You must pray, you must reflect, you must listen. You must also act. Let me suggest four central actions you must come to a common mind about. In all these cases I use the term “must”, not because I am absolutely certain of these matters, but because I believe that God is indeed calling you to act, and this belief is buttressed by the discernment of countless others around the Communion.
1. You must state clearly that the actions of TEC as an official body, and of certain Canadian dioceses, are unacceptable to you as bishops of the Communion. And you must decide, resolutely, that those bishops from these churches who are in agreement to press forward in ways the Communion has now clearly and consistently repudiated no longer partake in your common councils. I am not eager to state this; but I know of no other reasonable course to take at this point. This is not a matter of punishment, or even “discipline” in any technical form: it is a matter of common Christian sense. TEC (to use this example) has demonstrated clearly, and with increasing hard-heartedness, that it does not wish to respect the common recommendations and pleas and even hopes of the Communion as a whole. Not only that, TEC’s enacted wish to go her own way has caused chaos in our midst.
I do not deny that a part of that chaos has involved reactive responses by other provinces and bishops in the Communion; and that, in a merely pragmatic way, some of these responses have sown an extensive amount of confusion that requires disciplined resolution (see below). But the root cause of all of this has been, without doubt, the uncompromising insistence by TEC’s leaders that they must go their own way. In March of 2007, I was present when a proposal was made to TEC’s House of Bishops that TEC take 5 or 10 years “break” from the Communion; it was a proposal that was greeted with much applause by the bishops. Now is the time to take this proposal up among yourselves, and formally accept it with deliberated application to your own common life.
You can still be friends; you may still choose to cooperate in this or that matter. But the disagreement between TEC and the Communion’s members as a whole has become too great and too destructive, and “walking together” (Amos 3:3) is not only no longer possible; it has long ceased in any substantive way.
Ephraim, HUSH!! You’re interrupting our indaba!
Sheeesh….
I’m not sure the bishops are going to react well to being told what they ‘must’ do. The bishops gathered only ‘must’ do anything Radner or ACI says if they want the Communion to look like Radner wants it to look. That’s not the only way it has to look. Not to mention, there are some who will argue that no one can even be friends with TEC and still be a part of the Communion, so Radner’s ‘must’ isn’t even strong enough to satisfy all positions.
One may not need to go through Canterbury to get to Jesus, but it seems increasingly like one must go through Abuja or the ACI in order to do so. In the end, that won’t work either.
My question to Ephraim is, how, given how Lambeth 2008 is actually structured, and given who is and is not in attendance, is it possible even to begin to try to do what he proposes.
dcreinken in #2, you are continuing a pattern in your comments, which is to exaggerate or mischaracterize those who disagree with you.
There are, you say,
“some who will argue that no one can even be friends with TEC and still be a part of the Communion.”
Tell who the some are, cite where they have said such please.
As for the first point, Ephraim is making a passionate plea given how much is at stake and his language reflects that. And it is not at all fair to Ephraim to suggest that he wants it to look like he wants it to look; he wants it to look as Christ wants it but wishes to be involved in the conversation and make a contribution toward that end.
What is so distressing is how much influence England and America, to the exclusion or at least severe lessening of so many others, are driving the communion to their ends.
I could imagine an approach that might work. If the bishops from the non-Gafcon African provinces, Asia and conservatives from the First World were simply to refuse to participate in any indaba session until the matters to which Ephraim refers had been addressed (to put it another way, who had “standing” to join an indaba session) it might be hard to go with the present arrangement.
Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent such bishops from convening (under the auspices of the Bishop of Rochester, perhaps) and passing resolutions to this effect. There would then be a synodical response from Lambeth to which ALL on the reasserter side of the question could refer. The Archbishop of Canterbury is free to arrange the Lambeth Conference as he sees fit, but he can’t require participants to follow a specified course if they refuse to do so. All this is probably overly optimistic, but in light of everything else that’s been going on recently, what’s to prevent it?
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
One can only wonder if ++Rowan sees in Ephraim+’s message the very same threads that ++Rowan wove in his Reflections on the state of the communion message of two summers ago. Lord God! It has been that long, and apparently ++Rowan has forgotten his own words, which hopefully Radner will quicken in the AoC’s breast. As #5 points out, there are synods and then there are other synods, but don’t make the convenient mistake that all synods are the same, nor the mistake of believing that all participants come with the same motives.
Kendall, I think you hit the nail on the head. In management consulting, one simple framework for communication is timing, positioning, and execution. The execution is fine: good, crisp letter, acknowledges problems caused by many parties, etc, though the tone walks a fine line between very genuine concern and scolding. The positioning is weaker: yes, if the bishops want Lambeth (and really any of the instruments of unity) to have any credibility, they must act decisivenly; the “you can still be friends” line seems closer to blinking at reality; and it is very American-centric (which may be OK, given 1 out of 4 bishops at Lambeth will be American). The timing: simply put, too late. Three major obstacles (GAFCON as a serious foil, many reasserters boycotting, and the indaba structure) are acknowledged, but the core sounds as if it were written either before these events or far enough in advance that they could conceivably be changed. Other province-specific happenings also blunt its effectiveness: specifically, the various episcopal and diocesan legal/procedural wars waging in TEC, the recent CoE Synod vote (where it’s not clear the anglo-catholics and evangelicals who often make common cause are on speaking terms, and many a-cats are looking explicitly outside the AC), and the growing public perception of RW as a feckless leader (a perception not helped by media commentary by KJS and VGR).
[blockquote]My question to Ephraim is, how, given how Lambeth 2008 is actually structured, and given who is and is not in attendance, is it possible even to begin to try to do what he proposes. [/blockquote]
I seriously doubt it, Fr. Harmon. It’s a divide and smother strategy and, given the boycott by so many reasserter primates and bishops, not one easily overcome by a concerted orthodox push.
Dr Radner is losing his time, I don’t think that any solution will come out Lambeth, it will be a jamboree. They will reaffirm the NEW THING.
Actually, #9, it’s a very OLD THING, but it’s gotten a constituency in the Church and a slick marketing campaign as of late.
Kendall, I’ve reread my comment and and Ephraim Radner’s piece and I stand by my reading of it. I don’t deny his passion, or his construcive contribution in the past. However, to tell a group of people what they must do “because I believe God is calling you to act” pretty much says that to do anything less is denying God’s vision for the Communion or God’s will for Lambeth.
As for specific citations, read any number of comments on the typical blogs and from some bishops. I’ll take the rest of my comments off-line.
Dirk
Thank you, Ephraim.
Folks, the people of God have seen worst times. Ask Elijah. I’m praying for fire from heaven and leaving the details to God.
Lent & Beyond has posted many prayers for the Lambeth Conference. If you type “Lambeth” in the search box, you’ll get a potpourri of many prayers; “Our pagan roots” are prayers of representative confession; also “Our Wounded Anglican History” are prayers of representative confession concerning the origins of the Church of England; “Canterbury” yields several prayers specific for the Canterbury Cathedral.
SOMA UK and Crosswinds are posting prayers from England. Rev. Rob Eaton is organizing a proxy prayer service.
That is heartfelt and, I don’t doubt, genuinely anguished. But I suspect that the time when such a plea might have been effective has come and gone.
As I see the situation, most of those who were prepared to “decide, resolutely, that those bishops from these churches … no longer partake in your common councils” have already done so; they did it at GAFCON, and the bulk of them are not coming to Lambeth to try to do it again. Even if all the GS bishops were at Lambeth it might have been tough to pass that; with most of them boycotting, I don’t think there’s a realistic chance.
Absent that, I think his other three points fall too. The GS bishops who are boycotting Lambeth are certainly not going to change their minds so long as the situation remains essentially unchanged. “Recognizing” breakaway parishes and dioceses in North America would be difficult for a Lambeth that still recognizes TEC. And I think many people have come to believe that attempting to create a covenant so long as hardcore reappraisers and hardcore reasserters are all still at the table is unlikely to produce an agreement that will have a material effect on the divisions that exist between us.
GAFCON said that they had no intention of leaving or splitting the Anglican Communion; but I really don’t see how it can realistically work out any other way. I normally hesitate to speak in the ComCon/FedCon debates, because it’s a family argument and I’m not in the family… but I think the writing is on the wall for the ComCons. And I’m sorry, not only for the obvious reasons but because I respect and admire a lot of the ACI people, including Radner+, and they’ve worked tirelessly for an inside solution that I just don’t think is in the cards anymore.
He posted to the [i] Covenant [/i] site, which is for folks trying to remain faithful within TEC while working through the “Windsor Process.” (I hope I didn’t mischaracterize the site – but that seems to be the core if its folks and the masthead appeal to “wait for one another.”)
I don’t see how Lambeth 2008 can do what Windsor and Dar Es Salaam could not; nor do I see the ABC as able to reverse his earlier efforts to declare TEC & ACoC “largely compliant” with previous positions and requests from the Communion.
I find little with which to disagree in Dr. Radner’s ideas – but hasn’t this effort already taken place and been rejected out of hand by TEC?
I find Professor Radner’s pieced both typically noble and somehow sadly tragic. There is indeed “hope among the fragments,” but not among the fragments he still seems to be counting on. He seems to dismiss GAFCON, which is probably about half of global Anglicanism, as if it was some hopeless small Continuing church. I was very skeptical of GAFCON, but it turned out much better than I anticipated it would. Unlike the tragedy of the Continuing Church in the U.S., GAFCON shows none of the signs of hopeless sectarianism that plagued the Continuing Church movement. I see represented at GAFCON ALL the main streams of historic Anglicanism. I saw them working together and building a hopeful new global vision of Communion from WITHIN the historic Communion, not outside of it. In fact, GAFCON even seems to be pulling in some of the more hopeful parts of the Continuum. Yet the Rev. Radner observes: “Whatever GAFCON’s hopes may contain for the broader world, the context and dynamics of American religion mean that any movement determined by autonomous structures will be swallowed up by sectarian identities.” What is his basis for this evaluation? I don’t think the facts support that view in the least. He seems tragically wedded to a now historically eclipsed vision of the historical Communion. New things are happening in the historic Communion, and I think they’re A LOT more hopeful than he is willing to concede. Things will surely be different, but that may be a very good thing indeed. I see little to hope for from the indaba groups at Lambeth. The “Windsor bishops” are still MIA, if they weren’t always a fantasy anyway. Thus, this plea seems curiously irrelevant at this point. Events have moved us beyond this now impossible dream of a way of organizing Anglicanism that no longer exists. That world is gone, but Anglicanism is showing a capacity to transcend the eclipse of older arrangements. Unlike Professor Radner, I find much to be hopeful about indeed!
Canon Harmon raises the question “how, given how Lambeth 2008 is actually structured, and given who is and is not in attendance, is it possible even to begin to try to do what [Dr. Radner] proposes.”
Certainly it is possible to “begin to try,” but to answer the why question: If for no other reason, to avoid simply acquiescing in a process whereby the bishops are managed by facilitators in a process designed to keep them from doing anything outside of significant constraints not of their own making. In other words, to act like they are, after all . . . bishops of the Anglican Communion.
As to who is and who is not in attendance, that is certainly a factor. But which is better, acquiescence or at least making an attempt. To the extent the outcome of the attempt is influenced by absences or by overrepresentation by the USA and Canada (see http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/14145/), the numbers are there for everyone to see and take into account.
Ephraim – give it a rest. This gathering is intended to produce NOTHING.
Ephraim fails to understand two things:
1. Some people’s call, vows, and personal intergrity preclude them from remaining associated with a Schori-TEC organization. GAFCON expresses their voice and will offer legitmate structure in the form of a replacement or parallel province.
2. GAFCON didn’t start this…and isn’t the problem…given the latest news from England we need to keep the focus on Gene and Katherine, Bruno and Chane…that is where the problem started and remains.
And:
The failure of the ABC, who has foiled every attempt to restore order to the system, left the GAFCON people with no choice but to act before the church collapsed from inaction.
Asking Ephraim to explain how Lambeth 2008 is going to “state clearly” the four points is like asking Sarah to explain how’s she going to conceive.
#18
I disagree. Fr. Radner understand the situation perfectly and that should be quite clear to anyone reading this letter. He is calling for actions that can rescue the AC. Whether they have any likelihood of taking place or being successful is, of course, highly questionable.
For those who seek a solution [i]solely[/i] through the historic instruments of unity, this is indeed a crucial meeting. Failure for the Lambeth Conference to take action will mean that there is no instrument qualified and willing to adjudicate Lambeth Resolutions and Communiques of the Primates.
Typical rules of order require a 2/3 vote for expulsion, which adds another layer of difficulty. Perhaps the resolution could be drafted in a way to permit application of a simple majority. The interesting threshold question being raised here is how to initiate a deliberative meeting given the proposed program.
There is another threshold question that does not receive much consideration by the ACI. Rightly or wrongly, many in the AC consider one instrument of unity (the ABC) as having acting against another instrument of unity (the conciliatory Primates’ Meeting) to avoid adjudication of a basic Christian teaching enshrined in a resolution of a third instrument of unity (the Lambeth Conference, Res. 1.10). Aside from the practical problem of changing the program, there is the additional potential problem that the convener or caller of the meeting may very well act consistently with that perception and resist any effort to change the program.
One of the messages of those not attending is that the historic instruments have shown themselves to be in conflict, and simply unable to speak to the integrity of their purported standards. That is, the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference carry no weight. Certainly, if – as intended – nothing happens at Lambeth, then the instruments will be (further? confirmed?) devalued and the covenant process further weakend by TEC and the ACC.
Given the potential for that outcome, I wonder what would happen if the Lord God were to grow GAFCON into a conciliar and representative council involving almost all of the provinces of the AC… I wonder if it would still be considered an “autonomous structure” vulnerable to being “swallowed up by sectarian identities.”
🙄
Tired,
These are good points…and certainly the chances for a faithful worldwide Anglicanism coming from GAFCON (rather than the sectarian outcome predicted by Radner) is much more likely than that Lambeth will act and TEC will comply.
It seems strange that for the most part Rev. Radner seems to ask Lambeth to do what GAFCON just did. I go into more detail here.
Kendall,
In item #4, responding to dcreinken (# 2), you write:
[blockquote]
There are, you say, “some who will argue that no one can even be friends with TEC and still be a part of the Communion.†Tell who the some are, cite where they have said such please.
[/blockquote]
dcreinken in item #11 pointed to comments by unnamed bishops and in unspecified blogs, but I would like to suggest that the statement is a reasonable reaction to Radner’s letter, imperative no. 1, para. 3:
[blockquote]
You can still be friends; you may still choose to cooperate in this or that matter. But the disagreement between TEC and the Communion’s members as a whole has become too great and too destructive, and “walking together†(Amos 3:3) is not only no longer possible; it has long ceased in any substantive way.
[/blockquote]
Beyond that there is the item from TWilson (# 7):
[blockquote]
… if the bishops want Lambeth (and really any of the instruments of unity) to have any credibility, they must act decisively; the “you can still be friends†line seems closer to blinking at reality; and it is very American-centric …
[/blockquote]
So there it is.
Inasmuch as we are all called to the unity of Christendom, I am troubled by statements of this kind.
tired (# 22),
[blockquote]
There is another threshold question that does not receive much consideration by the ACI. Rightly or wrongly, many in the AC consider one instrument of unity (the ABC) as having acting against another instrument of unity (the conciliatory Primates’ Meeting) to avoid adjudication of a basic Christian teaching enshrined in a resolution of a third instrument of unity (the Lambeth Conference, Res. 1.10).
[/blockquote]
Lambeth I.10 is double-edged. Its major message is that gays are welcome in the Church. Its references to ordinations and unions are subordinate to that. One has only to read the text of the resolution and Archbishop Carey’s pastoral letter issued at the close of the 1998 Lambeth Conference to understand this.
Archbishop Williams’ statements as ABC have been entirely consistent with Lambeth I.10.