This is cause for hope and rejoicing. I can already hear the mumbling rising up in moan and complaint and predictions of failure and accusations of imperfection. Still, I cling to the God who brings good out of evil and promises strength in weakness. This plan has the potential to keep the wheezing lings of TEC from collapsing. I say God bless it, protect it, and be glorified in and through it. It is light in darkness and a morning star. I commit to being an intercessor for the Plan, to offer many masses for it’s success and ask Our Lady and all the saints to pray for it’s mission. Jesus Christ be praised!
1. The version found written on the wall in Mother Teresa’s home for children in Calcutta:
People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway.
What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. Create anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway.
Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. Give your best anyway.
In the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.
Good luck, folks. The Network didn’t work. The Episcopal Synod didn’t work. This is TEC, not the CofE. Dissenters will be marginalized. Postulants will be forced into unsuitable seminaries and taught unorthodox topics. Conservative bishops will not receive consents. I wish you the best, and I hope I’m wrong.
The only part of Fr. Levenson’s advice I can agree with is that the Common Cause is a possible way forward for those who leave.
Russell Levenson was kind enough to quote the question I raise about the long-term viability of a witness in the Episcopal Church that conforms to the teaching of the Prayer Book. I hope the Communion Partners Plan will help preserve that witness and wish it well.
I appreciate the witness of Charles Simeon of Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge, UK of the early 1800s, and the apparent feeling behind this piece.
However, several notes sound a bit off key.
For example, on one hand he asserts: “I see very little measurable growth in any of the break-away movements…†and then attributes any actual growth to reception of congregations leaving TEC, carrying attendant lawsuits.
This “Perspective X†appears to be an efficacy standard. If there were measurable growth from the perspective of the author, then he might consider leaving. Further, his explanation of actual growth does not appear consistent with reports from the AMiA, which faces few lawsuits and in which most churches are new works.
In “Perspective Y,†he admits that those who have left may have been called to do so:
[blockquote]“We remain because we have not been called (as some of our brothers and sisters have) to leave.â€[/blockquote]
It would seem that if “Perspective Y†is valid, then perspective X would not be a serious consideration. If he does not question the “call,” then Perspective X is a subordinate issue. Shifting perspectives undermines the overall message.
Yet, it is the implied “Perspective Z,†which appears, IMHO, to be the most limiting. In this perspective, those who leave TEC for the oversight of a different Anglican province are leaving the Anglican Church, equivalent to those who leave to become southern Baptist, non-denom, Methodist, or Presbyterian.
Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of a clear definition of the communion status of these missionary groups, or their future with the AC. We do not have the luxury of knowing the future of the AC itself, which has been gravely damaged by TEC and the ABC. That said, the overseeing provinces have maintained that they are staying in the AC (as opposed to “…‘fleeing’ a dying Anglican churchâ€), even as the AC appears to be devolving into a loose federation. Further, the missionary movements are being (or have been) incorporated into the overseeing provinces. We do not know how TEC will relate to these provinces in the future, or to the AC as whole, or what the AC will even be.
We each may have our reservations about paths not taken. However, this is a much more complicated and uncertain situation than Perspective Z seems to consider, and one which calls for a good bit of charity in dealings among reasserters.
Fr. Levenson (in the DoT., he may prefer “Mr.”), sounds like a good man and my disagreement is offered with respect.
The spiritually dead environment in which Charles Simeon (and the Wesley’s, for that matter) ministered is not analogous to the current situation in the Episcopal Church. Today you have cancerous heresies actively killing off the healthy parts of the body. Fr. Levenson’s next bishop has said he won’t permit same-sex blessings or ordain those not celibate. If canons change (as they likely will), will that change? If not this new bishop, will the next new one permit these practices? In 20 years, will St. Martin’s be [i]allowed[/i] to deny matrimony to same-sex couples? Will the rector then, who has never read John Stott, but has heard enough to avoid him, introduce her lesbian partner at her first sermon, when she begins a review of Bishop Spong’s [i]A New Christianity for a New World[/i]?
That said, I, like Katherine, wish the Communion Partners well and hope I’m wrong.
I have asked before and not received an answer as to what the Communion Partners Plan does that could not have been done a year ago. The answer is nothing. A bishop could then and still can ask a foreign primate to visit or call them on the phone or fire off an email. A rector could then and still can ask a foreign bishop to visit WITH THE PERMISSION OF HIS BISHOP. So the whole business will generate paper and phone calls and meetings and signify nothing new except to make the appearance that something is being done so as to mollify the restless natives.
[blockquote]but we are also crystal clear that we will not capitulate to any agenda that runs contrary to the authority and traditional interpretation of Holy Scripture[/blockquote]
Oh really, have you ensured that none of your parish is funding abortion, the homosexual agenda, or lawsuits? Since money is fungible the only way to do make sure of this is not give anything to the diocese.
[blockquote]I wrote her with my good wishes, and then clearly said, “Every time a parish, or a group of Christians like you make the decision to leave, it certainly makes it more difficult to do the very thing you have asked me to do…nevertheless, we will try and do just that.”[/blockquote]
We will [i]try and do just that[/i]? How about “we will TRY TO DO just that.” As Katherine points out, the history shows that differentiation gestures of the orthodox in the TEC have resulted in nothing but the orthodox fleeing or being assimilated. So the institutionalists might “try to do just that” but they will fail with weak responses such as this non-plan.
I fear that Fr. Levinson, the members of the ACI, and many others in the Communion camp are dealing with things more the way they wish them to be than the way they actually are. I recommend a careful reading and study of William Ury’s books “Getting to Yes†and “Getting Past No.†These are the classics in negotiation strategy and tactics. What the Communion camp folks better get in place is their BATNA – best alternative to a negotiated agreement.
What I see is a group of folks that are sincere in their beliefs and desires, and possibly confusing prophetic witness with a martyr complex. When I hear people state that there is nothing that could make them abandon TEC, then I know their leverage is lost. TEC holds almost all the cards in this situation and has time and money on their side. Yes, I know that God can intervene and change everything in the twinkling of an eye, but I don’t know that I would plan on that.
It really saddens me, but I when I think about this situation I keep seeing in my mind’s eye the picture of a bruised wife cowering before her husband, unable to bring herself to leave him, as he bellows “don’t make me hit you again.â€
One question to be posed is how Communion Partner clergy answer the question from their laity about where their contributions go. Yes, I know that clergy will say that the money can be directed to the local church, but what are you going to do when your canons change to implement mandatory assessments? When you are forced to pay to feed the beast, what will you do then? Is waiting to be thrown out the door the best way to shepherd your flocks?
His “reflection” sounds a bit like the Titanic Band going down with the ship, the music gives comfort to those of us who do not have a life boat. Calling the Carpathia, please hurry!
It is impossible to mount a persuasive defense for an indefensible plan, but here is the line that is so troubling to me: “We remain to say that the orthodox voice IS an authentic piece of the Anglican/Episcopal tapestry.” What other authentic pieces could there be in the tapestry other than the orthodox voice?
If you want to be in TEC and in the AC why do you need to join this? Just stay where and go along to get along.
This is cause for hope and rejoicing. I can already hear the mumbling rising up in moan and complaint and predictions of failure and accusations of imperfection. Still, I cling to the God who brings good out of evil and promises strength in weakness. This plan has the potential to keep the wheezing lings of TEC from collapsing. I say God bless it, protect it, and be glorified in and through it. It is light in darkness and a morning star. I commit to being an intercessor for the Plan, to offer many masses for it’s success and ask Our Lady and all the saints to pray for it’s mission. Jesus Christ be praised!
1. The version found written on the wall in Mother Teresa’s home for children in Calcutta:
People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies. Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you. Be honest and sincere anyway.
What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight. Create anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous. Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, will often be forgotten. Do good anyway.
Give the best you have, and it will never be enough. Give your best anyway.
In the final analysis, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.
oops! “lings” should read LUNGS.
Good luck, folks. The Network didn’t work. The Episcopal Synod didn’t work. This is TEC, not the CofE. Dissenters will be marginalized. Postulants will be forced into unsuitable seminaries and taught unorthodox topics. Conservative bishops will not receive consents. I wish you the best, and I hope I’m wrong.
The only part of Fr. Levenson’s advice I can agree with is that the Common Cause is a possible way forward for those who leave.
Russell Levenson was kind enough to quote the question I raise about the long-term viability of a witness in the Episcopal Church that conforms to the teaching of the Prayer Book. I hope the Communion Partners Plan will help preserve that witness and wish it well.
I appreciate the witness of Charles Simeon of Holy Trinity Church, Cambridge, UK of the early 1800s, and the apparent feeling behind this piece.
However, several notes sound a bit off key.
For example, on one hand he asserts: “I see very little measurable growth in any of the break-away movements…†and then attributes any actual growth to reception of congregations leaving TEC, carrying attendant lawsuits.
This “Perspective X†appears to be an efficacy standard. If there were measurable growth from the perspective of the author, then he might consider leaving. Further, his explanation of actual growth does not appear consistent with reports from the AMiA, which faces few lawsuits and in which most churches are new works.
In “Perspective Y,†he admits that those who have left may have been called to do so:
[blockquote]“We remain because we have not been called (as some of our brothers and sisters have) to leave.â€[/blockquote]
It would seem that if “Perspective Y†is valid, then perspective X would not be a serious consideration. If he does not question the “call,” then Perspective X is a subordinate issue. Shifting perspectives undermines the overall message.
Yet, it is the implied “Perspective Z,†which appears, IMHO, to be the most limiting. In this perspective, those who leave TEC for the oversight of a different Anglican province are leaving the Anglican Church, equivalent to those who leave to become southern Baptist, non-denom, Methodist, or Presbyterian.
Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of a clear definition of the communion status of these missionary groups, or their future with the AC. We do not have the luxury of knowing the future of the AC itself, which has been gravely damaged by TEC and the ABC. That said, the overseeing provinces have maintained that they are staying in the AC (as opposed to “…‘fleeing’ a dying Anglican churchâ€), even as the AC appears to be devolving into a loose federation. Further, the missionary movements are being (or have been) incorporated into the overseeing provinces. We do not know how TEC will relate to these provinces in the future, or to the AC as whole, or what the AC will even be.
We each may have our reservations about paths not taken. However, this is a much more complicated and uncertain situation than Perspective Z seems to consider, and one which calls for a good bit of charity in dealings among reasserters.
Fr. Levenson (in the DoT., he may prefer “Mr.”), sounds like a good man and my disagreement is offered with respect.
The spiritually dead environment in which Charles Simeon (and the Wesley’s, for that matter) ministered is not analogous to the current situation in the Episcopal Church. Today you have cancerous heresies actively killing off the healthy parts of the body. Fr. Levenson’s next bishop has said he won’t permit same-sex blessings or ordain those not celibate. If canons change (as they likely will), will that change? If not this new bishop, will the next new one permit these practices? In 20 years, will St. Martin’s be [i]allowed[/i] to deny matrimony to same-sex couples? Will the rector then, who has never read John Stott, but has heard enough to avoid him, introduce her lesbian partner at her first sermon, when she begins a review of Bishop Spong’s [i]A New Christianity for a New World[/i]?
That said, I, like Katherine, wish the Communion Partners well and hope I’m wrong.
I have asked before and not received an answer as to what the Communion Partners Plan does that could not have been done a year ago. The answer is nothing. A bishop could then and still can ask a foreign primate to visit or call them on the phone or fire off an email. A rector could then and still can ask a foreign bishop to visit WITH THE PERMISSION OF HIS BISHOP. So the whole business will generate paper and phone calls and meetings and signify nothing new except to make the appearance that something is being done so as to mollify the restless natives.
[blockquote]but we are also crystal clear that we will not capitulate to any agenda that runs contrary to the authority and traditional interpretation of Holy Scripture[/blockquote]
Oh really, have you ensured that none of your parish is funding abortion, the homosexual agenda, or lawsuits? Since money is fungible the only way to do make sure of this is not give anything to the diocese.
[blockquote]I wrote her with my good wishes, and then clearly said, “Every time a parish, or a group of Christians like you make the decision to leave, it certainly makes it more difficult to do the very thing you have asked me to do…nevertheless, we will try and do just that.”[/blockquote]
We will [i]try and do just that[/i]? How about “we will TRY TO DO just that.” As Katherine points out, the history shows that differentiation gestures of the orthodox in the TEC have resulted in nothing but the orthodox fleeing or being assimilated. So the institutionalists might “try to do just that” but they will fail with weak responses such as this non-plan.
Re: the way the Partners Plan underscores the limited role of the PB in the self-governing life of anglicanism in the US, see
http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/145/1/
I fear that Fr. Levinson, the members of the ACI, and many others in the Communion camp are dealing with things more the way they wish them to be than the way they actually are. I recommend a careful reading and study of William Ury’s books “Getting to Yes†and “Getting Past No.†These are the classics in negotiation strategy and tactics. What the Communion camp folks better get in place is their BATNA – best alternative to a negotiated agreement.
What I see is a group of folks that are sincere in their beliefs and desires, and possibly confusing prophetic witness with a martyr complex. When I hear people state that there is nothing that could make them abandon TEC, then I know their leverage is lost. TEC holds almost all the cards in this situation and has time and money on their side. Yes, I know that God can intervene and change everything in the twinkling of an eye, but I don’t know that I would plan on that.
It really saddens me, but I when I think about this situation I keep seeing in my mind’s eye the picture of a bruised wife cowering before her husband, unable to bring herself to leave him, as he bellows “don’t make me hit you again.â€
One question to be posed is how Communion Partner clergy answer the question from their laity about where their contributions go. Yes, I know that clergy will say that the money can be directed to the local church, but what are you going to do when your canons change to implement mandatory assessments? When you are forced to pay to feed the beast, what will you do then? Is waiting to be thrown out the door the best way to shepherd your flocks?
His “reflection” sounds a bit like the Titanic Band going down with the ship, the music gives comfort to those of us who do not have a life boat. Calling the Carpathia, please hurry!
It is impossible to mount a persuasive defense for an indefensible plan, but here is the line that is so troubling to me: “We remain to say that the orthodox voice IS an authentic piece of the Anglican/Episcopal tapestry.” What other authentic pieces could there be in the tapestry other than the orthodox voice?
Leave the word “Episcopal” out of the tapestry…..it no longer belongs there!
How can they be “in communiion” with people who don’t believe that Jesus is the only way and all TEC’s other wacky beliefs?
Bill McGovern (#12), the same phrase jumped out at me as well.
“Re: the way the Partners Plan underscores the limited role of the PB in the self-governing life of anglicanism in the US, see…”
Right. That is true until GC09 when we will have a popette who will be able to excommunicate laity.