(London) Times: Rowan Williams takes up the cross of diplomacy

And behind the scenes the Archbishop – who believes that God takes care of the results only if His people put in the footwork – is engineering a daring and complex plan. Canon lawyers are working on a canon law “blueprint”, an Anglican version of the Roman Catholic code that would provide a basis for legislative unity. It is likely to become a fifth “instrument of communion” to bind the Church, adding to the four that exist – the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the primates.

Dr Williams writes in the foreword of The Principles of Canon Law, which sets out the basis of the blueprint handed to bishops at the conference, that it will not solve the communion’s problems, but is a “unique resource for thinking more carefully about the sort of unity and coherence we should aspire to in our fellowship of churches”.

Moderate conservatives are also drawing up plans to allow overseas primates to function in the Episcopal Church of the USA as pastors for evangelical churches offended by the liberal direction. It is hoped that the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori, might agree to this to allow the communion to hold together. She is understood to be “aware” of the discussions.

Read it all.

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, Archbishop of Canterbury, Episcopal Church (TEC), Lambeth 2008, TEC Conflicts

29 comments on “(London) Times: Rowan Williams takes up the cross of diplomacy

  1. Grandmother says:

    It took me several minutes to work my jaw shut after reading this one.
    In other words, ++RW is deliberatelythrowing Africa, Uganda, and all the other Bishops to the wind.

    This is jaw-dropping, over the top, and at least in my mind, highly unlikely..

    Gloria in South Carolina
    I won’t even post this on our group, talk about trying to make trouble…………..

  2. Don Armstrong says:

    “This would leave the primates of Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda, which have flouted the authority of Bishop Jefferts Schori by illicitly consecrating bishops to serve in the US, out in the cold but would permit moderate evangelical bishops and provinces, to stay in the communion with integrity. ”

    And if these moderate conservatives get this plan accepted by KJS, I wonder what exactly they will get, will it be for dioceses only, or will individual parishes be able to come under this alternative oversight, something that before has always been a show stopper. It seems to me to be the same old plan that has been brewing and found wanting time and again.

    But say they do get it…it will firstly be Katherine’s gift of what she doesn’t really have…do they want that?

    And if they do get it, do they really think they would have without the prior interference of Uganda, Nigeria, and Rawanda in American affairs?

  3. DonGander says:

    No guns –
    No diplomacy.

    If nothing can be backed up or enforced, then of what use is talk? Of what use is any contract?

    Don

  4. Daniel Lozier says:

    It still leaves someone who denies the uniqueness of Christ, condones the blessing of sinful behavior, and preaches a false gospel….KJS….in charge. That’s not acceptable.

  5. Paul PA says:

    I am confused – how does one get from “to allow overseas primates to function in the Episcopal Church” to “This would leave the primates of Nigeria, Rwanda and Uganda,…. out in the cold….”. the word primates is in both parts. Is one really to think that the plan to hold things together involves “we like you but not you”. The primates do it or they don’t. Even with all the “hard feelings” (not quite sure of words that capture the current state) that currently exist, I cannot imagine that one would actually try such a thing and think that it could prevent the schism. It also does not jibe with the words of remorse that many are not present

  6. Daniel says:

    Come on folks! This is classic bait and switch. Kate moans and groans about how mean everyone is to her and agrees only with the greatest reluctance. Lambeth is over for another 10 years, the “moderately orthodox” are frozen in place and become the proverbial sitting ducks to be picked off by Kate and TEC at their leisure, all while they claim they are complying fully with Rowans wishes. And the Global South is deemed to be “out of communion” since they are so intransigent and bigoted.

    We’ve seen all this before. Fool me once shame on you – fool me twice, shame on me.

  7. Larry Morse says:

    Have to agree completely with Daniel. This is sucker bait, not just bait and switch. I see Schori’s hand in this; her fingerprints are all over the weapon and the body. LM

  8. TLDillon says:

    All should be careful! Kate may have her fingers crossed on this one too, just like DES! I too am with Daniel on this one!

  9. optimus prime says:

    Hmmm, I wonder if this provision for ‘alternative oversight’ would be written in for Canadian dioceses or parishes as well?

  10. Cennydd says:

    Count me in too, ODC! What was it that Abe Lincoln…..or whoever…..said about “fooling people?”

  11. obadiahslope says:

    Optimus by name, optimistic by nature perhaps?
    This proposal does not appear to be “alternative oversight”. rather it is a scheme for “pastoral” involvment by another primate.
    I would be surprised if this is not reporting the “communion partners” scheme discussed by ACI. This is not new news.
    It is worth noting that at leastt one of the Primates Concerned (Tanzania) subsequently attended Gafcon.

  12. mugsie says:

    #4, Daniel. Yours is the one comment that really stood out for me. As long as KJS is still leading in any way, shape or form in TEC, it’s not acceptable. She’s not a Christian, and is not qualified to lead any church of Christ.

    Sorry, but I’m not buying any of this. These idiots discussing this “farce” have totally disregarded the one, total covenant already in place; the covenant with Jesus in the Bible!!!! That’s the only one that counts for me.

  13. SHSilverthorne+ says:

    Remember the source of this “news”. I like the Times well enough, but I have to take it with a grain of salt. In their rush for a scoop, they often mistake rumour for fact and muddle up the details.

    What does this report really mean anyway? Saying that there will be a canon law blueprint doesn’t tell me much, since there are no details. How binding would it be? What would be in it? What kind of oversight would it provide, since the eminently reasonable DES proposal was collectively peed upon by the HOB?

    All this “news” item does is get my knickers in a knot over nothing. I get enough of that from my diocese’s newspaper.

    Stephen+

  14. teatime says:

    As a conservative-leaning moderate, I’m a tad hopeful. I’m reading this as we would have a place under the authority of another primate so we don’t have to deal with the ever-present drama and “new things” of TEC nor would we have to run off to Africa. I think this would take the power tug-of-war away from both of the fringe factions, neither of which I can abide. Hmmm.

  15. Chris Taylor says:

    This “solution” has already been tried, it was call DEPO, remember how well that worked? Who are these “moderate conservatives”? The Windsor Bishops — ha ha! As for Nigeria and Uganda being left out in the cold, sort of hard to be left out when you account for about 1/2 of the Anglican Communion — not in terms of bogus numbers (26 million for England (give me a break!), but actual active members. Ruth is a good reporter, but this is a silly piece. Clearly she’s having trouble finding something serious to write about at Lambeth.

  16. BlueOntario says:

    What would it mean to be under pastoral oversight as a part of The Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada if those organizations are still accepting and even advocating beliefs you feel are biblically unsound if not heretical? Who would represent or advocate for the diocese, parishes, priests, and members that question the national church’s position? Where do one’s questions get addressed in such a union?

    Who’s conscience does this salve.

  17. teatime says:

    #16 — I think it would allow nature to take its course and speed it on its way. Perhaps I’m being naive, but I think that if an alternative structure was available, many congregations would be interested and this would isolate the radical libs who, left to their own devices, would alienate themselves. This would hasten the death of their movement and “new thing.”

  18. optimus prime says:

    #11, yes! I am optimistic in nature; how could I not be, my faith and hope is in Jesus Christ.

  19. Allen Lewis says:

    After thoroughly gutting the Primates’ Meeting of any standing and authority by his actions and inactions, the Archbishop is now floating this proposed “Canon Law blueprint” as a fifth instrument of unity? What a joke! Dr. Williams has only himself to blame for his lack of leadership. The Primates Meeting gave him plenty of authority to act decisively, but he not only refused the tools they gave him, he undermined their stern warnings and godly admonitions by his waffling. Ultimately he betrayed the Dar-es-Salaam communiqué by inviting the American bishops who had precipitated the crisis by participating in the consecration of Gene Robinson.
    While it is sympathetic of Ruth Gledhill to paint Dr. Williams as a victim, it is by his own doing that he is in that position.

    By the way, where did the following paragrah come from? I could not find it in the aticle which was linked. Was this from an earlier (and now edited) posting of this article?

    Dr Williams writes in the foreword of The Principles of Canon Law, which sets out the basis of the blueprint handed to bishops at the conference, that it will not solve the communion’s problems, but is a “unique resource for thinking more carefully about the sort of unity and coherence we should aspire to in our fellowship of churches”.

  20. texanglican says:

    If this alleged plan gets approved in any way, I certainly hope the orthodox reject it completely and proceed with our plans for a new province. Any solution that leaves us in any way as a constituent unit of TEC will be a disaster for us in the long term.

  21. RMBruton says:

    Does this “Plan” come in one or two-ply?

  22. rugbyplayingpriest says:

    the Archbishop – who believes that God takes care of the results only if His people put in the footwork…realy I thought God acted with grace when people offer their lives to him.

    Another point is that any proposal like this relies on trust….which has been abused by the liberal ascendency so much it is non existent. It is the classic truth that trust is earnt not taken.

    Having just broken every promise made to angloCatholics in 1992/- why would the conservatives now listen to anything Lambeth says?

    By your fruits are ye judged….and the fruits of the Anglican heirarchy is rotten to the core.

  23. Graham Kings says:

    Some earlier thoughts:

    [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=310]’Reading and Reshaping the Anglican Communion'[/url]

    [url=http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=328]’Disagreeing Christianly: Unity, Humility and Prophecy'[/url]

  24. A Floridian says:

    #21 – Bruton, You said it.

  25. midwestnorwegian says:

    Why would anyone want any kind “plan” to stay with these absolute heretics and complete liars?

  26. midwestnorwegian says:

    In other words, stick a spork in it you heretics.

  27. ElaineF. says:

    Deny, delay, dissemble…work on a 5th instrument of communion when the first 4 didn’t work. If the foundation of the Anglican Communion is eroded, it will collapse no matter how much superstructure is put in place, and perhaps at an accelerated pace. Our only hope is in Christ, Way the Truth and the Life.

  28. Mary Miserable says:

    “As Bishop of Monmouth then, Dr Williams presented a key paper to the conference on making moral decisions”

    Without reading his paper, I would assume the Archbishop would recognize the obligation of Bishops and clergy to inform their parishioners of decisions taken within the Church. Is he aware of the Episcopal Church’s history of public advocacy for abortion-on-demand, the Interfaith LEtter signed by PB Browning regarding the partial-birth abortion procedure, or the Church’s formal affiliation with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice – an independent organization not necessarily subject to the guideliines of General Convention and which has received UN accreditation?

    Similarly, has the PResiding Bishop fully informed the attendees at Lambeth of the Church’s 40-year commitment to a woman’s right to choose and the above information? “We agree to disagree” or “all life is sacred” or “there is misunderstanding about the Church’s position…” give an incomplete picture.
    I realize that the focus is on homosexuality, but if the Presiding Bishop does not fully explain the Church’s history with abortion-on-demand, she will simply perpetuate the moral failure which preceeds her, possibly bringing into the fellowhip of the modern Episcopal Church some unsuspecting provinces.

  29. robroy says:

    Most likely, this is the Communion Partners Plan warmed over (which is the DEPO plan warmed over).

    The issue that the short-sighted “moderate” conservatives can’t see is the that when GC repeals B033 and homosexual bishops abound, the term “Episcopal” will become an anathema. Good luck to Russell Levenson+ of St Martin’s Houston, +John Howe of Central Florida, etc., trying to stem the rush for the exits if they keep the name Episcopal. These gentlemen will be shouting, “DON’T LEAVE! WE HAVE A ‘RELATIONSHIP’ WITH ++MOKIWA OF TANZANIA.” Yeah, like that’s going to help.