop way back in 1972, for heaven’s sake. So yes, he’s been around a long time, and has earned the deep respect in which he is so widely held, but he won’t be around that much longer. And who can fill his shoes?
Moreover, despite the fact that he preached at the consecration of +Bill Atwood and +Bill Murdoch in Nairobi, ++Gomex also served on both the Windsor Commission as well as serving as the Chair of the Covenant Design Group which just released a very disappointing, wimpy draft. I fear that he is one of those who still regards the breakup of the AC as “unthinkable,” hence his willingness to participate in this new Communion Partners Plan. But perhaps GAFCon will help him to start thinking the unthinkable.
Let me speak a bit more bluntly and personally (in my usual style in other words). As a priest from the Anglo-Catholic Diocese of Albany I rejoice that ++Gomez is a staunch Anglo-Catholic, who can thus help offset the impression that the primary leaders of the GS are overwhelmingly low church. That is, I’m thinking of Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya, for example, which were all evangelized by the low church CMS, instead of the catholic (U)SPG. Not to mention Rwanda, which is similarly evangelical and a product of the East African Revival.
As you know, robroy, and so will many readers of this thread, I worship at a Ugandan-affiliated church in Richmond. And I have the greatest admiration and respect for ++Orombi and +John Guernsey. But I must admit, that if I had my druthers, I’d even more happily affiliate with a missionary movement in the U.S. that was spearheaded from Nassau by ++Gomez. I mean the Bahamas are a whole lot closer than Kampala, and the cultural differences aren’t nearly so great. I’d love for the Anglo-Catholic province of the West Indies to join Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, and now the Southern Cone in actively intervening in North America. But alas, that is precisely what ++Gomez has steadfastly refused to do. And by agreeing to serving on the CPP team as a Visitor, he is continuing to refuse to do so.
My fear is that this shows that he is still too invested in defending the current organizational structures of Anglicanism to represent a genuine bridge figure. It is precisely the fact that ++Rowan Williams trusts him that undermines my trust in him.
Such are the times we live in. There are no quick fixes. Despite my enthusiasm for the New Reformation, I fully recognize that. And it’s precisely the fact that this is a long-term adventure that we are embarking on that makes me wonder about the wisdom of expecting a very old, if venerable, archbishop to be the key mediator in this terrible crisis. Viva la Gomez! May God grant him the long life and vitality of Abraham or Moses!
David Handy+
Where do these ideas come from: +Gomez attending Gafcon? And what would be meant by it? It is important to distinguish Gafcon as anti-Lambeth and Gafcon as useful/preliminary to Lambeth. My assumption is that Roy’s hopes for Gafcon and concern about Mark Lawrence being consecrated belong to the logic of the first. +Gomez is miles from that. I simply cannot track this as desirable in any form. The effectiveness of +Gomez, working with ACI and on the CDG and in his larger Communion work, including the Plan being put forward, is tied precisely to his unwillingness to entertain the sorts of positions being espoused here.
[i] This elf found the following list slated to attend GAFCON:[/i]
Archbishops Peter Akinola (Nigeria), Emmanuel Kolini (Rwanda), Donald Mtetemela (Tanzania), Benjamin Nzimbi (Kenya), Henry Orombi (Uganda), Greg Venables (Southern Cone), and Archbishop Peter Jensen (Sydney) , Archbishop Nicholas Okoh (Nigeria) , Bishop Bob Duncan (Anglican Communion Network and Common Cause USA.), Bishop Martyn Minns (Convocation of Anglicans in North America), Bishop Don Harvey (Canada) , Bishop Bill Atwood (Kenya) Canon Dr Vinay Samuel (India), Bishop Michael Nazir Ali (Rochester, England) and Bishop Wallace Benn (Lewes, England), Canon Dr Chris Sugden (England).
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/002959.html
Since those Primates who believe in border crossing obviously won’t be bound by this agreement, what does it really achieve that couldn’t be gotten without it?
in re #58 and #60, Archbishop Drexel Gomez is going to Gafcon I just checked to confirm this is the case. For scheduling reasons, he is only able to be present part of the time.
Thanks, I assume he is attending as is +MacPherson, viz., within the logic of Gafcon as NOT anti-Lambeth/Canterbury. Good that this issue will be joined. I gather that explains as well the logic of +Jerusalem attending.
#62 I do not think it is fair to say some Primates believe in Border crossing, I believe they understand themselves to be finding a creative way to help orthodox anglicans in a structure which is adamantly determined not to. You make it sound like an article of faith.
BTW, anyone else see the glaring inconsistency between TEC’s flexibility in faith and morals with its implacability and rigidity in structure and canons?
its implacability and rigidity in stucture and canons
Actually, given communion without baptism, the firing of the DSJ Standing Committee, the threatened depositions of +Duncan and +Cox and the public blessings of same sex unions (which even +Sauls finds to be contrary to canon law), there is considerable flexibility on the canons when desired. We have abandoned the rule of law in both doctrine and canons and are doing what feels good.
That is a crucial correction, #66.
Yes, well said Mark, I should have been more precise and said “its implacability and rigidity in stucture and canons” in areas they choose.
Kendall,
I take your question at the end of your post #65 to be both rhetorical and heavily laden with irony. The inconsistency between TEC’s lax and lenient “toleration” in the realm of liberal theology and ethics and its rigid intolerance with regard to SOME of its canons and organizational structures is “glaring” indeed. It either makes you laugh at its sheer absurdity, or cry in anguish, or both in alternation.
But I’m writing mostly to thank you for clarifying that ++Drexel Gomez is indeed going to GAFCon, or part of it anyway (#63). That is very good news. And just for the record, I myself do NOT for a moment assume that GAFCon is an “anti-Lambeth” meeting. Its organizers have emphatically denied such a thing.
I fervently hope that other leaders will now join ++Gomez in attending this unprecedented event, since it is more clear than ever that participation in GAFCon need not be interpreted as being just for those pursuing the “outside” strategy.
David Handy+
Of course for some Gafcon is ‘anti-Lambeth Conference.’ This has been expressly said.
I took Mark’s comment to mean: canons are not inherently evil. Like anything they are good servants and poor masters. But if ignored, they are neither.
GAFCon is anti-Lambeth? The organizers of GAFCon have proved themselves to be honorable. Let us take them at their [url=http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4&Itemid=4]word[/url]:
[blockquote]It is not at the same time or in the same region as the Lambeth Conference. So there will be some who will attend both conferences and thus be able to consult with the Archbishop of Canterbury and others there.[/blockquote]
Chris Seitz being taken aback by the thought that the good ABp Drexel Gomez attending GAFCon is the type of ecclesiastical fundamentalism that we need to dispense with if the battle is to be won. We need more interactions between the allies.
Nonsense. When I turn to blogs to know the mind of ‘good ABp Drexel’ I will know I have lost my way. The point is preeminently clear: Gafcon contains two instincts: one, ‘we are not going to Lambeth Conference, we believe it is a waste of time,’ the other, “we are going to Lambeth Conference and may seek to persuade our colleagues at Gafcon to do likewise.” I think this a wiser way forward than stating that +Mark Lawrence’s consecration was a mistake or staying away from Lambeth. Now if the Gafcon contingent not intending to go to Lambeth could do as their colleagues, we might have something like a meaningful use of the term ‘allies.’ Lenten blessings.
Thanks Sarah for your posts. I think I would go farther. It seems to me that:
1. Until Rowan Williams (or his successors) desire to have real Communion discipline and boundaries set, then it is very clear that no “CommCon” (I hate these terms) strategy will result in the Big Solution.
2. As Dr. Seitz points out, the reality is that there is no common plan for relief of the orthodox or structural realignment amongst the orthodox primates, and not even within the “FedCon” group of primates (put another way, why are not the AMiA, CANA, the Ugandan and Kenyan groups not preparing to merge into one?). So until there is a common plan (i.e. not just declarations of a common faith and common mission) to work as ONE entity, there is no “FedCon” strategy that will result in the Big Solution.
3. There is no Big Solution coming tomorrow or next year.
4. Many commentators analyze things as if the current situation will continue “as is” into the future. It will not. The Anglican and TEC situations are extremely fluid. The long terms trends are also rather clear – TEC is in steep and serious decline. The ACCanada is similarly in a steep and serious decline, but they don’t have the deep pockets of TEC. In a long term, time is not on the side of the liberals (although many commentators here seem to think that it is).
5. The GAFCON primates who plan to boycot Lambeth are not leaving the Anglican Communion. So long as any “FedCon” jurisdiction continues to be moored to a current Anglican Communion Province, that jurisdiction hasn’t left the Anglican Communion (even if its bishops aren’t invited to Lambeth).
I see valid concerns and areas of weakness on all sides of the equation. Like Sarah, I am pleased when one group makes progress. In my humble opinion, none of us have the answer, none of us should have the hubris to declare “if only everyone else did what I want them to, the Big Solution will materialize.” I think we all have to do what Kendall has called for – that is, to be obedient in the little things and not try to force the Big Solution – and then trust that God will bring out what He wills in the end.
James, I certainly agree with your statement that in the long term, time does not favor the liberals. What I was careful to say is that time does not favor [i]orthodox[/i] Anglicans in America.
The TEC’s statistician in his study on church “growth” (church decline is more apt) showed that the parish most likely to experience large decline was an orthodox parish. He did show that an orthodox parish in a orthodox diocese (12 dioceses by his reckoning out of the 101 domestic dioceses) did buck the trend, somewhat. Parishes do not fully equate with individuals, but I think it is reasonable to assume that the orthodox individuals are leaving even faster than the average TEC-er. With the expected exiting of Fort Worth and Pittsburgh, it is also reasonable to assume that the orthodox flight from the rest of the TEC will only accelerate. When will critical mass be lost? When will we reach the event horizon where there is no reversal of the orthodox diaspora? Who knows? But if nothing is done, the orthodox will be lost first, then the liberals as you say and Anglicanism will be essentially lost from North America. (Until is repopulated from the border crossing islands.)
You ask, why are not the AMiA, CANA, the Ugandan and Kenyan groups not preparing to merge into one?
[blockquote]HERNDON, Va. (January 7, 2008) – The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) has welcomed ten new congregations into its membership. The Rt. Rev. Francis R. Lyons, the Bishop of Bolivia, commended these U.S. Anglican congregations and their clergy to the oversight of CANA Missionary Bishop Martyn Minns….[/blockquote]
Who knows what will happens at GAFCon?
Kendall, if you don’t believe in border crossing you don’t do it. If you do it then you must believe in it, if only as an action of emergency. I don’t “make it sound” like anything other than what I said. You are reading into it what perhaps you feeel puts you on the defensive.
There is no doubt that Uganda, Nigeria and Rwanda among others are going to continue border crossing regardless of the terms of this plan. Until a plan deals with that reality what is it other than irrelevant?
Lord Runcie used to say that those who lack a sense of proportion ought not to be put in charge of anything…it is my observation that when one person has 20% or more of the posts on a particular thread, it would seem that perhaps they lack a sense of themselves in proportion to those around them…or at least don’t have a sense where they stop and others begin–allowing others the space to be and assuming an equal credibility to what those others might know and say…and perhaps as well this ought to be an indicator of the context from which that one person’s comments stem and the reason they may seem somewhat disordered or in skewed proportion to the larger and more complete story.
I had to go back and make sure that Father Don wasn’t talking about me 😉 (I just account for 6.6 % of the posts not counting this one.)
Will add that the GAFCon-ners are appealing for donations. Anglican Mainstream is collecting and one can give by PayPal. The address is [url=http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=13 ]here[/url]. There is a PayPal donate now button in the left column.
Yes, I always turn to Don Armstrong for psychological advice, the zen master of self constraint and reserve. I was stuck in a blizzard yesterday waiting for a colleague arriving from the airport. Lenten blessings.
The problem with this plan is that it has been roundly rejected again and again primarily because it undermines so many for the sake of a few–and those few are primarily these bishops who want to make their conservative clergy think they (the bishops) are doing something when in fact they are doing nothing…maybe even making things worse for those still for one reason or another still institutionally addicted to TEC.
#79. Another gratuitous character judgment of bishops Stanton, Howe, Lawrence, Love, Bauerschmidt, Lilliebridge, MacPherson, Wimberly, and their primatial colleagues. Very unfortunate though no longer surprising.
As for a Gafcon contingent that is decidely anti-Lambeth (cf +WI, +MacPherson, etc) just for the factual record: “What is the use of the Lambeth conference for a three weeks’ jamboree which will sweep these issues under the carpet.”
Is this a riddle? OK, I give up. What is the use of the Lambeth conference for a three weeks’ jamboree which will sweep these issues under the carpet?
Kenneth Kearon and Katherine Jefferts Schori have just been scheming to make sure that nothing substantive is done. And Rowan Williams response…Let’s ndaba and drink tea.
Roy–I misunderstood you apparently. My point was that two groups are attending Gafcon. One going to Lambeth, one opposed. MacPherson, +WI, etc in group 1, and probably attending to make sure others are not persuaded to stay away. I thought you disputed that and felt +WI attending was a real boost for your position: the anti-consecration of Mark Lawrence logic of wanting people to leave TEC.
My quote in #71 states clearly there are those going to GAFCon who will attend Lambeth and some will not. As I said, I take them at their word when they say the conference is not a Lambeth replacement. Don’t you? What I call for is more dialog between the two camps of orthodoxy because there is much overlap. I am in favor of displeasing Katherine Jefferts Schori not pleasing her. And she would be very displeased if more of the so-called Camp Allen bishops stated their intentions to go to GAFCon and similarly invited, say, Nigerian or Ugandan clergy to their dioceses. ABp Drexel Gomez can facilitate these interactions. That is why I am pleased, not because it strengthens the hand of one side.
I personally think it is quite appropriate to not attend Rowan’s tea party. We, the Anglican Communion, seem to be stuck in enabling mode, evading consequences of actions. Rowan thwarts consequences of the actions of the TEC. The ACI calls for going to Lambeth regardless of what Rowan does. A natural consequence, to use the modern parenting language is that people truly interested in discipline of the TEC for tearing the fabric of the AC is to avoid RW’s tea party.
I am not sure whether you have done family counseling. I see many families in crisis in my line of work. Most of the time, there is a well meaning enabler. In this case of the Anglican family, we have two: an enabler and an enabler of the enabler.
Oh, and your straw man remarks that I opposed the ordination of Mark Lawrence are not appreciated. I, of course, never said anything about his [i]consecration[/i]. I do think that it is regrettable that the crisis is delayed another day to have more more orthodox strength bled away. As Ephraim and others have said, the revisionists overestimated their strength and overplayed their hand when they ordained Gene Robinson. They could have made the same mistake by rejecting the approval of Mark Lawrence. However, when they reject the replacement of Bp Howe, this will not be overplaying their hand because of the attrition of orthodoxy (see #74), and they will get away with it.
These are not difficult concepts.
Thanks, Roy, very helpful.
ENS: The House of Bishops was informed March 10 that full invitation is “not possible” from the Archbishop of Canterbury to include Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as a participant in this summer’s Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops.
85. Seitz-ACI:
So what???? Is there a partial invitation? Or is he and his new spouse going to just show up and crash the party?
OBTW,
I didn’t mean that to be sarcastic or nasy but a real question.
And Gene Robinson confirmed that he will show up at Kent (for his honeymoon, one supposes). ABp Gomez has said this would be a scandal and indeed it will be. Gene will be the center of a media circus. The only way to prevent this travesty is for Rowan Williams to say forcefully that his presence is very much unwelcome. But RW can’t even come out and say more than that the non-invitation is just not a full invitation. More reason to stay away from Lambeth.