The Archbishop supports the decision of the Province of Kenya to provide resident Episcopal oversight for the clergy and congregations in the United States who placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Kenya after they had arrived at the conclusion that the Episcopal Church no longer offered them the assurance of continuity with “The faith once delivered to the saints.” The provision of adequate pastoral care and episcopate oversight constitutes a deliberate and intentional effort to provide stability in an environment in which Anglicanism is being severely tested and challenged.
The Primates of the Communion at their meeting in Tanzania in February produced a communion response to the embattled state of Anglicanism in the United States in their offer of a provisional pastoral arrangement which provided space for the participation of all the major Anglican entities in the United States. Unfortunately, the unanimous offer of the Primates was rejected by the House of Bishops and the Executive Committee of the Episcopal Church. In the face of this unequivocal rejection, the Instruments of Communion must determine the most appropriate response to this unfortunate spectacle of a fragmented Anglicanism within the United States of America.
In this context, the decision of the Province of Kenya signals a willingness on the part of that Province to act responsibly to provide care for persons already under its jurisdiction. In addition, the selection of the Rev’d. Canon Bill Atwood as Suffragan Bishop is highly commendable. Canon Atwood is well suited for this particular ministry given his long association with Kenya and some of the other Provinces in CAPA and his unquestionable knowledge and appreciation of the ecclesial situation in the United States.
Finally, the willingness of the Province of Kenya to collaborate with the other orthodox Anglicans in the United States could serve the point towards a creation of a viable, stable and orthodox Anglican presence in the United States.
It is wonderful to see this unified response on the part of the conservative Primates in the Communion.
As I said over at SF, both Communion conservatives and Federal conservatives should be pleased, as frankly the only chance for Rowan to act seems to be if he sees that there will be consequences if he does not.
I’ve always said that my first hope would be a disciplined ordered communion identity of integrity. But my second is that the communion divides, should the former not happen, with primates of orthodox persuasion acting with principle and integrity and departing together.
As a communion conservative, I still hope for the former.
You and I both, Sarah. Thank goodness it is not up to us.
It’s interesting: worldly wisdom would have it that these various primates ought to be scrapping for turf and American money. It doesn’t seem to be happening that way. Hmmmm…. maybe these aren’t worldly men? Ya think?
No matter what path is taken, Sarah and Kendall, there is going to a convulsion in American Anglicanism, and likely elsewhere, too.
The Archbishop of the West Indies is due to address the General Synod of the Church of England on 8 July as part of its consideration of the draft Anglican Covenant. He is, of course, doing this in his capacity as Chair of the Anglican Covenant Design Group.
There is already a gathering body of criticism in the Church of England of the Anglican Covenant idea, of the Anglican Covenant process, and of the various Anglican Covenant drafts, and some of this criticism has been circulated with the official papers for the General Synod debate.
Drexel Gomez’s credibility with the “swing voters” at this crucial debate is likely to be damaged by this public endorsement of border crossing into the USA, which is in breach of many Lambeth Conference resolutions, and contrary to the wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury are being ignored more and more as well they should be! We are well on our way to a post AB of C led Anglican Communion thanks to his ineffective leadership and refusal to use the moral authority his office “once” held” early on during the current crisis to uphold the decisions and statements of the Instruments of Unity.
#5. Yes badman, these many and varied factors coming into play do make these interesting times. The Church of England is of course a microcosm of the divisions around the communion. There is much being said and done to negate the Covenant proposal in the CofE and that will carry considerable weight in the Communion no doubt. But if General Synod rejects it, then what? If you are implying there is sympathy with Canterbury in General Synod and they then reject the Covenant, it doesn’t give him much more room for manoeuvre. Ironic that the Church of England itself could find itself splitting because Canterbury’s allies refuse to go down Canterbury’s route as supported by Drexel Gomez.
One wonders if it is inconceivable that – in the CofE melt down scenario – Global South Primates could see themselves overseeing and Anglican presence in the UK?!…..
Badman wrote, “Drexel Gomez’s credibility with the “swing voters†at this crucial debate is likely to be damaged by this public endorsement of border crossing into the USA, which is in breach of many Lambeth Conference resolutions, and contrary to the wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury.” What utter rot! The ABC has said nothing about the consecration of Bp-elect Atwood. He apparently, perhaps, maybe voiced his objections to the installation of Bp Minns but that is not a matter of public record. What Lambeth resolutions? This guy is apparently making it up as he goes along.
Rev. Kendall and Sarah, to the extent that one can know another in a blog, over the past three years I have come to know, respect, and like both of you very much. But your hope was destroyed many years ago by your church.
And if I’m wrong, whatever political compromise Canterbury and the Primates cobble together to prevent a breakup of the communion will be too late for me. Too late for Christ Church Plano, for Truro, for Bishops Minns, Murphy, Barnum, Johnston, Atwood, too late for the Continuing Churches. The facts on the ground are not going to change, my friends. If you turn out to be right, do you really think that we will all come back and submit to the authority of a church that in its heart still does not believe that Christ is the only means by which we are saved? Do you think we will ever trust those who hold authority in your church ever again?
No, we’re not coming back. And we are truly sorry that you have chosen to stay.
RR
Badman may be reporting a number of things that appear to be going on to try to influence the CofE General Synod in York in the same way that Integrity and others appear to have influenced if not been a substantial and directing presence on the US Executive Committee and its working group.
Thinking Anglicans report http: //www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/ :-
1. ‘GS – a note on the Draft Anglican Covenant’ A paper by a number of people including the American Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford, Marilyn McCord Adams and others which concludes that ‘the Covenant is a route to disunity’
2. ‘GS Fringe Groups’ Changing Attitudes report the attendance of Davis Mac-Iyalla from Nigeria hot foot from his tour of the US and his session with the Executive Council.
http://www.changingattitude.org.uk/news/newsitem.asp?id=302
Anglican Mainstream are also lobbying apparently.
William#2 – You do realize, I hope, that CANA, the AMIA, Christ Church Plano, Truro, Minns, Murphy Barnum, Johnston, and Atwood all consider themselves part of the Anglican Communion and in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. All of these people are working for the same thing Kendall and Sarah are working for.
Now, if you are speaking of TEC, I think that what one of the important aspects of this statement by Gomez is that it represents a statement by one of the most influential moderate conservative primates suggesting that the future of Anglicanism in the USA is to be found in a replacement province and NOT in a reformed 815 led TEC.
Sorry the link is here:
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/
Badman – yes, there obviously will be opponents in the CofE of the Covenant. No surprise there. The liberals – be they English or American – don’t want any accountability within the Anglican Communion. These liberals already have great disdain for Abp. Gomez. Just look at what the late Bp. Kelsey of Michigan wrote about Ephraim Radner’s presentation to the HOB. Radner and Gomez are closely identified in Anglican circles. Look at what the other TEC person on the Covenant Design Group said about the process.
It is my guess that the CofE will sign on to the Covenant despite some internal opposition. I doubt that Gomez’s statement will affect things one way or the other.
“Drexel Gomez’s credibility with the ‘swing voters’ at this crucial debate is likely to be damaged by this public endorsement of border crossing into the USA”
Maybe so. But then the swing voters may be such precisely because they’d rather not take action.
ECUSA itself continues to act in willful and flagrant “breach of many Lambeth Conference resolutions, and contrary to the wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
Given ECUSA’s accelerating turn towards apostasy, ostentatious fussing about border-crossing seems almost cynical.
Re: ” in breach of many Lambeth Conference resolutions, and contrary to the wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
For the record, the unanimous statement of the Primates at Dar on border crossings was the following:
ECUSA has chosen not to end the border crossings.
William,
I honestly don’t understand what on earth you are talking about, except that you still sound bitter after all these years, which I do not understand. It’s as if you have not been able to let go of *other people’s choices*.
You said this: “The facts on the ground are not going to change, my friends.”
And why should they change? I don’t recall saying that they would. Rather, I expect them to escalate, as ECUSA’s bad decisions and Canterbury’s indecisions lead to further consequences — which is a good thing.
RE: “If you turn out to be right, do you really think that we will all come back and submit to the authority of a church that in its heart still does not believe that Christ is the only means by which we are saved?”
Goodness no. Of course, if we turn out to be right [that is, in our desire for the Anglican Communion to establish a disciplined, ordered, and boundaried identity — I guess that’s what you meant by “right”], then there will be another province in the US, and maybe you will want to be a part of it. Or maybe not. But I’ve no idea why you think I think you would want to come back to ECUSA!
RE: “Do you think we will ever trust those who hold authority in your church ever again?”
And why should you? Can’t tell if you mean ECUSA or the Anglican Communion. But if ECUSA, then I haven’t trusted “those who hold authority” in ECUSA for nearly four years.
If the Anglican Communion, then should the Anglican Communion discipline itself, I don’t know if you will trust “those who hold authority” in the the Anglican Communion or not, but in any case, I’ll certainly be a little less suspicious, though probably not trusting.
RE: “No, we’re not coming back.”
Huh? And when did I say that you were? No idea what you mean, again.
RE: “And we are truly sorry that you have chosen to stay.”
I do not have a moment’s regret that I have stayed in the Anglican Communion. As I have said consistently, should the Anglican Communion discipline itself and establish its identity, it will have been worth it. And should the Anglican Communion not . . . it will have been worth it. The Anglican Communion is too valuable to me to give up without a fight.
I am very happy for you that you chose to leave — I have never tried to hold anyone back from either leaving or staying.
But your comments above are a mystery — perhaps you have mistaken me for someone else.
Actually, quite true. If++Akinola had not released his letter in reply, which confirmed things, this would still be hearsay. That does beg the question how much is the ABC in control of his own house? Is Kearon acting as a henchman or as rouge with an agenda or maybe a little of both?
Sarah, its nice to hear from you. Still owe you that lunch in Jacksonville if that jogs your memory. Bitter? Well, yes and no. I would not change a single decision I have made, but there has been a heavy cost in broken or strained relationships with people I care about, including family members. Sometimes when I read these blogs, I think that the luminaries in Anglicanism have ZERO pastoral sense of what people have, and continue to go through in this sorry mess.
To make myself more clear, if thats possible when talking about these things, it seems to me that you explicitly still hope for a “disciplined ordered communion of integrity,” and your second hope is for the conservative primates to leave as a group and establish an alternative. I said explicitly your first hope was destroyed by your church many years ago, and there’s nothing mysterious about that–you say yourself you quit trusting them 4 years ago. How can you have your first hope with TEC still in the Anglican Communion? Its simply not possible. All things are possible with God, right? Well, the caveat is that God gave us free will to say *No* to Him.
So my point that we’re not coming back is pretty simple. No matter what the AC says, we don’t trust your church. Even if the bosses “declare” that Sarah and Kendall now have their “first hope,” we will not believe it. And you would be foolish if you did.
If the second “hope” occurs, I will probably be a part of it.
But my suspicion is that various people will talk about this endlessly without a real decision, people like me will continue to leave, and your church will continue to dwindle.
Wow, William. Is it possible that after four years of my and others saying it, you never understood?
You say: “To make myself more clear, if thats possible when talking about these things, it seems to me that you explicitly still hope for a “disciplined ordered communion of integrity,†. . . ”
Yes — I do.
And then you say: ” . . . I said explicitly your first hope was destroyed by your church many years ago, and there’s nothing mysterious about that–you say yourself you quit trusting them 4 years ago. How can you have your first hope with TEC still in the Anglican Communion? Its simply not possible.”
You are exactly right. A “disciplined ordered communion of integrity” would involve a severely straightened, disciplined ECUSA. Whatever was left of ECUSA that was orthodox would be in the Anglican Communion. The rest could do what they wish to do — off somewhere not in a communion which they have thoroughly despised.
I have no idea whether this will happen or not. If it does, then the Anglican Communion will be moving closer to becoming a disciplined ordered communion of integrity. If it does not, then I hope for Option Two, mentioned above.
Of course . . . none of what I said above is different from what I’ve said for the past four years. So I’ve no reason to believe that what I’ve said will today will sink in . . .
Sarah, thank you for the patience and courtesy of your response. That people such as yourself, Rev. Harmon and others with obvious goodness and intelligence still hope that a “severely straightened, disciplined ECUSA” will occur at any point in time is about as hard to believe as the straightening out itself will occur. But there your words are, and they have finally . . . sunk . . . in.
Have a blessed day,
William
Do you think that it is possible that you will remember it, though?
; > )
I do agree that the discipline of ECUSA is hard to see, and may be very unlikely. But as I said above and earlier, the Anglican Communion is too valuable for me not to try.
I understand that others do not find it to be too valuable to try. And that’s fine.
But I regret none of my effort. Should I leave, I will leave knowing that I did all that I could for something that is such a treasure as the communion.
Sarah:
The odds that I will remember it are definitely better than the odds that I will become a female Episcopal Muslim/Christian Priest. I’m sure we’ll argue about something else soon, but until that time,
fondly,
William