The Archbishop of Canterbury today wrote to all 37 Primates inviting them to attend a special Primates’ gathering in Canterbury to reflect and pray together concerning the future of the Communion.
The meeting, to be held in January 2016, would be an opportunity for Primates to discuss key issues face to face, including a review of the structures of the Anglican Communion and to decide together their approach to the next Lambeth Conference.
The agenda will be set by common agreement with all Primates encouraged to send in contributions. It is likely to include the issues of religiously-motivated violence, the protection of children and vulnerable adults, the environment and human sexuality.
Other posts on this subject – newest first:
+ (Get Religion) The Atlantic goes halfway in reporting on Anglican primates meeting (September 21, 2015)
+ Gavin Ashenden responds to the London Times Editorial on the Anglican Primates Meeting (September 21, 2015)
+ GAFCON Chairman’s September Pastoral Letter on Saint Matthew’s Day (September 21, 2015)
+ (Daily Nation) Kenyan Anglican Primate Downplays Split Call Ahead of Proposed 2016 Primates Meeting (September 20, 2015)
+ Archbishop Mouneer at All Souls Church in London (September 19, 2015)
+ Canon Phil Ashey: What Brings Us Together (September 18, 2015)
+ Note to Blog Readers, the L. Times Editorial on the Primates Meeting is available on Anglican Ink (September 18, 2015 )
+ (The Tablet) Mgr Mark Langham””Too early to call time on the Anglican Communion (September 18, 2015)
+ Philip Johanson””Does C of E require radical emergency surgery or should it bea slow death? (September 18, 2015)
+ (Irish Times) Anglicanism in crisis: Canterbury’s risky move (September 18, 2015)
+ A BBC Today Programme Segment on the proposed Anglican Primates meeting (September 18, 2015)
+ (NYT) Meeting of Anglican Leaders Could Lead to a Looser Federation (September 18, 2015)
+ (Church Times) Crunch time for the Communion as Welby summons Primates to Canterbury summit (September 18, 2015)
+ GAFCON calls for ”˜truth on the table’ in the Anglican Communion in called Primates Meeting (September 18, 2015)
+ Archbp Josiah Fearon on the call for a special Primates’ Meeting in January 2016 (September 17, 2015)
+ A Statement from ACNA leader Foley Beach on the Proposed Primates Gathering (September 17, 2015)
+ A S Haley””A Surprise Meeting for an Anglican Family no longer functioning as a Communion (September 17, 2015)
+ (L. Times Leader) The Archbishop of Canterbury is offering the Anglican communion a reality check (September 17, 2015)
+ ([London Times) Archbp Welby holds crisis talks to prevent a church split (September 17, 2015)
+ (Guardian) Archbishop of Canterbury plans to loosen ties of divided Anglican communion (September 16, 2015)
Really? More talk? Haven’t GAFCON in numerous communiques made it pretty clear and apparent what the issues are?
Archbishop Foley Beach can come but for “part of the time.”
Do any of you “in the know” people know whether the Global South Primates will actually go? Also, I am surprised Foley Beach is being invited to play even a small part!
How can the agenda be set by common agreement, when there is no agreement?
Looks to be the end of the Communion as it has been. Resolution by destruction.
Doubtless some looser, extended global Anglican family (“the chums of Justin”), with the highest degree of communion…yada yada…will stagger out of the detritus of the failure of the Communion.
However, one wonders if even that will survive the CofE adopting same sex marrriage.
I respectfully submit that this is a victory for the orthodox. Note the terms of the announcement:
1. The agenda will be set by agreement. This tacitly concedes that Rowan manipulated the agendas of previous meetings to ensure that TEC would avoid facing the Primates about TEC’s many violations of previous resolutions. This implies that TEC cannot veto placing its defiance on the agenda. It is not unreasonable to infer that, if TEC refuses to allow TEC’s defiance to be discussed, TEC can simply not attend.
2. Lambeth 1998 and the previous Primates’ decisions are the basis for this meeting. Lambeth 1998, Dromantine and Dar were all defeats for TEC, and Rowan simply ignored them. This announcement states that these decisions are still in force. Again, if TEC won’t accept a Primates meeting on that basis, TEC can stay home.
3. Archbishop Foley is expressly invited. The fact that he is not invited for all the meetings is irrelevant; the ABC is stating, by this invitation, that Archbishop Foley is effectively a Primate and that ACNA is effectively part of the Anglican Communion. Note that the ABC has already invited Abp. Foley and that this invitation has been made public. TEC can’t veto this invitation; TEC can only refuse to attend if Archbishop Foley attends.
4. Discussing how the Communion moves forward while maintaining closest communion possible is not, in my view, a hint that the Communion will now surrender to TEC and adopt or acquiesce in its agenda. Rather, this implies that the real issue is: how will TEC, the Anglican Church of Canada, etc. reconcile themselves with a Communion that has rejected that agenda.
5. All of us have lived through Rowan and his prevarications. Naturally, we are cynical now about anything our church leaders say. We must recognize that Justin Welby is not Rowan Williams, and let’s give Justin the benefit of the doubt.
6. Perhaps I ought to say that I personally am a reasserter. To my brethren and sisters among the reasserters, I ask: given the limited powers of any ABC, what would you have Justin do differently?
It is a “gathering”, not a meeting. Clearly designed to NOT decide anything, but to have “shared conversations.”
Now, will that be the outcome?
Could be an interesting gathering.
What is comes down to is:
“Our way forward must respect the decisions of Lambeth 1998, and of the various Anglican Consultative Council and Primates’ meetings since then. It must also be a way forward, guided by the absolute imperative for the church to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, to make disciples and to worship and live in holiness…” If the ABC actually means what he said, it would, of course, mean taking action and actually carrying through with the recommendations of the past Primates MEETINGS, when things were decided. If he doesn’t, and is instead proven openly false, the Communion is over.
I would imagine that Archbishop Foley’s invitation, and the statement on upholding past Communion decisions, were the price the ABoC had to pay to get even moderate GS primates to commit to show up.
Frankly, I hope all of the Primates do show up, and do take control of the agenda.
6 is a good summary in my view.
I would add, the tension inside NA exports lots of energy. If the ABC said, ‘we have ACNA, we have TEC, they are each in communion with me and not with each other’ the knock-on might be considerable. Will TEC even survive long term? One might doubt that.
To the degree to which ACNA can bank it own internal fires, it would with its AC links, fare better long term.
The conservative movement inside TEC–Bishops, Dioceses, parishioners–is larger than ACNA. But it would have to decide where to go. The ABC is not going to interfere in NA. He has little authority to do so.
So if we have TEC and we have ACNA, will the latter find those in its ranks from TEC who simply cannot accept the former?
One would have to see the actual letter sent to Primates in order to draw any conclusions rather than the bowdlerised version on the ABC’s site.
Remember that then Bishop Bob Duncan and Bishop MacPherson also attended the Dar-es-Salaam Primates Meeting but they also were in an observer and contributor role while the US Presiding Bishop was the Primate who Rowan Williams seated and who voted, against considerable opposition from the majority of Primates.
Also remember that Justin Welby was one of the ‘Facilitators’ at the Dublin Primates Meeting at which the Primates were invited to ‘set the agenda’ for the role of the future Primates Meeting and in which they ended up being led to emasculate themselves.
Who collects all the thoughts of the Primates together in setting the agenda and telling them what they all said?
One suspects it is business and games as usual, but dressed up to deceive the gullible.
Unless the Primates have control not only of ‘the Agenda’ but also the meeting and the servants or facilitators of the meeting, it will just be the same old same old, just like the meeting in Canterbury at Justin’s installation when Primates were placed in different rooms.
All the indications are that The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada Primates will be seated by Justin, and that in itself may be the victory he seeks for his paymasters and the window dressing to deceive the Communion and to sideline the GAFCON Primates. Presumably those on the Global South Primates Standing Committee including the recently disinterred John Chew have made their peace with Justin to get this far.
“If my fellow GAFCON Primates accept the invitation, and I am expecting that they will, then I have also pledged to attend.”
+Foley Beach
PM – those are good things to bear in mind.
“The difference between our societies and cultures, as well as the speed of cultural change in much of the global north, tempts us to divide as Christians: when the command of scripture, the prayer of Jesus, the tradition of the church and our theological understanding urges unity. A 21st-century Anglican family must have space for deep disagreement, and even mutual criticism, so long as we are faithful to the revelation of Jesus Christ, together.”
The revelation of Jesus Christ included teaching about human sexuality. This teaching has been rejected by portions of the Anglican Communion. Why elevate unity over such teaching – particularly when “Scripture, properly interpreted” teaches a different response to false teaching?
We shall see…
As for whether or not there will be an agenda for this “gathering”, please take note of Anglican Communion General Secretary Archbishop Idowu-Fearon’s remarks in response to ++Canterbury’s announcement:
“This is a most welcome development. The Anglican Communion must now allow the Holy Spirit to intervene in the differences that divide us. We at the Anglican Communion Office are positioned to assist in fostering a desirable outcome.”
And this from ++Canterbury’s announcement:
“The agenda will be set by common agreement with all Primates encouraged to send in contributions. It is likely to include the issues of religiously-motivated violence, the protection of children and vulnerable adults, the environment and human sexuality….
“Our way forward must respect the decisions of Lambeth 1998, and of the various Anglican Consultative Council and Primates’ meetings since then. It must also be a way forward, guided by the absolute imperative for the church to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, to make disciples and to worship and live in holiness, and recognising that the way in which proclamation happens and the pressures on us vary greatly between Provinces. We each live in a different context.
“The difference between our societies and cultures, as well as the speed of cultural change in much of the global north, tempts us to divide as Christians: when the command of scripture, the prayer of Jesus, the tradition of the church and our theological understanding urges unity. A 21st-century Anglican family must have space for deep disagreement, and even mutual criticism, so long as we are faithful to the revelation of Jesus Christ, together.”
It would seem to me that there will be an agenda compiled by Anglican Communion Office staff based on contributions from those primates who feel “encouraged” to provide suggestions. This is a far cry from the Primates themselves setting the agenda for the meeting without the assistance of ACO facilitators to “foster a desirable outcome.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA
Inadabadoodoo 10.999999999999999999999999999999999~
I confess to being torn between these two entirely accurate representations of this event:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxgCmGOdhWA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32HhbGUH5s0
The former shows the historical reality – “the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour” with unerring intonational panache. The latter shows the existent reality and human hope of this venture.
This seems to me to be a case of too little, too late. In short, I agree with Katherine (#4), among others above who are rightly very skeptical about this proposed gathering. Here are a few (typically tendentious and provocative) assertions to provide more grist for the mill.
1. We’ve had more than enough time-wasting talk and futile indaba. What will be needed to repair the torn fabric of global Anglicanism and rebuild the shattered trust of the orthodox majority in Canterbury and the ACO are actions, strong, clear, resolute actions. And I mean real disciplinary actions.
2. Does anyone here at T19 have even the slightest confidence that such actions will be forthcoming from either Lambeth Palace or St. Andrew’s House? If you do, I have some prime undeveloped real estate in Florida to sell you! Right in the middle of the Everglades.
3. Why should the GAFCON/GS primates bother going to Canterbury for more “discussion” if there is no assurance beforehand that any decisions reached will be honored by the ABoC and the ACO, instead of being betrayed and sabotaged by them, as ++Rowan Willilams infamously and inexcusably betrayed and sabotaged the decisions reached at Dar es Salaam in 2005?
4. It is extremely naive (at best) and downright dishonest (at worst) to imagine or pretend that “good disagreement” will solve our problems. Oil and water simply don’t mix. Never have and never will. We aren’t dealing with a Romans 14 situation (over adiaphora) where we can agree to disagree. Two gospels are contending for the soul of global Anglicanism, and they are mutually exclusive, for one is true and the other is a false gospel, straight from the pit of hell.
5. It’s foolish to try to negotiate with terrorists. And when teenage children act out and misbehave badly, wise parents don’t call for a family meeting and try to reach some reasonable consensus about what should be done. No, as parents you take away the kid’s car keys and you ground them for a month or something like that. It is the same with the Liberal wing of Anglicanism. This is a time for imposing discipline, no matter how bitterly it will be resented. And if you tell me, “But David/NRA, you know perfectly well that there is no possible way for such discipline to be imposed, given our inherited system of polity at the international level.” I would of course agree, and then I’d go on to say that this is precisely what must change. It is high time to overhaul the whole dysfunctional system, so that we can indeed put the Doctrine and Discipline back in the traditional Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of Anglicanism. And is that means facing the reality that we’ll have to boot millions of unrepentant Liberals off the Anglican Island, I would say, So what? Like the Rich Young Ruler, let them go!!
6. This is no time for hapless, foolish peacemakers like ++Welby to cry out “Peace, peace, let’s all play nice and have some peace at last,” when there is no peace, nor can there be any (Jer. 6 & 8). Rather, this is a time for bold leaders to follow the bold approach of a Moses, or Joshua, or Elijah, and call the People of God to make a momentous, fateful, fork-in-the-road decision (ala Deut. 30, Josh, 24, 1 Kings 18). It is high time for all the futile attempts at shallow and worthless “reconciliation” to stop (i.e., a mere institutional truce that glosses over the unresolved theological and cultural conflict that remains stubbornly irresolvable without one side capitulating to the other). It is time for all to take sides, and then live with the bitter consequences.
5. Inviting ++Beach was a nice gesture, and something ++Rowan Williams would never have done. But again, it’s a case of too little, too late. What was needed instead was for the primates to be invited to Canterbury (or Abuja, or Nairobi, or Singapore) for the ecclesiastical equivalent of the “Shoot Out at the OK Corrall/” And the primates of TEC and the ACofC are the ones who should have been invited for only part of the meeting, and as silent observers, unless they showed signs of genuine repentance for the inexcusable and intolerable actions of those rogue provinces that have brought this disaster upon us.
6. If all that sounds extremely pessimistic, that’s not how I intend it. It is true that I consider the “Anglican Commuinion” in its current institutional form to be hopelessly doomed. But not so global Anglicanism, as an ism, as a distinctive BCP-based brand of Christianity that forms a unique Protestant-Catholic hybrid, founded upon the consensual teaching of the ancient Fathers and shaped by the four basic principles of the famous Lambeth Quadrilateral. The old Elizabethan style institutional wineskins have served us well for over 450 years, but they are now obsolete and will have to be replaced. (Not renewed or reformed, but replaced). The New Reformation has already begun. And I fervently believe that the best days of biblical, orthodox Anglicanism are still to come.
David Handy+
As feisty and provocative as ever
I’ve only had time to glance at these posts, but I don’t see who will be representing TEC. Is it Shori or Curry, or both? Beuler? Anyone?
Welby:
[blockquote] We each live in a different context [/blockquote]
That is postmodern codswallop. There is only one “context” : [url=http://biblehub.com/john/14-6.htm]John 14:6[/url]
By Definition, there can be no communion without a common theology.
David Keller, since the meeting is in January, it will be Curry.
Thanks Katherine. That is probably better all around. Maybe that’s why Welby is doing it next year.
My apologies to all readers for the verbosity of my #16 above, which is marred by many typo’s and, more importantly, a rather strident spirit. But inspired by #18 above (Creedal Episc.), I’ll venture two further points to the eight I mentioned earlier (yes, I can count, even if #16 seems to indicate otherwise).
1st or 9th. One of the biblical texts endlessly invoked over the last few decades in all the strife and turmoil over the proper Christian response to the extreme permissiveness of modern western culture is the beloved maxim that we Christians are called to “[i]speak the turth in love[/i]” to each other (Eph. 4:15). While that is true, that biblical principle is widely misunderstood and persistently misapplied in the context of the Anglican Civil War. It means so much more than just the trite reminder that we should speak frankly and honestly to one another in a loving way. There has been no lack of living speech over the last couple decades, but there has been a dearth of speaking “the truth,” in the specific sense meant in that classic text. For after the mention of how some Christians were being blown all around by every shifting wind OF DOCTRINE, and by the perverse cunning of scheming and duplicitous figures, the writer insists that we must speak “the truth” in contrast, i.e., the true gospel, which in this letter must mean the Pauline gospel. Namely, we are called to speak the TRUE DOCTRINE to one another, and there is no substitute for that. Speaking false doctrine in a loving way doesn’t cut it. Not then, not now, not ever.
2nd or 10th. Therefore, the all important questions come down to these two fundamental issues, on which everything depends. And alas, we have made virtually NO progress whatsoever in the last two decades in clarifying, much less settling, those two crucial matters.
A. From a theological standpoint, everything depends on our ability to reach agreement collectively on what are matters of adiaphora and what are not. That is, we simply must find a way to settle once and for all in disputed cases, what are the times when agreeing to disagree as agreeably as we can is not only possible and proper but essential, and when is that attractive option simply ruled out by the nature of the case. That is, we have to find a way of deciding definitely as a global fellowship what issues are Romans 14 issues, and what are Galatians 1 issues, where the gospel itself is st stake. I submit, for the umpteenth time here at T19, that we simply MUST develop a way of settling such disputes in a way that is BINDING on all who claim to be Anglicans. There HAS to be a place where the buck stops, and the appeals process comes to an end.
B. Which inevitably brings us back to the authority issue. In the end, the ultimate issue in such protracted disputes comes down to this: Who gets to make the final decision, and has the power to make it stick?? Otherwise, we are left in the intolerable and miserable position of Israel in the days of the Judges. “Because there was no king in Israel, every man (i.e., every bishop or province) did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 21:25). That lack of a central magisterium is a recipe for chaos, confusion, and even sheer anarchy.
It is now almost 11 years since the blue ribbon panel of experts produced the famous Windsor Report (Oct. 2004). That distinguished group rightly identified the problem of determining what is adiaphora and what is not as the heart of the problem (see paragraphs 90-96). But unfortunately, that elite group of advisers provided no help whatsoever in suggesting how we should address that all-important matter. And we’ve made NO progress at all since then at resolving that core issue.
I submit that if the orthodox primates do decide to accept ++Welby’s invitation, that they should insist that at the top of the agenda is finding a way to resolve this intolerable dispute once and for all. Namely, the primates should discuss how we will in the future decide definitely what is adiaphora and what is not. And even more imporantly, they need to suggest who will get to make that fateful decisiobn, and how it will be enforced on recalcitrant and rebellious bishops or provinces who refuse to comply.
And if that means casting hundreds of thousands or even millions of liberal Anglican off the Anglican Island, well, so what? Who cares? I don’t. I say, Good Riddance, you bums!! Come back, like the Prodigal Son, when you’ve come to your senses. Until then, it’s off to the outer darkness for you!
Cheekily,
David Handy+
(If I thought anyone was actually paying attention to my tirades, I couldn’t write the way I do)
It is probably just coincidence but as a Canadian Anglican I find it interesting that this meeting in January will take place before the Anglican Church of Canada’s General Synod in July where delegates will be voting on revising the marriage canon. I would imagine our primate will hear plenty on the subject from his peers. Pray he listens.
“if TEC refuses to allow TEC’s defiance to be discussed, TEC can simply not attend. ”
“Again, if TEC won’t accept a Primates meeting on that basis, TEC can stay home.”
“TEC can’t veto this invitation; TEC can only refuse to attend if Archbishop Foley attends.”
Let it be so!
If I were a Primate, invited to this meeting, I would want to see the agenda before accepting. If the most important items on it were the ones Welby articulated and not “First things, first.” it would not be worth attending.
They could just rewind the tape and play the last one over again, saving a bunch of airfares and hotel accommodation fees.
#24-
If I were a primate, I would get together with several other primates, and SEND ++Welby two or three items we expected to see on the agenda, and the specific description we expected him to use, then check the agenda ACO sends us in a couple months to make sure our agenda items are included. Might also be a good idea to send along a recommendation on who should chair the discussions of those agenda items, and a specific prohibition against ACO “facilitators”. That way, “Item 3, 3 hours, with additional time if necessary. Implementation of Dar Es Salaam Primates resolutions” does not get get turned into “Item 19 (if there is time) Discussion of sexuality issues within the varying contexts of global cultures” and “Vote to remove TEC representation from ACC until it complies with Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10 carries 29 to 4 with 4 abstentions” does not turn into “a variety of viewpoints were expressed on the subject of church order as viewed from our several contexts.”
TJ,
I don’t think the GAFCON primates will stand for being Delphi’ed again.
“fool me once…”
I wouldn’t be surprised if they brought their own scribes to record the discussions and agreements. That Kearon (sp?) fellow taught them to distrust the ACO thoroughly.
[blockquote] “I respectfully submit that this is a victory for the orthodox. Note the terms of the announcement: 1. The agenda will be set by agreement. …” [/blockquote]
Those were the very words which I found most alarming. They sound very similar to the way Lambeth has operated in the past: Call on Primates to inform the ACO bureaucracy (individually) what they want, so that the ACO can decide itself what the agenda will be, but without telling the participants until the last minute. Its the standard Lambeth “indaba” way of controlling the outcome of a meeting.
[blockquote] “The fact that he is not invited for all the meetings is irrelevant; the ABC is stating, by this invitation, that Archbishop Foley is effectively a Primate and that ACNA is effectively part of the Anglican Communion.” [/blockquote]
Is he, I wonder? Meetings like the Lambeth Conference have been attended by representatives of other churches in the capacity of observers, without them being acknowledged as members of the Anglican Communion. So it wouldn’t necessarily follow that ++Welby is acknowledging ACNA as a member of the AC because of this invitation, especially when it is pointedly not an invitation to the entire conference.
Now whether that matters to you depends on how important you think the Archbishop of Canterbury’s opinion is on such matters. Personally, I couldn’t care less what the ABC thinks, at least until an ABC earns my respect. But for those to whom it does matter, I wouldn’t assume that this invitation is a concession that changes ++Welby’s notorious public statement in October 2014 that he doesn’t regard ACNA as a member of the Anglican Communion: http://www.coigazette.net/buy-a-subscription-2/audio-interviews/interview-53-archbishop-justin-welby/
[blockquote] “To my brethren and sisters among the reasserters, I ask: given the limited powers of any ABC, what would you have Justin do differently?” [/blockquote]
Plenty.
Heck, its not even difficult to see. He should have informed TEC that he regards himself as being in impaired communion with it, until it repents of its positions on homosexual practice, the saving work of Christ, and law suits against departing members. In other words, that he requires TEC to conform not only with the scriptures and formularies, but also with Lambeth 1998, the Windsor Report and the Dromantine and Dar Es Salaam communiques. He should also have taken active steps to start the process of recognising ACNA.
Needless to say, the same applies to ++Rowan Williams – he also should have done these things, and kicking the can down the road just made things harder for CofE and his successor.
The fact is that TEC and ACoC have been unwilling to give ground in any way on the crucial issues, and that means that the ABC has to make a hard choice. Its hard, but not difficult to understand. And there is no alternative – even avoiding a choice is making a choice.
“Heck, its not even difficult to see. He should have informed TEC that he regards himself as being in impaired communion with it, until it repents of its positions on homosexual practice, the saving work of Christ, and law suits against departing members. In other words, that he requires TEC to conform not only with the scriptures and formularies, but also with Lambeth 1998, the Windsor Report and the Dromantine and Dar Es Salaam communiques. He should also have taken active steps to start the process of recognising ACNA.”
I don’t actually disagree MichaelA- he should do those things. But if he excommunicates TEC from his see, that also means he would need to excommunicate most of the bishops of the CoE, and many throughout the Western world, Australia and NZ.
He is not going to take those steps, and we all know he won’t. However, if he is lying, intends to control the agenda, and brings in Porter and his henchmen to rig the meeting, I do hope the entire GS gets up and (if necessary) bodily removes the Lambeth team, and publicly vote no confidence in the ABoC, and replace him as the leader of the Communion. After all, the leader of the Communion is the person recognized by Anglicans as the leader of the Communion. While this has always been assumed to be the ABoC, in point of fact, it can be whoever God chooses to appoint to the job, regardless of who is appointed by Church of England Ltd as its CEO.
1) It is a gathering of the Primates, not a Primates Meeting. Lots of GAFCON Primates attended the last gathering around the installation of ++Welby who had vowed not to attend a “Primates Meeting.”
2) This is not my original thought, but it sounds as if ++Welby is restructuring the Anglican Communion on the model of the Orthodox Churches, where each church is in communion with Constantinople although many churches (some in over-lapping geographical areas) are not in communion with each other. I think it could work. It would be a different Anglican world but it could work.
#30, it’s a gathering consequential enough for +Beach to be invited to some, but not all sessions, and for +Curry (who is a radical pro-gay supporter) to be invited to the sessions from which +Beach is excluded. It’s more than casual.
#30 James Manley
As I think it was George Conger who pointed out, the autocephalous Orthodox churches may be separate and in some cases be extremely antogonistic to one another [Constantinople and Moscow fighting over a church in Nice; Ukraine and Moscow, Moscow and I think one of the Baltic Orthodox churches maybe Estonia] but they all share the same doctrine.
In any event, the Anglican Communion is already structured in much the same way as the Orthodox churches. I am not sure that centering everything on Canterbury is wise, particularly when the current incumbent, not to mention the last is so wobbly. Seems to me the current proposals just seek to center things more and more on Canterbury, which is at odds with his true status as first among EQUALS.
But we won’t really be able to comment until the text of his letter is released, much as almost all prior letters to Primates have been published.
Why hasn’t it been made public? Why go to considerable trouble to bowdlerise it in a press release and then even more trouble to brief journalists rather than simply publish it?
It raises the presumption that for all the claims that the Primates are having a say that the secrecy, attempts to isolate and control the environment and manipulate shown in all meetings Welby has had a part in previously [Dublin, Facilitated Conversations in the UK, Continuing Indaba, and table discussions in the CofE General Synod] that the Primates are in for just more of the same in January if they go along with the Welby schema, rather than taking control of it themselves and taking it out of the hands of Welby, Fearon, and the rest of the ACO, Lampal crew. All I read and see suggests that it is just Canterbury games as usual albeit with high stakes.
Publish the letter – what have you got to hide? Be honest and open for once – John 3:19-21.
See [url=http://gafcon.org/news/chairmans-september-pastoral-letter-2015]here[/url] (and T19 has a comment link [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/62165/#comments]here[/url]). GAFCON isn’t buying this.
MichaelA
Here are some thoughts responsive to your comments.
#27. I have agreed in #6 that the conduct of Rowan helped bring us to where we are today. I agree that the ACO, doing Rowans’ bidding, helped to get us here as well. Your comment in #27 seems to assume that Abp. Welby is simply prevaricating in the same way as did Rowan. On what evidence do you base that conclusion? Assume, arguendo, that Abp. Welby is not spinning but really wants to set the agenda by agreement. How else ought he to say that?
#28. You have listed several actions that you want the ABC to take as conditions precedent to a meeting of the Primates. I respectfully submit that the ABC’s invitation itself states that the Primates’ meeting will be held on the basis that all of the decisions of the Communion (including Lambeth 1998, Domantine, Dar, etc.) remain in force. Moreover, the invitation to Abp. Beach is just the sort of “active steps to start the process of recognizing ACNA” that your comment suggests.
If you assume, arguendo, that Abp. Welby is not prevaricating now, the difference between your proposal and Abp. Welby’s seems to be that you would not invite TEC, the AC of C, etc. to the meeting at all. Abp. Welby is clearly inviting them without their prior repentance and reversal of the course they have been on for decades, most clearly since 2003. I respectfully submit that TEC must answer to the entire Communion, not just the ABC, for its defiance of the Communion’s agreed positions. I respectfully submit that forcing TEC’s Presiding Bishop to face and answer the rest of the Primates is stronger discipline than simply disinviting them.
I do not believe that, at this point, TEC or the AC of C, etc. will reverse course. Having said that, Jesus always offers sinners unlimited opportunities to repent. Assume that, at the Primates’ meeting, TEC, et. al. stay their course. At that point, it seems to me that the Primates, including the ABC, will discipline them.
The Guardian and New York Times articles, and others, talk about a “looser” Anglican affiliation, more like the Orthodox churches. I respectfully ask: which provinces will loosen their ties to the Communion? I think that, when the dust settles, TEC, the AC of C, and the other reappraisers will be the churches that increase their distance from the rest of the Communion. In my view, this meeting is a very late attempt to discipline TEC and its allies. We all agree that this ought to have happened years ago, but Rowan would not have it. We now have a new ABC and a new Presiding Bishop.
One other thought: at this point it is clear that the Communion will not survive in its current form. Abp. Welby would not have convened this meeting without having already decided what he will do when it ends, given the likely rejection of TEC’s defiance by the Primates again in January. If Abp. Welby sticks with TEC and the reappraisers, he loses most of the Communion (measured by souls). If Abp. Welby sides with the reasserters, he loses TEC and its money, of which there is likely less for the ACO given TEC’s calamitous financial situation. Some commenters think that this is just another “Lucy and the football” episode. Perhaps they are right. But when Rowan yanked the football away previously the Communion was holding together pretty well. That is what is different now: we are very close to the end of the Anglican Communion altogether.
“I think that, when the dust settles, TEC, the AC of C, and the other reappraisers will be the churches that increase their distance from the rest of the Communion.”
Herein lies the conundrum. The Church of England is already well down the trail blazed by TEC and the AC of C. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the primate of the Church of England. If the C of E accepts some measure of same-sex blessing at the February 2017 General Synod in violation of Lambeth I.10 (as Lambeth’s own Director of Reconciliation David Porter has repeatedly implied), then the C of E will have de facto distanced itself — and its primate the Archbishop of Canterbury — from “the rest of the Communion” as a reappraiser church along with TEC, AC of C, and probably Wales and Scotland. How can the ABC then function as the head of “the rest of the Communion” if his church has distanced him from “the rest of the Communion”???
Today, the AC is not a communion. The provinces are effectively in something of an association, with each determining which other provinces to share communion. I suspect the attempt to downgrade to an acknowledged association status will not be asymmetric, but universal.
IMHO – the ABC suffers something approaching monomania in the desire to present an appearance of unity, regardless of practice or belief. If he is able to hold out that the organization is “unified” in addressing “issues” unrelated to Christian discipline of provinces that reject biblical teaching – then I think he would view it a success.
This strikes me as very much like the formation of a trade association. On the positive side, association members are likely to be granted a discounted registration fee to the Lambeth Conference.
That said, I’m not certain that most Anglicans are interested in being members of a trade association, even if it does offer historical connections and collaboration on “issues.” We shall see.
Hi Publius at #34, you wrote:
[blockquote] “Your comment in #27 seems to assume that Abp. Welby is simply prevaricating in the same way as did Rowan. On what evidence do you base that conclusion?” [/blockquote]
I am stunned that anyone would think otherwise, frankly. I can’t off-hand think of a single thing ++Welby has done that differentiates him from ++Williams. If he was different, he would have made an honest and serious attempt to restore the damage that has been done to the Communion. He has done nothing at all.
[blockquote] “You have listed several actions that you want the ABC to take as conditions precedent to a meeting of the Primates. I respectfully submit that the ABC’s invitation itself states that the Primates’ meeting will be held on the basis that all of the decisions of the Communion (including Lambeth 1998, Domantine, Dar, etc.) remain in force….”[/blockquote]
No, I’m sorry but I have to stop you right there, because that’s just incorrect. Firstly, you can’t hold a meeting “on the basis that [various Primates meetings] remain in force” when they self-evidently are not in force! If the decisions of those meetings really are in force, then let the ABC himself start ACTING as though they are in force.
Holding a meeting “on the basis that” decisions remain in force, whilst at the same time the ABC and his predecessors have done nothing to enforce them is precisely the kind of double-speak that we came to expect from Rowan Williams. And now, from Justin Welby and his apologists.
[blockquote] “Moreover, the invitation to Abp. Beach is just the sort of “active steps to start the process of recognizing ACNA†that your comment suggests.” [/blockquote]
I disagree. Various groups are invited to meetings with the ABC on a regular basis, without any suggestion that they are part of the Anglican Communion. ++Welby’s last public statement on this was quite clear – ACNA is not part of the AC. He has had plenty of time to reconsider that or clarify what his remarks really meant if there was any misunderstanding. Let’s be clear on this – an invitation to attend parts of a meeting does not affect one iota Justin Welby’s position on ACNA.
[blockquote] “If you assume, arguendo, that Abp. Welby is not prevaricating now, the difference between your proposal and Abp. Welby’s seems to be that you would not invite TEC, the AC of C, etc. to the meeting at all. bp. Welby is clearly inviting them without their prior repentance and reversal of the course they have been on for decades, most clearly since 2003. …” [/blockquote]
Of course. That is why so many primates (not just Gafcon I might add) declined to attend the last Primates Meeting in Dublin.
[blockquote] “I respectfully submit that forcing TEC’s Presiding Bishop to face and answer the rest of the Primates is stronger discipline than simply disinviting them.” [/blockquote]
This is precisely the argument that has been used for the repeated failures by Welby and his predecessors to “disinvite” TEC and ACoC over a period of more than ten years. Your solution has been tried many times already and has failed many times already, as it was always going to. The reason it fails is that neither ++Welby nor his predecessors were ever serious about disciplining TEC, and hence they never have.
What we are seeing now is the incremental, let’s-talk-our-way-around-the-orthodox-objections approach which Rowan Williams used to such good effect, and now ++Welby is doing the same.
[blockquote] “I do not believe that, at this point, TEC or the AC of C, etc. will reverse course.” [/blockquote]
In this one thing I agree with you, but a primary reason for this state of affairs is that TEC and ACoC have NEVER been disciplined by Canterbury before. If ++Carey had stated clearly to TEC: “Go down this road [of blatant liberal theology, rejecting orthodox Christology and consecrating practicing homosexuals] and you will be in impaired communion with Canterbury”, then the orthodox would have had a very good chance of saving TEC. Even if Rowan Williams had made such a statement early on, the situation might have been saved. The reason those things did not happen was because it suits Canterbury (the institution, not just the incumbent) for TEC to blaze the trail that Canterbury itself is now following.
[blockquote] “Assume that, at the Primates’ meeting, TEC, et. al. stay their course. At that point, it seems to me that the Primates, including the ABC, will discipline them.” [/blockquote]
Your naivety is touching. Neither the ABC nor his predecessors have ever disciplined TEC and they aren’t going to start now. They will do what they have always done – talked sweetly to the orthodox in order to lull them, whilst the liberals in TEC and CofE continue to cement their position.
[blockquote] “Having said that, Jesus always offers sinners unlimited opportunities to repent.” [/blockquote]
And herein lies the problem – you appear to be conflating “opportunity to repent” with “discipline” and setting them off against each other. Jesus and his Apostles made clear that someone who declines to repent must be disciplined or else they will never take up the opportunity, which is always open to them, to repent:
[blockquote] “And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this? … So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” [1 Cor 5:2, 4-5] [/blockquote]
Those who have stopped Canterbury from disciplining TEC and ACoC, from 1998 until now, are actually the worst enemies of those entities and the people in them.
You also wrote:
[blockquote] “I think that, when the dust settles, TEC, the AC of C, and the other reappraisers will be the churches that increase their distance from the rest of the Communion.” [/blockquote]
Why would they? TEC and ACoC are already closer to Canterbury than they have ever been. I think it is pretty clear that they will be the close ones and it is the orthodox who will be distant. However, what Welby hasn’t yet grasped is that the orthodox provinces are starting to see a future that doesn’t require Canterbury’s involvement in the Communion at all.
[blockquote] “One other thought: at this point it is clear that the Communion will not survive in its current form.” [/blockquote]
In my opinion the Communion is already “not in its current form”. The Lambeth Conference has been cancelled unilaterally by ABC, as has the Primates Meeting (this January meeting does not purport to be a Primates Meeting), so the things that used to give a veneer of stability to the concept of an AC are already gone.
What is left is a concept of an Anglican Communion that predates the first Lambeth Conference in 1867: a communion of various Anglican churches around the world, based on share values and doctrines. That concept existed before the first attempts by Canterbury to give some structure to it, and it looks like the concept has now outlived Canterbury’s structures.
Hi MichaelA,
I want to respond to some of the points you made in #37.
1. I think Archbishop Welby’s actions have differed significantly from Rowan’s.
a. Abp. Welby visited all the Primates personally before calling this meeting. In those meetings, it is inconceivable that the Global South Primates would not have complained of the entire sorry history of Rowan’s handling of Dromantine, Dar, Lambeth 2008, and the last Primates meeting. I would think that Abp. Welby would have asked the Primates if there were any circumstances under which they would attend a Primates meeting now. The GAFCON statement notes that they would not attend any meeting at which TEC is represented, and from which ACNA is excluded. Note that another thread quotes a Global South source as saying that TEC’s defiance would be the first item on the agenda of this Primates meeting. Note also that Abp. Beach’s statement said that he expects the GAFCON Primates to attend. From those facts, it is reasonable to infer that this will not be just another bait-and-switch meeting after which the ABC and the ACO thwart the Primates’ decisions. I respectfully suggest that if the GAFCON Primates attend, their attendance confirms my inference that this will be no ordinary Primates meeting.
b. Of course TEC and other Western provinces are defying Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine, and Dar. But the invitation’s express statement that those decisions remain in force is saying that TEC’s defiance has [b]not[/b] changed the Communion’s teaching regarding marriage or, for that matter, the Gospel message. In this regard, another thread notes that the Church of Wales has apparently stepped back from endorsing same-sex marriage. I wonder if this is a hint that the wind from Lambeth changed.
2. If Abp. Welby really wanted to continue Rowan’s policy regarding TEC, he would not have called a Primates’ meeting at all. There are several reasons for this.
a. First, the Communion has already split de facto. If the ABC were comfortable with that reality, he gains nothing by calling a Primates’ meeting, especially if he plans to ignore the result, Rowan style. Moreover, if the ABC sabotages the Primates’ will again, he will get a formal, official split in the Communion. Do you think he wants that?
b. I think that the ABC wants to “call the question” regarding where the Communion goes from here. Years have passed since Dromantine and Dar and several Primates are new. The new Primates will want to have their say and vote, rather than rely on decisions taken by their predecessors. When the dust settles, the votes will be the same: the vast majority of the Communion will reject TEC’s reappraisals, and TEC will remain defiant.
c. The ABC has said that he believes in collegiality. If TEC and others will be disinvited in the future, I would expect the new ABC to want that decision reaffirmed now by the Primates.
d. Historically, TEC has paid most of the ACO’s costs. Many commenters have said that the ABC would never defy the ACO’s paymasters. I wonder whether TEC can still afford to fund the ACO at historical levels. Other threads have detailed TEC’s disastrous financial position.
Note that, despite a-d, the ABC has called a Primates’ meeting. If your analysis is right, the ABC thinks he can hoodwink the Primates yet again. That would be monumental arrogance and, indeed, folly. If Katherine Jefferts Schori were the ABC, I could see such arrogance behind these developments. I do not see such arrogance in Archbishop Welby.
3. We reasserters have all lived through the last 20 years and have been burned so many times that we have the right to be cynical. But let us remain open minded.
Hi Publius at #38,
Before responding to the detail in your post, I need to make something clear: I think your position could have come straight from the pen of TEC. It is truly a devious one – you may not have intended it so, but that is its effect.
The biggest issue for the liberals in TEC and CofE is the refusal of the Global South to engage with TEC or ACoC until they see tangible evidence of repentance. (The implications for a CofE which is hell-bent on following the same path as TEC are also obvious)
By inviting the Primates to a meeting attended by TEC and ACoC, with no indication whatsoever of repentance, ++Welby seeks to strike at the heart of their resistance.
If ++Welby was sincere, he would have talked to TEC about what they could bring to the table before any meeting, i.e. what indications of repentance. Even a moratorium on law suits, or the beginning of a constructive engagement with ACNA, or resiling from KJS’ previous public statements rejecting orthodox Christology, would have been something. But there has been nothing at all.
This is standard liberal tactics – propose a departure from orthodoxy, but even if you get a “no†answer a hundred times, just say, “of courseâ€, then ignore it and keep proposing. Sooner or later you will get a “yes†answer, and you only need one. Then move on to the next item in the liberal agenda.
++Welby knows full well the GS and Gafcon position, so he just ignores it and proposes that everyone meet together anyway, without the slightest indication of repentance from TEC and ACoC. Nor does he give any indication that he thinks TEC and ACoC should repent – which is hardly surprising since CofE is following closely in their footsteps.
I will respond to your particular points in further posts.
Publius at #38, I will respond to your particular points in this post:
[blockquote]  From those facts, it is reasonable to infer that this will not be just another bait-and-switch†[/blockquote]
Sorry I don’t follow – how do the facts you list lead to such an inference? Surely the obvious inference is this: (a) the GS and Gafcon primates have declared that they won’t attend a meeting at which an unrepentant TEC is present; so (b) ++Welby calls a meeting and invites TEC anyway, but without any indication of repentance, in the hope that he can overcome at least some of the Primates’ resolve or else isolate them. Straight from the playbook of Rowan Williams.
[blockquote] “I respectfully suggest that if the GAFCON Primates attend, their attendance confirms my inference that this will be no ordinary Primates meeting.†[/blockquote]
Why wouldn’t their attendance confirm that Welby has finally persuaded them to go back on their word? He will thus have ended the focus of orthodox resistance in the West also, which is premised on the Gafcon primates position that they will not share communion or meetings with TEC or ACoC unless they repent.
[blockquote] “Of course TEC and other Western provinces are defying Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine, and Dar. But the invitation’s express statement that those decisions remain in force is saying that TEC’s defiance has not changed the Communion’s teaching regarding marriage or, for that matter, the Gospel message.†[/blockquote]
Where is the “express statement that those decisions remain in force� I have asked this before, but you haven’t responded. In his communique, ++Welby says we must “pay proper attention to developments in the past“ – how do you morph that into “an express statement that those decisions remain in force� Of course you can do it, using Rowan-double-speak.
And then, in the following paragraph ++Welby states expressly that ALL previous decisions are subject to an overriding principle: “Our way forward must respect the decisions of Lambeth 1998, and of the various Anglican Consultative Council and Primates’ meetings since then. It must also be a way forward, guided by the absolute imperative for the church to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, to make disciples and to worship and live in holiness, and recognising that the way in which proclamation happens and the pressures on us vary greatly between Provinces. We each live in a different context.“
That couldn’t be clearer – we “respect†previous decisions, but the “absolute imperative†is to recognise that we live in different contexts and each way of the church operating in different provinces is valid. ++Welby is stating as clearly as he can that TEC and ACoC must be included in Communion life and without repenting.
Finally, and contrary to your last point in the above quote, this DOES show that the Communion teaching regarding marriage and the gospel message has changed, because it affirms that such teaching is subject to context.
[blockquote] “If Abp. Welby really wanted to continue Rowan’s policy regarding TEC, he would not have called a Primates’ meeting at all.â€
[/blockquote]
An assertion completely at variance with the facts: Rowan’s tactics were to (i) keep calling Primates meetings, (ii) fail to implement any determination by previous Primates meetings that he didn’t like, and (iii) try each time to talk the Primates around to letting TEC continue in full participation in Communion life, but without repentance.
All the indications are that ++Welby is operating 100% from the Rowan Williams playbook.
To be continued….
Continued from previous. Publius at #38 you wrote:
[blockquote] “First, the Communion has already split de facto. If the ABC were comfortable with that reality, he gains nothing by calling a Primates’ meeting, especially if he plans to ignore the result, Rowan style.â€[/blockquote]
The ABC is not comfortable with that reality, and indeed has said so. The rest of your point falls with that premise.
[blockquote] “Moreover, if the ABC sabotages the Primates’ will again, he will get a formal, official split in the Communion. Do you think he wants that?†[/blockquote]
Where do you get the idea that he thinks that – his own words indicate the opposite. And objectively he is correct – the Gafcon primates have stated repeatedly that they are not leaving the Communion. If they don’t, who else would?
[blockquote] “Years have passed since Dromantine and Dar and several Primates are new. The new Primates will want to have their say and vote, rather than rely on decisions taken by their predecessors.†[/blockquote]
I have no doubt that is what CofE and TEC leadership are banking on: If you propose a departure from orthodoxy and get a “no†answer, just keep coming back. Propose again, and again, and again. Repeated “no†answers don’t matter – you only need one “Yes†answer, then you can move on to the next item in the liberal agenda.
[blockquote] “When the dust settles, the votes will be the same: the vast majority of the Communion will reject TEC’s reappraisals, and TEC will remain defiant.†[/blockquote]
Which directly contradicts your argument above that by calling such a meeting ++Welby risks a formal split in the Communion. More to the point, what makes you think there is going to be any “votes”? Rowan moved away from that approach at 2008 (for the Lambeth Conference) and in Dublin (for the Primates meeting). All ++Welby wants is to have meetings attended by the GS Primates, and by an unrepentant TEC and ACoC.
[blockquote] “The ABC has said that he believes in collegiality. If TEC and others will be disinvited in the future, I would expect the new ABC to want that decision reaffirmed now by the Primates.†[/blockquote]
Why, apart from blind optimism, do you think that TEC will be “disinvited in future� You keep repeating this like a mantra, but you haven’t given a single reason in support of the notion. There is simply no rational or objective reason to think that ++Welby ever intends to “disinvite†TEC.
[blockquote] “Note that, despite a-d, the ABC has called a Primates’ meeting. If your analysis is right, the ABC thinks he can hoodwink the Primates yet again. That would be monumental arrogance and, indeed, folly.†[/blockquote]
Why? I would just call it the standard CofE hierarchy way of operating: After Dublin, let things cool down a bit, let some of the Primates retire, then start the whole process again.
[blockquote] “We reasserters have all lived through the last 20 years and have been burned so many times that we have the right to be cynical. But let us remain open minded.†[/blockquote]
I am being open minded. If there was any evidence at all to support your speculations, I would be happy to consider them. But there isn’t. Rather, the objective indicators including ++Welby’s own words point to this being just standard CofE and liberal tactics.
More seriously, you are advocating that the Gafcon primates should destroy their own credibility by attending a meeting with an unrepentant TEC and ACoC, when they have expressly said they would not do this.
Hi MichaelA,
Hi MichaelA,
Sorry for #42. I must have pushed the wrong button. I want to reply to your ##39,40, and 41.
The invitation states “Our way forward must respect the decisions of Lambeth 1998, and of the various Anglican Consultative Council and Primates’ meetings since then.” That is a pretty express affirmation that Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine, and Dar remain in effect. Do you disagree?
We can debate the various points we make and will likely not agree. I think that three disagreements underlie our debate:
1. How ought the orthodox deal with those who are not? I think that Jesus provides the model. He never hesitated to speak with people who Judaism viewed as heretics. For example, Jesus journeyed through Samaria, spoke with the woman at the well, and preached the Gospel to her village. By the standards of the orthodox Jews of the first century, the Samaritans were grossly heretical. There are other examples. Jesus repeatedly entered the Temple, taught there, and debated with the Temple establishment. The point is: the orthodox are not “tainted” by meeting and speaking with heretics. I simply don’t see that the orthodox Primates will be contaminated, or suddenly persuaded to cave to apostasy, by meeting with TEC’s presiding bishop and his counterparts in the AC of C, etc. Talking to TEC is not surrender to TEC, or adoption of TEC’s theological errors.
2. What is this Primates meeting for? You have agreed that the ABC is not happy with the status quo in the Communion, and I think many Primates share that dissatisfaction. I have been critical of Rowan in my previous posts because I honestly believe that he sabotaged the clear decisions at Lambeth 1998, Dromantine, and Dar, and introduced the “indaba” methods you rightly criticize at Lambeth 2008 and at the most recent (and sparsely attended) Primates meeting. My point is simply this: for Archbishop Welby to try the same tactics again won’t work. Pulling another “bait and switch” will simply poison, for the remainder of his tenure, his relations with all the orthodox Primates who have distanced themselves from the Communion since Dar. I think both Abp. Welby and the orthodox Primates know this. So trying another Rowan style meeting will not only fail, but will weaken, and perhaps end, the remaining ties between the majority of the Communion and Canterbury. I agree with you that the orthodox Primates won’t “leave” the Communion, because they are the Communion. But, if the ABC sabotages this meeting, perhaps the orthodox primates will establish an alternative to the ABC as the focus of Communion relations. I don’t think Abp. Welby and most, if not all, of the orthodox Primates want such a rupture. So the purpose of the meeting is: what can we do to keep the Communion together given that TEC will not repent? This does not mean surrender to TEC. I also think that you have not taken all the personal meetings with the Primates Abp. Welby into account. As my previous posts said, it is inconceivable that the new ABC did not hear the Primates’ reactions to Rowan’s actions loud and clear.
3. How do we prove good faith/bad faith? Your comments uniformly ascribe bad faith and intentional manipulation to Abp. Welby. I think that such a harsh interpretation is not proven. As one example, I quoted the sentence from the ABC’s announcement that the Communion would respect Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine, and Dar. The logic of your presumption of Abp. Welby’s bad faith must compel you to assert that such a statement is simply a lie. Such as assertion is not proven by a presumption.
I honestly do not think that these positions come straight from TEC. I do not agree with any of TEC’s theological innovations since well before 2003, and especially object to TEC’s drift away from the Gospel message. We have all been damaged by the entire sorry history. But it is not naive to evaluate Abp. Welby’s actions on their merits, not on the wounds we have sustained before he took office.
Publius-
The “merits” of Justin Welby actions on which we can make some judgments that lead us to mistrust him, having nothing to do with any wounds we might or might not have sustained otherwise:
Welby, as one of the architects of the “facilitated conversation” version of the Delphi Technique, helped engineer its implementation at Lambeth 2008 and Dublin, and that is a major reason the English hierarchy and government chose him as ABoC. As Archbishop of Canterbury his major claim to fame is that he has made “facilitated conversations” into the ecclesiology of the CoE, overriding all canons and doctrine, for the express purpose of normalizing gay clergy as standard operating procedure, and normalizing gay marital relationships in the CoE.
Welby’s track record, just like his predecessor’s, says it all. The words are immaterial. It is as if St. Francis had said “Tell what you believe, use words when necessary” to both men. The words are superfluous.
Hi Publius at #42, you wrote:
[blockquote] “That is a pretty express affirmation that Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine, and Dar remain in effect. [/blockquote]
Of course they “remain in effectâ€. I was not talking about whether they remain in effect, but about the refusal by TEC, ACoC and successive ABCs to put them into practice.
[blockquote] “He never hesitated to speak with people who Judaism viewed as heretics.†[/blockquote]
Shouldn’t we be looking at how Jesus treated those whom HE regarded as heretics, rather than whom Judaism viewed as heretics? Jesus and the Jewish leaders didn’t always see eye-to-eye on these things. On that basis let’s look at how Jesus did treat such people – he told them to repent. When the rich young ruler refused to repent of his greed in Matt 19:21-22, that was the end of the conversation. And so he taught us to behave also: “If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.†[Matt 18:17]
When the Primates say to the leaders of TEC and ACoC, “you must repent†(which they have done very clearly, especially at Dar) then the next move lies with TEC and ACoC. If they refuse to repent, it would be wrong of the Primates to meet with them as though they were members of the Church, when Jesus has said they should be treated as pagans.
[blockquote] “The point is: the orthodox are not “tainted†by meeting and speaking with heretics.†[/blockquote]
Sure, but I don’t think anyone has suggested that they are, certainly I haven’t. The orthodox have stated their position clearly to TEC, and unless the orthodox were insincere about their statement, there is no logical reason for them to meet with TEC and ACoC until they indicate their willingness to repent. And conversely, meeting with TEC and ACoC without such repentance will indicate that the orthodox WERE insincere in their earlier call to TEC and ACoC to repent.
[blockquote] “But, if the ABC sabotages this meeting…†[/blockquote]
It’s not a question of “ifâ€. He already has sabotaged it, by calling the meeting as though TEC and ACoC are churches in good standing in the Communion. The Primates Meeting at Dar Es Salaam in 2007 stated that TEC had to show repentance in specific ways, including: (i) showing a genuine readiness to embrace fully the recommendations of the Windsor Report; and (ii) accepting a robust scheme of pastoral oversight to allow the orthodox to flourish within TEC. Far from doing these things, TEC has gone further in the opposite direction. To meet with TEC for the purposes of dialogue serves no purpose whatsoever unless TEC intends to repent. As we both agree, TEC has no intention of doing so.
Rather, TEC seeks to undermine the biblical stance of the Primates at Dar by indicating to the rest of the church that they the Primates really do accept TEC after all, and without repentance. And ABC is facilitating this.
[blockquote] “So the purpose of the meeting is: what can we do to keep the Communion together given that TEC will not repent?†[/blockquote]
Well put. I agree, that is the purpose of the meeting. There can only be one answer that is true to Christ’s teaching – the Communion can only be kept together by excluding TEC and ACoC, i.e. treating them as pagans, unless and until they repent. But on that basis, there is no reason for such a meeting in the first place.
So what ABC really means is: How can I find a way to keep TEC as a participant in the Communion even though it will not repent? Jesus’ answer has already been given: “You can’tâ€.
[blockquote] “This does not mean surrender to TEC.†[/blockquote]
Yes it does. TEC is under discipline by exclusion from church life until it repents. According to Jesus’ teaching, the only way for TEC to end its isolation is to repent. By trying to bring about a situation whereby TEC can be accepted into the life of the Communion without repenting, ++Welby is spurning the teaching of Christ. Like Balaam, he is continually approaching the high places trying to get a different answer, when God has already spoken.
[blockquote] “As one example, I quoted the sentence from the ABC’s announcement that the Communion would respect Lambeth 1.10, Dromantine, and Dar. The logic of your presumption of Abp. Welby’s bad faith must compel you to assert that such a statement is simply a lie.†[/blockquote]
No, I am sorry, but that is just incorrect. Go back to my post #40 and read the 8th and 9th paragraphs. I am not making a presumption but relying on the words of ++Welby.
Hi MichaelA,
Hi MichaelA,
I want to reply to your #45.
Your #45 states that you are not making presumptions, but are relying on Abp. Welby’s words and actions. I think it is fair to say that you are interpreting those words and actions to conclude that Abp. Welby is planning another Rowan style Primates meeting during and after which the ABC thwarts the decisions of the Primates. Indeed, you say that Abp Welby has already sabotaged the meeting by inviting TEC and the AC of C., et. al. to attend. In this you are not alone; the commenters at ##43 and 44 agree with you.
I respectfully suggest that your conclusion is not supported by the evidence available to date. I think it is fair to say that the GAFCON Primates themselves have not decided whether your interpretation is correct. Note that the GAFCON Primates’ announcement does not state whether they will attend. The GAFCON chairman’s September letter on another thread itself states, and criticizes, the ABC’s evident thought that the Communion can be saved by loosening, not strengthening, the ties among its members. The letter goes on to say that the Communion in recent years has hindered, not helped, the mission to proclaim the Gospel. I certainly agree with that point.
Both the GAFCON announcement and the chairman’s September letter do not support your conclusion that Abp. Welby’s call for a meeting is just another re-run of Rowan’s tactics. Do you not agree that, if Abp. Welby only offered another Rowan style meeting, the GAFCON Primates would refuse to attend? Similarly, the GAFCON chairman’s point about loosening the relations among the members of the Communion itself contradicts the inference that this Primates meeting will be like all the others, in which Rowan and TEC pretended that nothing the Communion had changed. Of course, everything has changed, and the Communion is very close to ending.
You asked how Jesus treated those He viewed as heretics. I agree that Jesus’ model is a good model for the Primates to use. I think that the best examples of how Jesus dealt with heretics were His interactions with the Temple authorities. Jesus repeatedly entered the Temple and bluntly stated the Temple establishment’s errors to their faces. Jesus did not refuse to enter the Temple at all unless the authorities first repented. I respectfully suggest that Jesus knew before he debated the Temple authorities that they would not repent. TEC’s defiance is like that of the Temple leaders.
I doubt that we will persuade each other. I respectfully submit that the best evidence of whether this meeting will be another Rowan style event will be that the GAFCON Primates decide not to attend. That certainly may happen. But I interpret the Primates’ collective statement, and the GAFCON chairman’s September letter, as evidence that the GAFCON Primates are telling the ABC that this meeting must be different. Time will tell which of our interpretations is right.
Hi Publius,
I have only just seen this, so apologies for the late response. I have trouble following your point
[blockquote] “I think it is fair to say that you are interpreting those words and actions to conclude that Abp. Welby is planning another Rowan style Primates meeting during and after which the ABC thwarts the decisions of the Primates.” [/blockquote]
I am sorry but I just do not know what this means. The issue with previous Primates meetings was not whether they were “Rowan style” (whatever that means) or any other style, but whether or not the ABC was prepared to give effect to their decisions afterwards.
[blockquote] “I respectfully suggest that your conclusion is not supported by the evidence available to date.” [/blockquote]
I am not convinced from the above that you really understand my conclusion, nor do I see how the evidence you cite relates to it. So I can’t say much more.
[blockquote] “I think it is fair to say that the GAFCON Primates themselves have not decided whether your interpretation is correct.” [/blockquote]
I think it is certain that the GAFCON Primates have no thoughts at all about what you call “my interpretation”.
[blockquote] “Both the GAFCON announcement and the chairman’s September letter do not support your conclusion that Abp. Welby’s call for a meeting is just another re-run of Rowan’s tactics.” [/blockquote]
Neither the announcement nor the letter decide or demonstrate what ++Welby intends. It does not even demonstrate what they think he intends – there can be more than one reason for attending (or not attending) a meeting. I suggest reading whatever reasons they give when they announce their decision. That shouldn’t take long as GS primates have recently had a meeting with ++Welby in Cairo.
[blockquote] “I think that the best examples of how Jesus dealt with heretics were His interactions with the Temple authorities. Jesus repeatedly entered the Temple and bluntly stated the Temple establishment’s errors to their faces.” [/blockquote]
Really – when did he do this?
[blockquote] “I respectfully submit that the best evidence of whether this meeting will be another Rowan style event will be that the GAFCON Primates decide not to attend.”[/blockquote]
I see – so if the Gafcon Primates attend, we must then conclude that ++Welby’s intentions are good, regardless of what he actually does at the meeting or afterwards? Let me tweak your comment: “I submit that the best evidence of whether this meeting will be another Rowan style event will be provided by ++Welby’s actions at the meeting and afterwards.”