I write on the Conference’s final day. There is a sense of exhaustion here, and a sense of frustration.
The Communion is in crisis. Its life and mission have been disrupted, both by the actions of its North American provinces and their effect in other provinces, and by the amount of time and energy which have been devoted to dealing with the resulting crisis, without success.
Indeed, this lack of progress has itself deepened the crisis, as provinces express frustration with the impotence of the Communion’s structures and leadership, the apparent failure of leaders and provinces to carry out decisions that seemed to have been agreed, and, at bottom, the sense that the Communion is no longer bound by its historic common understanding, its Reformed Catholic understanding, of the Faith. As a result, the bishops of Uganda, Nigeria and Rwanda, as well as those serving the Diocese of Sydney in Australia and many individual bishops, decided to absent themselves from the Conference.
No one seems to be sure exactly how many bishops are here. The press have a list only of the last names and dioceses of those who wished to make their presence known. Bishops complain that they cannot locate other bishops, because (in contrast to earlier Conferences) they too have no list. The Conference’s official press spokesman puts the number of participants at about 650.
Neither does anyone seem sure exactly what is going on in the Conference as a whole. The press have been excluded from most sessions in order to ensure that the bishops can speak freely to one another, and be more free to alter their opinions, without fear of their words being posted to the world, and that is surely right. But the bishops themselves are segmented: they have had little structured opportunity to interact with people outside their 40-member indaba groups, apart from the hearings on specific proposals. As a result, they have little sense of the overall tenor of the Conference, much less, of where it is going. And if the draft of the Reflections document is any measure, it will do little to provide such a sense; the draft is more a summary of ideas and possibilities regarding the various topics, than a synthesis that articulates Lambeth’s vision for the identity and direction of the Communion.
Bishops on very different sides of the contentious issues have expressed a real sense of being manipulated and controlled; and though the indaba process has been enjoyed by many, there is a common feeling that it has been used to exclude the members of the Conference from the final decision-making.
To ask the question in the subject line is to answer it.
“Neither does anyone seem sure exactly what is going on in the Conference as a whole.”
That’s the plan.
Like me, several hundred bishops understood the plan and decided it wasn’t worth it – before it even happened. Were they prophets? No, they just know the leadership objectives. They know who is pulling the puppet strings. And a puppet show is not worth it.
Don
I agree that Lambeth was a colossal waste of time and money. I will say that a great deal of clarity has emerged from the conference; namely that there are at least two groups within Anglicanism that are mutually incompatible. I see a formal orthodox/revisionist split (that is not to say that all orthodox will leave ECUSA though). It will be interesting to see down the road if Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics hang together.
There will be a split between provinces. Not necessarily between dioceses. Some bishops can’t hang with each other, others are more patient with each other’s faults.
They were manipulated and controlled: the alternative, is mob rule.
It was probably worth it for some, not worth it for others. given the internet and cost of travelling, there are probably better ways to arrange formal relationships.
[blockquote]There will be a split between provinces. [/blockquote]
I sense wishful thinking here. Why would GAFCON provinces cede the AC to revisionists when they, by all reckoning, will inherit it? No, John, there is going to be a battle within the AC, and GAFCON will prevail.
John,
I agree with most of your conclusions, but would not the alternative have been parliamentary due process and the expression of a majority will? Of course, you can argue that this is not how the Christian Church should behave . . . except that when General Convention expresses its majority will this is presented as the Holy Spirit at work.
The sad thing is that none of this will stop the bleeding. I had hoped for a Communion-centered solution in which both sides could accept their present (not necessarily permanent) incompatibility and create a framework that would allow for maintenance of the highest possible degree of relationship.
I can only begin to imagine the remarks we will hear at our diocesan convention in early October, the gist of which will be “We told you so.” Would that it were not so.
[url=http://catholicandreformed.blogspot.com]Catholic and Reformed[/url]
Well, I submit that what we have seen is a political gathering, not a religious one. At stake is the control of money and power -and there is an enormous amount of both on the table. TEC understood what this meeting was, and they orchestrated their responses carefully (having had their speeches written out beforehand); they had a platform and a party line. The “protesters” out front were part of party control. For them, it was skillfully done, and th ABC was essentially their presenter. The rest of the bishops failed to understand what Lambeth was really about, and so they seemed disorganized and felt manipulated, as indeed they were so often were. You will also note that theri advertising was well handled; they were interested in pursuasion, not argumentation, and the indaba group favored that Madison Ave. approach.
Kendall’s essay, below, is however, what they did NOT count on.
One effect of Lambeth is that people who would not ordinarily strike back, not commonly grow angry, have now done both, and the immediate future is not going to mitigate their sense of having been used.
One thing does seem certain. The ABC’s days are numbered. LM
Physician –
(that is not to say that all orthodox will leave ECUSA though).
I totally agree with this statement. The sad fact is, that orthodox laity who stay, will become quiet at the parish level. They won’t go to diocese conventions, they won’t serve on the vestry, etc. When you are a minority, you shut your mouth if you want to stay. At the parish level, the orthodox parish will get up at possibly the next two conventions and propose something very orthodoxy….get shouted down and boo’d. That will end that. Then the parish will get tested…….and the vestry/priest will fold to demand…….when the orthodox priest retires, or if young, move to Ft. Worth…..the vestry will be told they can call who they want, but by that time, “the get along” syndrome will have set in……..especially when they are reminded they can call who they want, but bishop has the final say so…………they will compromise in their choice before the candidate is even introduced to said bishop……
I think that orthodox Anglicans show stay in ECUSA long enough to bear witness to “…the Faith once given…” by “fight[ing] the good fight.”
By doing this, we will make those who choose to remain in ECUSA personally aware that ECUSA’s leadership, locally at the parish level, regionally at the diocesan level and nationally have forced Anglicans from within their midst to leave ECUSA in order to remain true to “…the Faith once given….”
I believe that this witness will cause many otherwise inert members of ECUSA to question its leadership at all levels. This witness may also provoke the elements of a reformation within those Anglicans who remain with ECUSA. A reformation that will smoulder and haunt ECUSA’s revisionist leadership.
When “fighting the good fight” is no longer a reasonable option for orthodox Anglicans within ECUSA, then the need for separation from ECUSA and joining/forming a new North American Anglican province will become necessary.
Preparations for this “separation” should be ongoing while “fighting the good fight.”
In my comment (#9) please change
“I think that orthodox Anglicans show stay in ECUSA long enough to bear witness to “…the Faith once given…†by “fight[ing] the good fight.†”
to read
“I think that orthodox Anglicans should stay in ECUSA long enough to bear witness to “…the Faith once given…†by “fight[ing] the good fight.†“
Dee,
I think it goes far deeper than what you suggest. Our parish was at one point in the top 15 Episcopal congregations nationwide (ASA). In our Diocese we provided about a quarter of the entire apportionment.
For [i]years[/i] we were locked out of diocesan decision-making bodies precisely because we were orthodox. Not one single person on one single committee. Delegate to GC? Yeah, right.
We were told that if our potential ordinands were to attend either Trinity or Nashotah they would not be accepted by the Diocese, because those schools were “too extreme.”
Liberals simply cannot stand opposing views, and they do all within their power to silence those voices.
Orthodox choosing to remain in ECUSA will be shut down far more than they will become voluntarily “quiet.” There is quite simply no place for them.
They can acquiesce, which is to become “lukewarm,” or they can leave.
[blockquote]I think that orthodox Anglicans show stay in ECUSA long enough to bear witness to “…the Faith once given…†by “fight[ing] the good fight.†[/blockquote]
I don’t. All you do is provide support for an organization that swings from heretical to evil. Leave and join or establish a CANA or AMiA parish. Those will form the new Anglican presence in America once TEC either collapses or is driven away.
They were manipulated and controlled: the alternative, is mob rule.
Funny. Many organizations manage to have “mob rule” and thrive. Why is it right for a handful to manipulate and control? What does this say to those who are shut out from power?
Sherri, you’re just not up on John’s Revisionist Lexicon. When a number of revisionist bishops insufficient for a quorum deposes an unihibited reasserter bishop on a voice vote, that’s “democracy” and a justifiable use of polity…something to be lauded. When reasserter Primates and bishops seem poised to discipline a revisionist Province for its heresies through a majority vote, that’s “mob rule” and any manner of obstruction, gerrymandering and pettifogging by unelected grandees is justifies in preventing its occurrance.
Jeffersonian, in reply to your comment (#12),
Study of counter-insurgency leads the student to a certain expertise in conducting an insurgency.
“Fight the good fight†is slogan and nothing more. “Slogan†is a Scottish word derived from Scottish-Gaelic and one of its root sounds is derived from the Gaelic word “sluagh†meaning “a multitude, a people or a host.â€
In this case, my use of the slogan was an attempt to evoke a sense of ‘doing what can be done’ to fight the good fight.
In an insurgency, the persons pursuing the insurgency find themselves starting from a position of weakness. Their key to success is not to become overcome by feelings of weakness and insufficiency, but to look at their opponent’s strengths and weaknesses and to use them against their opponent.
I don’t see this being done by most of the orthodox Anglicans who are defending themselves against attacks by ECUSA’s revisionists.
Instead, I am sensing a desperate tendency to say let’s all of us ‘cut and run.’ Cutting and running is a failure to bear witness before our attackers. Did Christ ‘cut and run’ or try to ‘cut a deal’ when faced by His accusers. His reply was “You say I am.â€
An important tactic used by insurgents involves the study of their strengths and then devising means of turning those strength into liabilities. It is very similar to the martial arts tactic of turning the great strength of an opponent’s attack against him in order to wear him down defeat him. In the end, what the opponent views as his great strength becomes his greatest liability.
When “fighting the good fight†is no longer reasonable or feasible, then its time to ‘cut ties’ and form a new Anglican primacy in North America.
A possible outcome of “fighting the good fight†may be an ECUSA that no longer has the will or the capability to pursue the orthodox Anglicans.
I can understand that. God speed, and we’ll leave the AMiA light on for you when it’s time.
No
#6 – I tend to think that different provinces identify different roles for different organizations. What we are seeing is, to some extent, a confusion of roles. I don’t think that Lambeth is a rulemaking body. There are practical reasons that arose from the birth of the nation state, and also identify us as not being Roman Catholic. General Convention is the rulemaking body of the Episcopal Church.
I admit, there are good reasons to be dissatisfied with this. I think there are plenty of bad decisions made by majority rule. I also think poor leadership in dioceses (as 11 notes) harms the communion more than poor theology. I have mentioned before that I think there is plenty of bad leadership among liberals. I don’t think their theology is wrong, although there may be a link.
Jefferson – who is ceding what? What is the prize? Is it who gets invited to what party? There are 6 hostile provinces, where the archbishops won’t have anything to do with TEC. The rest don’t think the issues are as important as you do.
There’s no reason for the Orthodox Church, for example, to stop talks with TEC if the Archbishop decides not to invite TEC onto some Roman-Anglican board. My own view hasn’t meant I don’t do work with the Catholics, Lutherans or Orthodox in my community.
The problem is that most of the provinces don’t mind hanging with TEC. They may disagree vehemently with TEC, but they don’t mind staying connected. We heard a very direct statement from the diocese of Sudan. What you didn’t hear is that he has no intention of ending the relationship with TEC.
Jefferson – um – you must be confusing me with another reappraiser. I never made any comment about deposing bishops on this blog. I also think I must not be explaining myself very well. Lambeth has no direct jurisdiction over polity in TEC. If it did, a vote of some sort may be useful. General Convention has jurisdiction over TEC, using the flawed system it has inherited since the birth of the USA. If I were in a conservative diocese that inhibited SSB or did not ordain gay priests, I would follow the rules, or at least pay the consequences if I broke them.