Rarely has an archbishop been so tested. Only days before he attends the General Synod in York, Dr Rowan Williams has received a letter from more than 1,300 clergy, including 11 serving bishops, threatening to defect from the Church of England if women are consecrated bishops. The letter comes hard on the heels of an equally minatory ultimatum issued in Jerusalem last week by more than 250 bishops from across the Anglican Communion excoriating the Archbishop of Canterbury for his lack of moral leadership and calling on traditionalists to “sideline” him.
That is not all. In a challenge to his authority as primus inter pares, some 800 Church of England clergy and lay leaders took the first step on Tuesday to forming a “Church within a Church”. Led by three overseas bishops, the group met in a London evangelical church to assert their opposition to the ordination of [noncelibate] gay people as well as an anathema on liberal theology that they said was undermining the Church.
In the confusion of reading the first part of the last paragraph, I was wondering if I was reading a quote or an editorialize opinion. If it is a quote from Rowan Williams’ mouth, is he also going to take the low road by bringing up the property issue? Is that how he believes he can hold the Communion together?
Who are the real “rebels”, the supporters of the Jerusalem Declaration and Gafcon or those implementing non-biblical innovations? Haven’t we also seen “narrowness, self-righteousness and arrogance” in their response to the orthodox?
[i]There is a narrowness, self-righteousness and arrogance about some of the rebels that is deeply unappealing.[/i]
Loyalty to what the Church has always taught will always seem “narrow” to some, so I suppose we shall have to put up with that charge. But what basis do the charges of self-righteousness and arrogance have? Or do they mean no more than “How dare anyone disagree with the conventional wisdom of the current age?”
There will always be those who do not believe that there is any such thing as righteousness, so that anyone who preaches righteousness must be “self-righteousness”; and there will always be those who do not believe that there is any such thing as truth, so that anyone who preaches the truth must be “arrogant.”
Is not it Jesus who tells us about narrow doors, narrow ways, eyes of needles, etc.? The broad way leads to …. oh well …. nevermind, they have neither eyes that can see nor ears that can hear.
Wait a minute. They have rebelled against the Word, and they call us rebels ???
Here is a rhetorical move that one sees repeatedly, and finally it is starting to backfire. The ABC or the TEC is asked to take action x, y, or z. Their predictable response: “Ah, but we have no authority to do that!” So then the conservatives take some action to deal with x, y, or z. The new response: “You can’t do that! You are impinging on our authority!” But now the conservatives have finally seen through the game, and are agreeing with them: “Yes, you ABC and TEC; we agree. You have no authority.” It reminds me a little bit of Gandalf breaking the staff of Saruman, and kicking him out of the counsel of wizards….
England is a frightening place to live these days. Those deemed intolerant are not tolerated. Those who will judge right from wrong are condemned without judgment.
#6: Your post made me think about how the situation can be articulated farther. This [i] rebel [/i] group has its vision focused on “faithâ€. There is nothing that the ABofC or TEC can do to stop them from agreeing on how to define and follow that faith. The ABofC and TEC are focused on “workâ€s. All they seem capable of doing is promoting restrictions on methane emissions, embracing universalism, litigating over property, focusing on polity and coercing using mission funds.
[blockquote] From text of linked
Dr Williams … are unwilling to concede for fear of enshrining discrimination.†[/blockquote]
Being clergy is not a civil right. The Church in the USA stated its decline with feigning that being clergy was a civil right, and the extension of that allows for those who call sodomy holy to be clergy. What ever a person view as women as priest, the civil rights argument does not apply in my mind.
Lee in Pasadena:
We will shortly find out if Cantuar has ( or claims) authority or not, as he is finally being forced to act. If he does nothing, the Gafcon bishops will proceed to develop a scriptural core within the communion in the absence of impediment. Also, he will lose 10% of the clergy in the COE. Bye Bye Canterbury.
It seems as if, from recent history, that Rowan is attempting to tacitly support the revisionists through inaction. The genius of GAFCON is that that strategy has been turned against him. If he truly supports orthodoxy, as he has seemed to claim at times, then he can still act to support it, albeit at the loss of personal dignity.
He has painted himself into a corner, and it is time for him to go.
#10, the AbofC can do whatever he wants or do nothing. GAFCON will proceed as it will. GAFCON has given him 5 years to take action (whatever action he can take – like not invite certain bishops to Lambeth) against TEC and ACofC. He has refused, thwarted the efforts of the primates meetings and communque’s they have put forth to TEC, and now the GAFCON clergy and bishops are done with him. They are no longer going to work with him or within the structures of the AC, because they have been ignored for the last 5 years (and prior to that). In sum, GAFCON has lost “faith” in AbofC and AC structures, so it is proceeding on its on to be faithful Anglicans, but within the AC (so no lawsuits, etc. hamper the message of faith, hope and love). That is what frightens GAFCON opposition – their fear of irrelevancy has come to pass.
#11 Billy, what exactly is it that reappraisers like myself should have to fear from GAFCON? Despite their statement that they are not separating from the Anglican Communion, they have pretty much stated that they intend to ignore the current instruments of communion — and if that’s different from a formal schism, it’s only by a hair. They intend to recognize a new province in North America, which of course they are free to do; but I don’t see what impact that will have on TEC, nor do I see that it should have any effect on the legal status of property disputed between departing parishes or dioceses and TEC.
If the GAFCON group is happier forming their own Primates’ Council and associating only with other Anglicans they deem sufficiently orthodox, then God bless ’em and more power to them; I wish them well. But the only practical result I can see from the perspective of TEC is that from now on, most of the GAFCON leaders won’t be at the same meetings that TEC leaders are at.
#12, Ross, you, as a layman in TEC, may have nothing to fear. Your insular world may not change. The hierchy of TEC and most of the reappraising AC will fear irrelevancy. When the vast majority of the AC ignores them (TEC and other reappraising provincial churches) and their pronouncements and their money offerings with contingencies on them – as noted by Canon Cameron in another thread – then they begin to shrink, their money begins to dry up, and they become irrelevant to the world – they become a “sect,” no longer a denomination. Sects are ignored. Bp Chane, Bp Bruno, Bp Schori can probably put up with a lot of things, but being ignored is not one of them. TEC is a proud church (maybe arrogantly proud) with a proud history (note it likes to tout how many Presidents have been Episcopalians). When it sinks below a certain number of members, when it has to close churches all over the place, as it is presently already having to do in the Northeast, that pride takes a big hit. No one wants to be irrelevant. TEC is becoming so, and GAFCON will accelerate that process.
Politics makes one blind as the three rats in the poem……