The wonderful journal First Things has made available online the full version of a feature article by Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi, the Primate of the Church of Uganda “What is Anglicanism?”
What Is Anglicanism?
by Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi
Copyright (c) 2007 First Things (August/September 2007).
Few would deny that the Anglican Communion is in crisis. The nature of that crisis, however, remains a question. Is it about sexuality? Is it a crisis of authority””who has it and who doesn’t? Have Anglicans lost their commitment to the via media, epitomized by the Elizabethan Settlement, which somehow declared a truce between Puritan and Catholic sentiments in the Church of England? Is it a crisis of globalization? A crisis of identity?
I have the privilege of serving as archbishop of the Church of Uganda, providing spiritual leadership and oversight to more than nine million Anglicans. Uganda is second only to Nigeria as the largest Anglican province in the world, and most of our members are fiercely loyal to their global communion. But however we come to understand the current crisis in Anglicanism, this much is apparent: The younger churches of Anglican Christianity will shape what it means to be Anglican. The long season of British hegemony is over.
The preface to the Book of Common Prayer states, “It is a most invaluable part of that blessed ”˜liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free,’ that in his worship different forms and usages may without offense be allowed, provided the substance of the Faith be kept entire; and that, in every Church, what cannot be clearly determined to belong to Doctrine must be referred to Discipline.”
And yet, despite this clear distinction, contemporary Anglicans are in danger of confusing doctrine and discipline. For four hundred years Anglicanism represented both the theological convictions of the English Reformation and the culture of the Christian Church in Britain. The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Anglican divines gave voice to both: English Reformation theology (doctrine) and British culture (discipline). The Anglican churches around the world, however, have ended the assumption that Anglican belief and practice must be clothed in historic British culture.
Take, for instance, the traditional Anglican characteristics of restraint and moderation. Are they part of doctrine, as Anglican theology, or discipline, as British culture? At the recent consecration of the fourth bishop of the Karamoja diocese, the preacher was the bishop of a neighboring diocese whose people have historically been at odds with the Karimajong (principally because of cattle rustling). At the end of his sermon, the preacher appealed for peace between the two tribes and began singing a song of peace. One by one, members of the congregation began singing. By the end of the song, the attending bishops, members of Parliament, and Karimajong warriors were all in the aisles dancing.
The vision of Christ breaking down the dividing walls of hostility between these historic rivals was so compelling that joy literally broke out in our midst. At that point in the service, I dare say, we were hardly restrained or moderate in our enthusiasm for the hope of peace given to us in Jesus Christ. Did we fail, then, in being Anglican in that moment? Was the spontaneity that overcame us a part of doctrine or of discipline? Surely, African joy in song and dance is an expression of discipline. Yet our confidence that the Word of God remains true, and our confidence that it transforms individuals and communities””all this is part of doctrine: the substance of the Faith that shall not change but shall be “kept entire.”
In the Church of Uganda, Anglicanism has been built on three pillars: martyrs, revival, and the historic episcopate. Yet each of these refers back to the Word of God, the ground on which all is built: The faith of the martyrs was maintained by the Word of God, the East African revival brought to the people the Word of God, and the historic ordering of ministry was designed to advance the Word of God.
So let us think about how the Word of God works in the worldwide Anglican Communion. We in the Church of Uganda are convinced that Scripture must be reasserted as the central authority in our communion. The basis of our commitment to Anglicanism is that it provides a wider forum for holding each other accountable to Scripture, which is the seed of faith and the foundation of the Church in Uganda.
Every Episcopalian should read this, and then just stop and think for a moment about this in comparison to the sort of things our Presiding Bishop says and writes, what our diocesan bishops utter, or even what many of our parish priests say from the pulpit. That alone says so much about where we find ourselves today. How exhilarating it is to read this, and then how deflating it is to ponder how truly impoverished and malnourished we are as a church.
It was all I could do to restrain myself from “editorializing” on the top level post. I wanted to scream “MUST READING!!!” or wax eloquent how this may have been one of the most powerful and important pieces among the 20,000+ articles or blog entries which TitusOneNine has posted in the past 3 1/2 years.
But any words I might have written above to introduce the article merely risked trivializing it. It is that stunning and profound.
I took the easy way out and began our excerpt at the very beginning, but there are so many sections we could have chosen. There is so much here one wants to say AMEN! to.
Truly every Anglican and/or Episcopalian who reads TitusOneNine needs to read this. Please make the time. I know our “reasserting” readers will be glad you did. But even for our “reappraising” readers, please read and listen to Archbishop Orombi. Speaking personally I can say that I think he articulates the vision for what so many of us reasserters hope for and long for in our Communion.
Here is one part of ++Orombi’s vision that I particularly want to add my Amen to:
[blockquote]But the lesson of the martyrs is exactly this—that we must have confidence in God—and their universal appeal derives from their heroic example. The gospel exists to challenge the worldview of all—even Anglicans—who do not see the joy and beauty of a life lived with confidence in a great and dynamic God who can and does intervene in the affairs of human beings.
The legacy of the East African Revival is its strong emphasis on the need for a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. This emphasis is not unique to Uganda; it is a part of historic Anglicanism, especially in its Reformation heritage and the evangelical tradition. I long for the day when the global reputation of Anglicans is our insistence on a relationship with Jesus Christ that is characterized by personal experience and repentance, and shared through testimonies. “Oh, those Anglicans! How they always talk about a personal relationship with Jesus Christ!†[/blockquote]
rejoicing to live in the days of such leaders
–elfgirl
I agree, it also is something that I will re-read and reflect on this evening.
Wow. Ab. Orambi expresses so well the Anglicanism that captured my heart and mind and eventually led me to return to ECUSA in ’66.
The Book, [i]Calvary Road[/i], by Roy and Revel Hession, 1959 ed., chronicles the East African Revival and was the book given to us our first day at Freshman Orientation in ’59. This was my first encounter with any kind of Anglicanism since my childhood in Colorado.
Thank God!
We were randomly assigned to John Wesley style Class Meeting Groups to live out what we read. We purchased the required Thompson Chain Reference KJV Bible for our Bible course work from the bookstore. On my dorm floor we all decided to study [i]Missionary Methods, St. Paul’s or Ours?[/i] by the Anglican, Roland Allen. I met students of missionary parents from Kenya and Congo that affirmed what we were reading.
What a beginning for my undergraduate formation process. I have studied Hartshorne, Tillich, Telliard, Kierkegaard, Bart. Today we need to listen to those far south of their academic halls.
God bless you, Archbishop Orombi!
If found this part intriguing: “The Bible cannot appear to us a cadaver, merely to be dissected, analyzed, and critiqued, as has been the practice of much modern higher biblical criticism. Certainly we engage in biblical scholarship and criticism, but what is important to us is the power of the Word of God precisely as the Word of God—written to bring transformation in our lives, our families, our communities, and our culture. For us, the Bible is “living and active, sharper than a double-edged sword, it penetrates to dividing soul and spirits, joints and marrow, it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart†(Heb. 4:12). The transforming effect of the Bible on Ugandans has generated so much conviction and confidence that believers were martyred in the defense of the message of salvation through Jesus Christ that it brought. ”
The good Archbishop has pointed out the difference between those who approach Scripture as theorists and those who approach it as lovers of God. The outcomes of these approaches are very different. Approaching Scripture as a lover is the beginning of a relationship with the Beloved.
Elfgirl (#2), was the editorializing from which you refrained going to take issue with my reaction upon reading Archbishop Orombi’s truly magnificent article? Do tell, because frankly I don’t see how one can read this–whatever one’s views of matters Episcopal–and not feel totally indicted for lacking the Gospel power plainly possessed and proclaimed by this true hero of the faith.
#5, Alice…. Amen! The passage you quoted speaks to me too so very much. It isn’t an accident that Orombi speaks so often of Reformation theology in his piece. Compare his quote (and his quotation of Hebrews) with Luther’s claim:
“The Bible is alive! It has hands and it lays hold of me… it has feet and it runs after me!”
Orombi’s distinction between these two paradigms of approaching the Bible were central to Luther’s debate with Erasmus. In the Erasmian paradigm, the Bible is seen as an object to be operated on by the subject (the reader). But in Luther’s paradigm the roles are reversed: it is the reader who becomes the object to be worked on by the living Word who is the subject. This strange nonintuitive idea became central to Luther’s thinking about the Christian life and the human will: in reading Scripture we are rendered passive under the divine operation, we are the thing acted upon by the only free Subject there is, the Holy God.
#6 VA Anglican, not sure I understand your question. I hadn’t seen your comment while I was writing mine. I was referring to my temptation to provide a long and gushing explanation on the main blog page, telling everyone how wonderful the article was before they read it. I restrained myself and decided that on the top level, I needed to let the article speak for itself! But then I did have to come to the comments and “gush” a bit!
I agree with you 100% (1000% if such were possible) about both the magnificence of the article and the great conviction and humbling experience of reading it. It has not only stirred me intellectually, but at the level of heart and spirit. The Lord HAS convicted me through it of areas I need to repent. He is speaking through +Orombi here. There is no more powerful testimony I could offer than that.
VaAnglican, #6, no I think you mis-understand. I think the Elf-girl was referring to the article itself and saying you were right on to describe it as “must reading.” Best
#8. Sorry, elfgirl, I misread your comment about “top-level post” as referring to the top comment, and so was perplexed–as our reactions seemed equal in our admiration for the Archbishop’s words. I just re-read the entire article, and am again sitting here truly overwhelmed. You do not exaggerate: this is one of the best pieces ever posted here. How desperate we are for such leaders–and how blessed we are as a Communion to have them. THANK YOU for posting this.
[blockquote] In December 2006, the House of Bishops of the Church of Uganda unanimously adopted “The Road to Lambeth,†a statement drafted for a council of African provinces. Among other things, it stated, “We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution [1.10] are also invited as participants or observers.†Accordingly, if the present invitations to the Lambeth Conference stand, I do not expect the Ugandan bishops to attend.
It is important that this decision not be misunderstood as withdrawing from the instruments of communion. On the contrary, our decision reflects the critical importance of the Lambeth Conference: Its value as an instrument of communion is greatly diminished when the persistent violators of its resolutions are invited. If our resolutions as a council of bishops do not have moral authority among ourselves, how can we expect our statements on world affairs to carry weight in the world’s forums? An instrument of communion must also be an instrument of discipline in order to effectively facilitate meaningful communion among its autonomous provinces. [/blockquote]
Yes, a “must read.” Bookmarked, Saved, Copied and Printed.
Thank God for the clarity and faithfulness we see in this archbishop who talks and walks as a man of God.
My suggestion: This piece should be brought to the ornate York (England) office of Archbishop Orombi’s fellow Ugandan, ++Sentamu. Sentamu should be forced to read this.
I pray ++Sentamu may see (through this article) the clarity of Orombi’s thoughts and words, and in the process see/understand why African and other faithful Anglicans have very little regard for him (Sentamu) and his politics, sorry theology.
The road to the heart of God does not pass through York or Canterbury. God is no respecter of persons or of positions and beautiful buildings.
I too think this is a wonderful testimony to the vocation of the Christian Church (not just Anglicanicanism). Thank you, Abp. Henry, for your witness and leadership.
I am puzzled, however, at why visiting the American House of Bishops with the Archbishop of Canterubry and perhaps with the chance to address them on the topic of requests Abp. Orombi himself had a hand in formulating is in any way inappropriate and would represent “interference”. Indeed, I am puzzled at how bishops meeting together and talking to each other — even and especially among those who disagree strongly — stands as an obstacle to the Gospel. If “martyrdom” is at the heart of Ugandan Anglicanism, surely a talk with a bunch of confused and probably even hostile American bishops cannot be too much for the Christian faith to assume. I was, for instance, gratified to see Abp. Drexel Gomez speak to the English General Synod earlier this week, many of whom had virulently opposed the cause for which he testified. And it appears that God blessed his words.
If Archbishop Orombi could speak to American bishops with just half the clear and compelling spirit he so marvelously exhibits in this article, there would surely be a godly effect as well. I would hope he would reconsider his refusal to accept the invitation.
What Ephraim said.
It would be a wonderful ministry to the TEC HoB, if +Orombi did address them. Let them hear him and then, make their clear decisions based on such wonderfully clear preaching. Hopefully they will experience individual metanoya, will return to the Gospel and thus, into God’s loving grace.
I think the response to Rev. Radner and Scotsreb, #s 13 & 14 above, is that the Archbishop feels that there has been enough talking to convince him that the problem is not that people don’t understand, it’s that they don’t want to comply with what the Gospel commands. If I’m right about this, I suspect his feeling is that as long as the problem is a lack of understanding then it makes perfect sense to keep talking. But when it’s clear that the problem is not a lack of understanding, but a willful desire not to comply with the Gospel message, then further talking ceases to have meaning and the time for action has come.
A few months after Henry Luke Orombi preached in my west coast (then-Episcopal) church, Diocesan Jon Bruno sent in bishop Sergio Carranza to, in the words of one of our clergy, “give us a spanking.”
I suspect that if Henry Luke were offered a pulpit at the HOB meeting he would accept. What a spanking that would be!
John Stamper, your reference to the different approaches of Luther and Erasmus is a good illustraton. Thanks.
Ephraim Radner, it is not for lack of courage that Archbishop Orombi declines to appear before the HOB. It is for the same reason that Ugandan and other African bishops will not attend Lambeth. Rather, these bishops obey the Apostolic teaching in I Corinthians 5:7-13. In other words, we might say that the HOB and Lambeth are dead to them.
#17, love the idea of sending a full copy of this to every single TEC bishop (and clergy for that matter!)
We’ve contacted the folks at First Things to find out what they would consider “fair use” given the importance of this article and the fact that we’d love to be able to legally encourage wide distribution by print and e-mail of full copies. As soon as we hear from the First Things folks, we’ll let you all know.
Of course if First Things does grant reprint permission to T19 readers and you do forward full copies by e-mail or print out and distribute copies, PLEASE be sure to respect copyright: providing the [url=http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6002]link to the article on First Things.[/url] We’d also encourage readers to consider [url=http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=55]subscriptions [/url](online subscriptions are available) or [url=http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=564]donations [/url]to First Things.
Note: as of 22:50 GMT / 6:50 PM EDT we can’t get into First Things. All the T19 traffic may be overwhelming their server. Be patient and try again. This article is worth the wait and the effort!
Alice misunderstands me if she thinks I am attributing a “lack of courage” to Abp. Orombi. Hardly! And she may indeed be right that the Archbishop thinks that in personally refusing to accompany the Archbishop of Canterbury and to meet with American bishops — and the Lambeth Conference for that matter — he is “driving the wicked out” from among his flock (1 Cor. 5:13). However, if this is his purpose — not even to “associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber, not even to eat with such a one” (5:11) — then I suggest that episcopal meetings of any kind, even in Africa, are going to be very difficult to effect.
Rather, my hope is that the very kind of “confidence in the Lord” — in the Lord’s power to encounter, overcome, convert, and triumpth — that he rightly summons us to might inform our church’s councils as much as our meetings with dictators.
Plug here and I don’t own stock: First Things is the only journal I take. It is the bomb!
I find that the Abp.’s explanation and reasoning pertaining to not meeting with the pecusa hob and at Lambeth makes eminent sense:
“It is important that this decision not be misunderstood as withdrawing from the instruments of communion. On the contrary, our decision reflects the critical importance of the Lambeth Conference: Its value as an instrument of communion is greatly diminished when the persistent violators of its resolutions are invited. If our resolutions as a council of bishops do not have moral authority among ourselves, how can we expect our statements on world affairs to carry weight in the world’s forums? An instrument of communion must also be an instrument of discipline in order to effectively facilitate meaningful communion among its autonomous provinces.”
Why meet with those who continue to violate the statements already made by the instruments of communion? It is time for discipline, as the Abp. says so well.
Dr. Radner – I think (and I say this after having heard Orombi back in May explain his displeasure at Williams agreeing to meet with the HoB) that Orombi believes that the DES Communique (DESC) made a very clear request to TEC’s HoB – essentially asking for a Yes or No. And this decision was to be the HoB’s decision to make freely.
He believes that by agreeing to meet with the HoB, Williams has undermined the DESC in two significant ways. First, it undermines the “Yes or No” aspect of the DESC in that the request to meet with Williams came AFTER an apparent rejection of the DESC, and so Williams acceptance of the request suggests an openess to bargain away the DESC in favour of a plan drawn up by the much more liberal leaning Primates’ Standing Committee. Second, Williams’ attendance increases the possibility that the TEC will submit to the DESC in bad faith after pressure from Williams. Orombi would rather see a good faith rejection rather then a bad faith acceptance.
How would Orombi’s presence or absence affect things? Well, if the first situation transpired, and Williams was prepared to bargain away the DESC for “peace in our time”, if Orombi was present and the only objector, he would appear to be the one holdout scuttling the compromise (remember that the Primates’ SC is considerably more liberal then the Primates as a whole). It would be better if he were not present, because his absence would prevent Williams from credibly trying such a trick, as Africa would not be represented. Such a compromise simply could not credibly be claimed to be in any way representative of the primates.
In regard to the second factor, the situation in the CoE is much different then in TEC. If TEC’s HoB was considering this issue for the first time, and had asked for input in helping make their decision, I would guess that Orombi’s decision might have been different. But the visit by Williams arose out of a meeting in which TEC’s HoB effectively declared “we don’t accept the DESC, we demand to meet with Williams and the Primates’ SC.” A very different kettle of fish.
And for what it’s worth, I doubt that Orombi’s words will have any effect on TEC’s HoB. Dr. Radner, you yourself are a pretty convincing, intelligent, moderate fellow who is known to make some pretty good arguments. You spoke to TEC’s HoB, and to what effect? You are dismissed as a schismatic extremist. Need I say more?
The article from Archbishop Orombi was superb! It is tempting to say Amen and leave it at that, it is so clear, powerful and compelling (at least to me, and I daresay to most of my fellow reasserters.)
Interesting, but not surprising that many of the comments here focus on the final section where ++Orombi talks about not accepting the invitation to the September HoB meeting. I’m not sure I have anything to add to that debate. I appreciate Dr. Radner’s and others’ concerns about a lost opportunity, but find the counter-arguments pretty convincing too. I’m thankful it’s not me facing such a decision, and this debate reminds me of the need to pray for ++Orombi and other GS leaders for wisdom and discernment. It seems possible in the abstract to make a Biblical case for both actions (staying or going). This appears to be a case where clear direction from the Holy Spirit is needed. I pray it will be received and confirmed.
Yet I hope that in the discussion of those matters that directly pertain to the current ECUSA crisis, that we will not lose sight of the stunning section of the article which talks about the power of the the Gospel and faith in Christ to transform not only individual lives but a whole society. I intend to share this with all my teammates here in Africa since it is such a powerful example of what revival looks like and can mean in terms of societal transformation. I believe it will help increase our faith to believe God for what He wants to do in hearts and lives and the broader society where I work here in Africa as people repent and put their faith in Christ and trust in His power.
Maybe the best thing about this article is the hope it offers. It reminds us of how GREAT and AWESOME our God is. Through the transforming work of the Gospel, the Lord has done mighty things in Uganda and throughout East Africa. Can we trust this same God to do a mighty work in the Anglican Communion?! I hope and pray we are all strengthened in our YES! to that question having read this testimony of God at work. Hallelujah. What an encouragement!
He couldn’t have made it clearer, could he? Tht from now one, the power of the Anglican church is in African hands, and the sun on this piece of the British Empire is sunk at last. This is strong stuff, cuts to the bone, and TEC had better read and wake from their precious dream. And so should we all. There is a new Big Kid on the block, and he is just now finding his strength. Larry
Ephraim Radner (#20), I didn’t intend to suggest that you were accusing Archbishop Orombi of cowardice. There is simply a time when church discipline is essential for there to be order in the Church. That is why Paul tells the Corinthians to “purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.” (I Cor. 5:7-8)
Thank you, elfgirl, for insisting that we read this. What a powerful testimony! How many of us, sitting in pews in the US, can say that the Gospel has such a life-changing effect on us? How many of us would die for the faith? I hear similar stories from my Indian Christian friends. They pray for healing, and it is accomplished for them. They convert the heathen, and sometimes are beaten, imprisoned, or even killed. With all our wealth, we are nothing in comparison to these.
The Archbishop also speaks to me in a way he may not have intended. I am a “Prayer Book Catholic.” I treasure the traditional Anglican liturgy, and I treasure the traditional restraint of British/American worship. I’ve often been put off by the constant reference to the “evangelical” faith, as if it doesn’t include those who prefer the more traditional worship style. But the Archbishop makes it clear that he does include me; worship is “discipline,” not doctrine. We just need to make sure that our worship, while attractive and appealing to the modern culture, is doctrinally anchored to the traditional Anglican worship. Uganda’s worship and practice, by his account, are focused on the acknowledgment and forgiveness of sins, from which comes their sense of community. The newer American liturgies which take the approach of “community first, sins later (if at all)” need careful review.
Lastly, here’s the money quote on the Anglican Communion:
[blockquote]The current crisis presents us with an opportunity to mature into a global communion that represents not just historic bonds of affection but also an advancing mission force for the Kingdom of God that Jesus inaugurated.[/blockquote]
Precisely. We are called to mature as a communion. TEC and the other Western churches, including the CofE, are resisting the call to maturity. If they decline to answer Jesus’s call, we’ll have to continue without them, for a time, until they repent. God grant that it will be soon!
Katherine, I agree that this is an opportunity to revisit those points of dispute that ECUSA didn’t want discussed, such as the liturgical “reforms” of the 1970s, ordination of women to the priesthood, the feminization of the church, and the need for longer and sounder catechesis.
Archbishop Orombi represents the fruit of the East African Revival. He knows that the preaching of the Word of God has the power to save souls. Revivalism always places biblical preaching above liturgical concerns, but as a Prayer Book Catholic you understand that the revival continues, by the mercy of God, in the sacraments of the Church. We reject the 1979 Prayer Book because it has broken the historic pattern and biblical grounding of the sacraments as they were ministered according to apostolic Tradition.
This quote from the Archbishop is foundational,
“A bishop, therefore, is the ongoing presence and voice of the apostles. He is our link to the early Church, and this link between bishop and apostolicity gives Anglicans our transcultural identity. The implication, therefore, is that the essence of Anglican identity is to be apostolic. More than a simple unbroken line of consecrations, we are to be apostolic in nature: faithful to the apostolic message, submitted to apostolic authority in Scripture, committed to apostolic mission and ministry, and devoted to apostolic worship.”
Bishops are not inventers of doctrine, but conduits of truth.
“Bishops are not inventers of doctrine, but conduits of truth.”
Sadly, that would depend on the bishop….
Rev. Radner, perhaps you might consider that while concilar dialogue is one form of Godly and effective communication, the affirmative decision NOT to engage in such a conversation could also be Godly, and effective.
I want to emphatically second both VaAnglican’s first comment (#1) and Karen B’s. So often, I’ve heard snide suggestions from the other side of the aisle about the sophistication of the Global South (and especially the African) primates. Yet, time after time, they produce compelling, well-reasoned, powerful prose such as this, while comparable efforts from ECUSA mandarins are, frankly, junk.
Praise God: here is a testimony of how Jesus’ saving work on the Cross transforms lives, and a nation. I’m so discouraged sometimes at the path our culture is on, but reading where Uganda started, and where Christianity has taken it, I’m reminded that all things are possible with God, to never lose faith, and to pray.
Outstanding;
“So, for another example, the African tradition of polygamy and divorce at will left many women neglected and often destitute. The biblical teaching of marriage between one man and one woman in a loving, lifelong relationship liberated not only women but also the institution of marriage and family.”
What a witness of being re-created as new beings. If only we could let go of our American conservative and liberal values that separate us from the Gospel
#33. Thanks to Jimmy D for another grace centered gospel centered post.
In a recent thread on Luther he gave us another great quote (this time from Luther and not from Jimmy):
It really doesn’t get much better than that. We could all use a lot more simul iustus et peccatur. A lot more of Orombi’s focus on the purpose of the church being a place where we can come and tell each other that we are sinners and hear the word of forgiveness, a word given solely on account of the name of Jesus and what he has done for us, not due to our merits or works.
#29 and #30 have hit on one of the many striking things in Orombi’s essay, and that is his boldness in drawing our attention to how the phrase “apostolic succession” has been misused — or at the very least how there is more than one way to interpret it.
Orombi is saying, in essence, that when a bishop abandons the teaching handed down in succession from bishop to bishop to bishop, he is no longer in apostolic succession, regardless of whether he had hands laid on in him in some particular ecclesial rite or not.
This is good for Episcopalians to hear because most of them, with their tendency to privilege form and ceremony over content, have no idea that the phrase “apostolic succession” has been interpreted in ways other than the formal notion of ceremonial hand laying, but rather one of the passing on of apostolic teaching.
Something that is being overlooked about this article and about the Times interview of ++Akinola is that both of these key Primates even now say they are in no hurry to leave the Anglican Communion. I think careful readings reveal the Churches of Nigeria and Uganda may be both more patient and more dogged in persisting for orthodoxy [i]in[/i] the Anglican Communion than many suspect.
Why can so few US Bishops write so clearly and faithfully? I submit that they are doubtful or confused about the church. It is a lot easier to write clearly when you are thinking clearly. When your topic is fudge, your writing will have a similar consistency.
#35
Matt 3 l7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Apostolic succession likewise has no meaning if it is only fof the transfer of power and not the faith of the aincients. Many wonder how we can still believe what was believed two thousand years ago. I believe authentic apostolic succession is to gaurd against our tendency to tinker with the truth. The fact is there is so much for us to buizy ourselves with in the space provided by our orthodox faith. We do not need to revise it to make it engauging.
William,
While I was struck by so many things in the article, the passage you quote was one of the passages that really stood out for me.
I’ve been saying for a long time that there are so many bishops out there who completely misunderstand what the role of the bishop is. The best way of putting it is to refer to his role as that of a shepherd. This means the gentle guiding of the flock away from danger and keeping them together as one flock.
There is no way to reconcile this job with free expression of personal opinion or worse yet for leading the flock under your care to adopt those personal beliefs or to each go their own way.
There is the right place, the right time and the right jobs for expressing ones personal opinion of Christian theology. The role of theologian comes to mind. Once one becomes bishop, the job changes and one must surrender the right to teach one’s opinion and instead be conduit or the voice for the whole of the Church throughout history but especially the Apostolic times.
In this respect alone (anymore) do I have any admiration for ++Rowan, that he at least has some grasp that his job is no longer that of innovator, of exploring new angles and testing new theories, but to be the voice and advocate for the consensus and the Apostolic tradition of the Church.
Orombi’s clear and umambiguous restatement on the Church’s teaching on the role of the bishop is such an important teaching for all bishops and lay people to hear. To heed it is nothing less than to go a long way toward recovering sanity in our communion.
Truly, without our bishops playing their proper and time-tested roles, what are we and what will we become? Certainly we will not be a church anymore. This much is abundantly clear.
PS.
If anything, you could say that the current crisis is nothing less than an advanced disease running rampant among our bishops for a long time. It has passed from them to the rest of the body. Instead of brakes, we have none. Instead of the steadying voice of tradition, we are without a compass.
Truly, if Satan were to mount an ultimately fatal attack on the church surely he would start with our bishops. Wait, lemme see, looks like he already has. Yet thanks be to God when I remember that the vast majority of our shepherds are already on to him and calling on the power of the Lord to drive him out of this body. Amen!
++Orombi’s description of the history of Anglican Christianity in Uganda is eloquent and moving. As the article goes on, however, he makes clear why he has given this historical context. I think the reason is to justify the position he and other provinces are taking on the issue that has brought the Communion into turmoil. Several points: (1) his definition of Anglicanism is the evangelical tradition of the 16th and 17th centuries, which he holds should be the normative version–forget the catholic tradition of the Caroline Divines, which he misrepresents; (2) this form of Anglicanism includes certain clearly defined doctrines and moral positions that are to be adhered to by all Anglicans; (3) the purpose of the episcopacy, through its claim to apostolic succession and “preseversation of the faith once, etc.”, is to enforce doctrine by disciplining those who step outside the moral/theological framework he has defined; (4) bishops who are outside already of that framework (e.g., TEC, ACC), are to be punished, and therefore there is no sense talking with them (forget dialogue or conversation) or reasoning with them–they are to be cast out; (5) Ugandan bishops will enforce this exclusion by not going to Lambeth–the road to true Anglicanism lies in the positions of CAPA and GS statements, not even Windsor; (6) The Covenant must be the one that GS bishops demand, or else.
It is good to have such a clear statement of this position so there is no question where ++Orombi (and no doubt ++Akinola et al.) are going with their movement to make realignment in NA a reality. What they are likely to succeed in doing is creating a Reformed Anglican Church (“Reformed” in the 16th c. meaning of the term–Puritan/Calvinist) in NA (out of the present alphabet soup) that they will insist be admitted into the AC and TEC/ACC be booted out. We shall see. Ah, the politics of religion–Christianity’s original sin. The Anabaptists are right about that.
Bob,
I agree that the definition of Anglicanism as stated by ++Orombi is correct. We need clear definition of doctrine and moral positions, anything less is the muck being promulgated by TEC. The Gospel message is one of transformation, as so clearly stated by ++Orombi. The position of TEC is one of affirmation, which leads only to death. I am not sure what the “catholic tradition of the Caroline Divines” is, or how ++Orombi misrepresents them. Perhaps you could elaborate.
As to point (4), there has already been enough “dialogue and conversation” to choke a horse. TEC has proven to be recalcitrant. ++Orombi is calling a spade a spade. No further “dialogue” is necessary, TEC has all the information they need to make a decision.
Bob,
I think that excommunication gets a bad rap as something cruel and harsh. But in the Bible and in tradition it is not only the very last resort after all manner of loving efforts have been made, it is also by no means a complete closing off. The door is always left open a tiny little bit and the Church continues to listen at that door for repentance for as long as it takes.
The truth is that at some point discipline becomes necessary in any given society when a person continues to insist on disrupting that society in spite of every effort to persuade them to recant. A society simple cannot remain a society, a whole, and also tolerate profound disruptions within it indefinitely.
There comes a point where the Christian Church can no longer say that an unrepentant sinner is a member in good standing and treat them as such. This thing has been going on a very long time now. All kinds of chances have been given. There comes a time when a more severe discipline becomes the only hope of reform. Anyone who has ever raised a particularly rebellious child would know that the time comes when the child’s behavior grows so disruptive that it threatens the whole family. The family is the microcosm of society. The same must be done in a society to unrepentantly disruptive adults as well.
It has everything to do with love and nothing to do with a lack of compassion to send someone out of that society for a time for the good of both the offended and everyone else.
Make that “offender” not “offended” 😉
A response to Ephraim Radner’s (#13) challenge that Orombi go to the TEC HOB. One piece of information which Abp. Orombi tactfully avoids saying – but which is the truth – is that he was never consulted before Rowan Williams committed the Primates’ Standing Committee to attend the September TEC HOB meeting. Knowing this fact gives more punch to his statement that he does not want to violate but to strengthen the instruments of communion. He does not say this, but I shall: the Archbishop of Canterbury (one instrument of communion) unilaterally responded to the TEC HOB request and committed the standing committee of another instrument (the Primates) without even asking permission of its members. By refusing to attend, Abp. Orombi is upholding both the Dar es Salaam Communique and also the authority of the Primates against usurpation by Canterbury.
As for the idea that Abp. Orombi might sway the HOB with his eloquence, they have Moses and the Prophets (Luke 16:19-21).
#22, when you said (italics mine), “Why meet with those [i]who continue to violate the statements already made[/i] by the instruments of communion? It is time for discipline, as the Abp. says so well”, you nailed it for me. Very simply, the integrity of ++Orombi’s Gospel witness is at stake.
Poor analogy, but here it goes: At what point do I make a mockery of fatherhood, my relationship to my twin 3 year olds, and the truth itself? After the 3rd warning? The 13th warning? The 39th warning? At what point do I respect my children’s decision and allow them to learn from the consequences? Or do I refuse to allow them to learn because I refuse to respect their decision? Do I fear they cannot learn from the consequences? Do I secretly believe that God cannot teach them through the consequences of their decisions? Mightn’t pride and unbelief be an obstacle to the godly development (yea, salvation) of my children?
I am glad that Stephen Noll has chosen to clarify Abp. Orombi’s tactful refusal — on the latter’s behalf — to come with Williams to TEC’s House of Bishops. It sounds like Abp. Orombi found Williams acceptance of the bishops’ invitation, including the Standing Committee in his agreement, somehow to be rude and overstepping of the authority he had and undermining of the authority of the Primates. I disagree, but I’m not part of any of this, so my opinion isn’t particularly important. Still, I continue to believe that Christians should talk to each other when they are given the chance to talk to each other. I believe that this is even more particularly the case when the person you think has abandoned the faith — and I have no doubt that many, though by no means all, TEC bishops have abandoned the faith in some important ways — invites you to meet, even if the invitation somehow didn’t get communicated in a proper way. People are sick of meeting and talking, I realize. And we can certainly consider the TEC House of Bishops to be the “old leaven”, as Alice argues, that needs to be “purged” and read this as demanding a refusal to engage, speak to, meet with, implore, admonish, persuade. Time to move on. As I’ve pointed out, however, even the context of 1 Corinthians 5 makes selective purging of this kind rather beside the point within a church where there are many strong evidences of immoral behavior among bishops, including in Africa. And why not simply embrace Jesus’ parables in Luke 15:1ff.? Who could argue against such a posture? And why would one want to?
I, too, subscribed to the on-line version of First Things after reading this. I have tried several times, both on Titus 19 and First Things, to make a copy of this, and all I get are the advertisements. Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong? It is too good an article not to want to share.
[blockquote] As for the idea that Abp. Orombi might sway the HOB with his eloquence, they have Moses and the Prophets (Luke 16:19-21). [/blockquote]
Well said. Few of us have a last shred of faith remaining that a majority of the HOB is going to return to the faith once delivered.
Denise, I copied and pasted the article (including the copyright notice) into MS Word and then printed it. The web page will not print for some reason.
Magnificent!
There’s an online version of First Things you can subscribe to? Now that’s something I could look into. I wish Touchstone had one.
Dr. Radner, is it possible that Archbishop Orombi has looked at TEC’s repeated corporate malfeasances over the past few years and decided that it has strayed outside the bounds of being a part of the apostolic Church? Various Primates have made appeals to these American bishops, over and over. They are waiting for a positive response. What good would another attempt do, that has not been done already? Perhaps the experience of being shunned, which is scriptural, after all, will bring at least some of the American bishops to a right understanding. The question here is, when is enough enough? Uganda and Nigeria have decided that point has been passed.
#50 — Thank you.
Could some of the reason why Arch Bishop Orombi doesn’t meet with the HOB is the way they are treating some of the Ugandan Churches in the US? One of the requests of DES was to end the lawsuits.
I can also say, when the Arch Bishop was here in May, he was a man of compassion and consolation for us at St. James.
Wonderful piece. I selected this quote because it gives an interesting summary of the key theological issues in dispute:
1) authority of the Word of God (Scripture)
2) God who acts in the world
3) necessity of repentance
4) personal relationship with Jesus Christ
[blockquote]Without a commitment to the authority of the Word of God, a confidence in a God who acts in the world, and a conviction of the necessity of repentance and of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, we will be hard-pressed as a communion to revive and advance our apostolic and missionary calling as a church. [/blockquote]
Ephraim, I think you miss the most important point, which is that the ABC not only failed to adopt the proper protocol in announcing that the Primates’ Standing Committee would be coming to the TEC HOB, but he tried to use his authority as Canterbury to “bring everyone to the table,†in a setting that will be most favorable to TEC and further inaction. Everyone was at the table in Tanzania, and the result was the Communique, which spelled out specific responses required by TEC. The ABC’s recent action is of a piece with his attempt to exonerate TEC with the ACC Standing Committee Report he brought to Tanzania.
I trust you realize the entire exercise of “bringing people to the table†is a ploy to avoid final discipline, not to enter into genuine dialogue or to reach genuine resolution. How many years now have we seen this ploy used, both within TEC and the Communion, to delay and distract while the theological Left moves on with its agenda. So if there is nothing really further to say, then I suppose the only reason for Abp. Orombi to go to TEC HOB is as a final witness to judgment, in the manner of Ezekiel:
[blockquote] My people come to you, as they usually do, and sit before you to listen to your words, but they do not put them into practice. With their mouths they express devotion, but their hearts are greedy for unjust gain. Indeed, to them you are nothing more than one who sings love songs with a beautiful voice and plays an instrument well, for they hear your words but do not put them into practice. “When all this comes true– and it surely will– then they will know that a prophet has been among them.”<< Ezekiel 33:31 [/blockquote] Henry Orombi is not a prophet but a bishop charged with responsibility of shepherding the faithful in Uganda and more widely in the Communion, which task includes driving off the false shepherds (Ezek 34:10; BCP Ordinal). In his apostolic role, he has already sung them the love song, in repeated meetings since 1998 and now in this fine piece in [i]First Things[/i]. They have eyes: let them read it and weep - or not, if they so choose.
Two matters: ++Orombi has said in so many words that there are standards which must be kept, and that those who do not choose to keep the standards are to be excluded. I have to say it pleases me to hear him say this since I have said it so many times here myself. In the context of his piece, it is strong medicine. Behold, a spiritual leader with some spine!
The other matter that struck most forcibly is that this is a voice that intends to fish in very deep waters indeed, where the big fish lie. If I may mix my metaphors, he is aiming very high. This is of course, intuition, a feeling derived from the tone of the piece. I do not mean he is power hungry for himself, although he may be, but rather that he feels the momentum going the African way, that he intends to make Africa step forward, that he intends to give Africa a masterful voice to whom many others, previously dominant, will submit, that the unfocused has found a focus and a voice powerful enough to give that focus energy and drive.LM
In its public statements and private communications ACI has said clearly that it is the work of the Primates Meeting as an Instrument to review TEC’s response to the Dar requests. That may or may not necessitate a full meeting, but it is work that ought not be undertaken by anything less than the Primates as a whole.
As for the meeting in New Orleans. Clearly the invitation to AB Rowan was not part of the Dar deliberations, but neither was the rejection of requests to which TEC’s PB signaled principled agreement. In reality, no one knows for sure what will be the work of various representatives of the Primates and ACC when the HOB adjourns. But surely anything more than fact finding and initial review would be to encroach on the proper work of the Primates themselves.
In the light of this, one could take sides about the desirability of +Orombi’s presence, though it is also difficult to know just what the meeting will accomplish in the light of a greater concern that the Primates themselves prosecute the Dar communiqué; here +Orombi makes his point. For those of us who are actually more hopeful about the ultimate positive prosecution of Dar, by the Primates, the case could be made that having +Orombi present to make sure the Standing Committee stays within its remit, or understands its proper remit altogether, would be no bad thing. In the light of the strength of the Dar communiqué—at any number of levels—ACI’s point is that all should be done to make sure that things don’t devolve into personality and perceived (or real) insult so that the communiqué and its force somehow get lost in the confusion. That danger is real at a number of levels.
Let TEC make its case one last time. Let Communion officials hear and review, in the light of the specific requests. Let the Primates respond to what they understand TEC to have done, when September 30 comes and goes. Anything that can be done that assures that the communiqué retains its integrity, and that the Primates are fully in a position to prosecute it, ought to be encouraged. Factually speaking, nothing prevents that happening as of this date.
A general FYI — papers from the covenant track at the Oxford event can be seen at
http://www.wycliffehall.org.uk/content.asp?id=571
They are in PDF format. There is also a Press Release. And papers from the Mission track.
There comes a point where continued association becomes tacit approval, especially in the eyes of the sinner. Paul knew this and knew the consequence for the one who has fallen from grace. “…hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord. 1 Cor 5:4”
We are so very much past that point where continued dialog is doing anything but feeding into the delusions of the apostates that they are still walking the Christian walk. It is time to stop! ABp Akinola quite rightly argues that souls are at stake. The loving and Christian way is to STOP talking and disassociate.
From Mark Harris on Preludium
Entire article:
http://anglicanfuture.blogspot.com/2007/07/archbishop-orombi-writes-of-matters-of.html
And here is a section of it:
“There is much more to be said on all this. The Archbishop writes eloquently of matters of the spiritual heart but then turns and passes by.
He has set out to ordain a bishop for work in the United States and continues in his outspoken criticism and reviling of gay and lesbian persons. From a recent article,
“People have abandoned relationships with the opposite sex. One wonders whether God was stupid to create Eve for Adam. Why isn’t Eve beautiful any more? Eve is going out with Eve and Adam with Adam,” Archbishop Orombi lamented.
Archbishop Orombi, also the Bishop of Kampala, decried the rise of homosexual activity in Uganda to the point where homosexuals have begun to demand special constitutional rights. Orombi cautioned audiences that just as God punished the biblical cities of Sodom and Gomorrah – destroyed by fire and brimstone for the sexual immorality of its inhabitants – he would not let this sin go unpunished either.”
No wonder he isn’t coming to the US to meet with our bishops. Who wants to be around those who are smelling of fire and brimstone? On the other hand, how dare this man first claim the martyrs of Uganda as his own, who were burned with fire, and then wish that fire down on others? I presume the Archbishop understands just where the pejorative use of the word “Fag” came from?
Just what we need: An Archbishop who wants to discipline and whose terms of such discipline are truly scriptural and repugnant.”
Brian and Mark Harris provide evidence to my statement, “continued dialog is doing anything but feeding into the delusions of the apostates that they are still walking the Christian walk.” We need to “hand [them] over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and [their] spirit saved on the day of the Lord.”
Great message.
#62’s message is one that I think needs to be picked up and run with, as it is scripture. We cannot compromise or unify with wolves disguised as sheep who come to devour the flock.
Brian from T19 and the quote from Mark Harris emphasize why more “conversation” won’t be helpful. Brian says that the Archbishop “reviles” gay and lesbian people. He, and Harris, and all those on their side of the argument, hold that there is an indelible orientation and that acting on those indelible desires is not sinful. The other side holds that sexual behavior is a behavior, not an identity, and that sexual acts outside the bounds of marriage are universally forbidden, for good reasons related to our basic human existence and nature as God created us. Lesbigay activists will not, like Brian at T19 and Harris, engage with the actual arguments of the other side, but continue to talk on their own terms. And so does Orombi, speaking in the terms of traditional Christianity. Further “conversation” begins to look like two children shouting, “Is not! — Is too! — Is not!” indefinitely. What’s the point?
Brian says that the Archbishop “reviles†gay and lesbian people.
I didn’t say anything! I simply pointed people to an alternative take on the statement.
#47 writes: [i]Christians should talk to each other when they are given the chance to talk to each other.[/i]
Yes, [i]Christians[/i] should. Christians are followers of Christ and strive to live lives under the apostolic teaching of Christ’s Church. Most of the American HoB have, time and time again, demonstrated they are not and do not.
#47 also says, [i]many, though by no means all, TEC bishops have abandoned the faith in some important ways[/i]
“Abandoned” is such a neat and tidy word. They have not abandoned the faith–would that it was so simple. Would that they had abandoned the faith (and the faithful!) and gone in for some other faith. But we all know that’s not what they’ve done and that’s not what they continue to do. They knowingly lie about who Christ is and what he has done. Most of them have repeatedly refused to believe holy scripture as the church has faithfully taught it.
# 58 said, [i]…ACI’s point is that all should be done to make sure that things don’t devolve into personality and perceived (or real) insult so that the communiqué and its force somehow get lost in the confusion. That danger is real at a number of levels.[/i]
As one who is also “more hopeful about the ultimate positive prosecution of Dar, by the Primates”, I see the only confusion that the communiqué is in danger of getting lost in is that those who drafted it would mitigate the truth of their message by refusing to hear or believe the American HoB’s response. Dear God, can we hear them?! Or is it that we refuse to respect their decisions? Is it not we who are now [i]insult[/i]ing them? There is nothing to clear up. There is no confusion. The presence of ++Orombi and company serves only to say, “We’d rather not believe what we think you’re saying; won’t believe you. In fact we don’t give you as much credit as we give ourselves for really understanding what the communiqué says or having the where withal to respond.”
#58 said, [i]Anything that can be done that assures that the communiqué retains its integrity, and that the Primates are fully in a position to prosecute it, ought to be encouraged. Factually speaking, nothing prevents that happening as of this date.[/i]
Standing by one’s word is more difficult that running; running hither and yon to explain and reexplain and parse and flush out. Meeting with the Hob for any of this is what would endanger the integrity of the communiqué.
My post went into thin air! Brian from T19, I assumed your agreement with the quote from Harris. I apologize for making the assumption.
All of this is a diversion from the powerful Christian message in the Bishop’s article.
But the meeting is a done deal. At issue is whether +Egypt has any support. One can always dream about cards to play that are not in their hand. I suppose if one thought that by not attending, a meeting would either not happen or produce good results anyway, then pronouncing it pointless would make sense. The bottom line is keeping the Primates in the driver’s seat. This is not about some vain belief in the power of hapless conversing! TEC needs to declare its full response and the Primates need to be sure they are the ones responding, not a committee. People can disagree about the wisdom of +Orombi attending; fine. But at issue is keeping the committee response of 1 October from muddying the waters or overreaching.
#68 says, [i]The bottom line is keeping the Primates in the driver’s seat.[/i]
Precisely. And they needn’t chase Cantuar to remain in the drivers seat. It’s just the other way round–they will lose their position by doing so. I fail to see how the presence of any of the primates helps TEC bishops to make their full response. The date of Oct 1 will make what ever reponse they make full. This meeting was given credibility by Cantuar. The Global South will give up what leverage they have by giving their legitimacy through attendance. The communion, as we know it, is Cantuar’s to lose, not the Global South’s to save. And if he chooses to lose it by refusing to lead in discipline, he may. If he uses his powers (through a committee or invitations to Lambeth or whatever) to avert discipline of TEC, no other instrument can save him. I hope and pray better for him and the communion.
If you would like to propose and prosecute a plan to keep all Primates Standing Committe Members away from New Orleans, you are of course free to do so; I’m not sure I’d oppose this! But for all the talk of ACI being out of touch, I actually believe we are dealing with realities on the terms we are being bowled them. I happen to believe that Dar will be prosecuted and we at ACI are doing all we can to see that happens. God bless, over and out.
I’ll say it another way: I don’t believe a Canterbury-led communion has primates in the driver’s seat. What seat the primates have is powerfully influential, but they can never undue or substitute for Cantuar. He must play his part. Again, it is Cantuar’s first to lose…or lead to a better place.
I am proposing and prosecuting nothing. I am praying the ABC will lead well. Do you really think all we have is primatial peer pressure on him that keeps us from going over the disciplineless edge?
Please know that I’m not part of the “talk of ACI being out of touch”. ACI is the most thoughtful game in town. As much as anything, I am working out what I think. I thank you (and all your colleagues) for sharpening my thinking.
Do you really think all we have is primatial peer pressure on him that keeps us from going over the disciplineless edge?
Absolutely. What else is there? He is completely independent in deciding who he remains in communion with.
Yea, I guess my point is primatial peer pressure will not be enough to sustain a Canterbury-led communion. The primates may forestall this round, but it’s all delay of the inevitable if Canterbury won’t lead. Maybe he is and I just can’t tell (but I don’t think so). In answer to your question [i]What else is there?[/i] my answer is a transformed Cantuar…so it’s back to prayer.
Dr. Radner:
Would you be willing to say a little more on 1 Cor 5, or simply point me to your most developed reflections on the topic? I’ve always been a little puzzled by your take on the passages on church discipline, but have never taken the time to study it closely. For this reason, probably, it remains somewhat counterintuitive; almost too sophisticated by half; indeed, a potential example of what Archbishop Orombi here calls (but without you in mind) “The insistence from some Anglican circles (mostly in theWestern world) on esoteric interpretations of Scripture†not accessible to “the simplest ployboy†for whom the point of 1 Cor 5 and such like seems obvious.
“As I’ve pointed out, however, even the context of 1 Corinthians 5 makes selective purging of this kind rather beside the point within a church where there are many strong evidences of immoral behavior among bishops, including in Africaâ€: isn’t it Paul’s point in 1 Cor 5 that this is not just your ordinary case of (even fairly regular) moral failure (I do not know the African situation), but a matter of something flagrant and especially scandalous? Indeed, a matter of someone confirmed in his boastful arrogance by a community of that same frame of mind? And if it is legitimate to see in 2 Cor 2 the actual denouement of the situation in 1 Cor 5 (and I realize that this may be controversial), then how was the “lost one†out of a hundred, or the lost coin, or the Prodigal Son in this case reclaimed, if not by way of an ultimately decisive refusal to associate?
Elementary questions, to be sure. But to me some of your statements on the passages on church discipline have sounded a bit too close to that of the revisionists for comfort. “People are sick of meeting and talking, I realize. And we can certainly consider the TEC House of Bishops to be the ‘old leaven’, as Alice argues, that needs to be ‘purged’ and read this as demanding a refusal to engage, speak to, meet with, implore, admonish, persuade. Time to move onâ€: there as elsewhere (for I don’t mean to imply that you don’t believe in any form of church discipline; far from it!) I find you quite sympathetic. But then you seem to make of a certain exclusive understanding of Lk 15 (an understanding exclusive of the procedure adopted in 1 Cor 5, an understanding that, like that of many revisionists, seems to set the Jesus of some passages and Paul at odds) the ultimate trump.
I put this question in all humility, fully conscious of the fact that, as I’ve said, I haven’t made a careful study of your comments on this topic.
With loads of gratitude for all you do,
Oops: plowboy.
RE: “TEC needs to declare its full response and the Primates need to be sure they are the ones responding, not a committee. People can disagree about the wisdom of +Orombi attending; fine. But at issue is keeping the committee response of 1 October from muddying the waters or overreaching.”
Sounds as if, then, Seitz-ACI, that you are not at all as certain about a Primates meeting post-September 30 as you indicated a mere month ago.
Once again . . . Canterbury is clearly attempting to do an end-run around the unfavorable outcome of the Primates Meeting and offer a smaller committee “compromise” to respond to TEC.
As, incidentally, he will continue to do for all the years he is in office — political maneuvering with whatever committee or instrument he has to hand, in order to prevent discipline for TEC.
He may, of course, do whatever he likes, including commit committees to respond for larger instruments of communion.
But then . .. that means that members of those committees may do what they like as well, which is not participate in that which is clearly meant to undermine the Primates meetings and response.
The only thing I can add is that it would be nice now if the Primate of the Middle East would also not attend.
Then we could simply have the revisionists on the “committee” attend, which means that it’s not “the committee” at all meeting, but rather individual revisionists Primates.
That would certainly provide the public clarity that the committee has not in fact met, and that the Primates Meeting should be deciding responses.
Of course, all of this is mere show anyway. The big issue for Canterbury will be how to delay things between September 30 2007, and July 16, 2008.