So far, invitations to the Lambeth Conference of 2008 have been sent out, but withheld from some bishops (Gene Robinson of New Hampshire because of his same-gender relationship on one hand, and on the other, Martyn Minns of CANA and Charles Murphy and his colleagues of the AMiA for the crossing of TEC provincial/diocesan boundaries by their sponsoring archbishops of Nigeria and Rwanda respectively. Also not invited for other unrelated reasons are Robinson Cavalcanti from South America and Nolbert Kunonga from Zimbabwe). That is how central the archbishop of Canterbury, one of our “Instruments of Communion”, has become to Anglican identity in our current crisis. Of particular interest and significance, the bishops of the AMiA and CANA claim they are already in direct communion with the archbishop of Canterbury through their sponsoring provinces of Rwanda and Nigeria respectively, and an invitation to the Lambeth conference would cement their legitimacy as bishops in America, directly in communion with Canterbury, instead of their current “backdoor” link through their sponsors (hence some refer to these bishops as “bishops irregular” as opposed to bishops suffragan or assistant or missionary, on account of their “backdoor” election and consecration). The legitimacy so eagerly sought is deemed to be so crucial to these bishops’ mission goals that if they are not invited to Lambeth 2008, there seems to be a determined willingness from their quarters to compel the bishops of their sponsoring provinces to boycott the Lambeth conference altogether, yet organize another conference of these same boycotting bishops somewhere else around the same time, in hope that next year’s Lambeth conference might become/appear irrelevant to Anglican identity and mission, or might even be postponed altogether, thereby indirectly embarrassing (punishing?) the archbishop of Canterbury for not “officially” recognizing (legitimizing) their mission in Anglican America (a kind of cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face). Yes, Lambeth 2008 has become that important a deadline for the Anglican family in America.
The implications for historic Anglican Order resulting from any such legitimation are just too staggering for some of us to sponsor or support at this time, for in their zeal to restore their vision of what Anglican Faith should be, these dear brothers and sisters are ready to break down Anglican Order. Instead, one would rather fully join the other reformed church traditions like the Baptists that hold to Anglican Faith but not to Anglican Order. One cannot have one and not the other and still be legitimately Anglican. It is true that Anglican Faith is broken in TEC (and really only in the North Atlantic Provinces), but that does not justify TEC breaking up Anglican Order and for the rest of the Anglican Communion to pay the price. In my opinion, this vision (saving TEC from herself and for herself) is not worth the price asked for (taking down the entire Anglican family). The juice would not be worth the squeeze.
Unfortunately for the Global South, it is the dioceses and churches in the Global South that critically need to be present at the Lambeth conference, as for some of them, this is the only time and opportunity that their leaders get just that once every ten years to inform the world of what is really happening in their ministries, especially where persecution and oppression exists in their home countries! Many a Global South political dictator is afraid of the bishops from his country attending the Lambeth conference, for they get to tell on an international stage the real stories of their experience of oppression and hardships under the home regime, and possibly gather sufficient international support that usually makes the difference between life and death for their Christians or programs back home (a good example is how Uganda’s Idi Amin directly sponsored some cleric into his secret police so he could attend Lambeth ”˜78, just to spy on Ugandan bishops following the martyrdom of Uganda archbishop Janani Luwum the previous year!). In short, Anglican Faith is comparable to a train, while Anglican Order is comparable to the rail(s) the train runs on. It is not wise to have the best train, even a bullet train (restored Anglican Faith within the American Anglican family) with a disjointed rail system to run it on (broken Anglican Order worldwide).
[blockquote]The legitimacy so eagerly sought is deemed to be so crucial to these bishops’ mission goals that if they are not invited to Lambeth 2008, there seems to be [b]a determined willingness from their quarters to compel the bishops of their sponsoring provinces to boycott the Lambeth conference altogether[/b], yet organize another conference of these same boycotting bishops somewhere else around the same time, in hope that next year’s Lambeth conference might become/appear irrelevant to Anglican identity and mission, or might even be postponed altogether…[/blockquote] [emphasis added]
Hmmm…the Rev. Canon Twinamaani seems to be saying that, for example, it is the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns who has strong-armed the Most Rev. Peter Akinola of Nigeria to say that the Nigerian bishops will not attend Lambeth if Minns is not invited. Anybody else out there buying that spin? That is an allegation that I have not heard, and which I find very hard to accept. Can anyone speak to any evidence for making such a claim?
That’s the same thing that jumped out at me, Freddy. I inferred the author to be saying that +Minns and +Murphy are the ones pressuring their sponsoring provinces to skip Lambeth in protest of their missing invitations… which I find hard to believe given all the past statements of their respective Primates.
I also take issue with this premise of the paper – that it is those who have left The Episcopal Church, or who may leave The Episcopal Church, who are the ones who jeopardize Anglican Order, and that for the sake of Anglican Faith.
Is it not The Episcopal Church that has caused the crisis in Anglican Order as well as Anglican Faith, by ignoring the pleas of all four Instruments of Communion, instruments in place to help maintain Anglican Order, not to go forward with the consecration of Gene Robinson? Is it not The Episcopal Church that has dropped bombs on the rails of Anglican Order by hiding behind “you don’t understand our polity,” as Canon Twinamaani rightly points out? Is it not The Episcopal Church that has disordered Anglican Order with her presiding bishop agreeing to the Dar es Salaam statement, to participate in the Pastoral Scheme and then not doing so, and by agreeing to the language of not going forward with lawsuits to settle church disputes, and then going forward with them anyway? And is it not the Archbishop of Canterbury who now has contributed to the crisis in Anglican Order by his inaction on the Pastoral Scheme and his action of sending out the Lambeth invitations early?
This placing of sole blame on Common Cause, CANA, etc., for creating the crisis in Anglican Order is another great weakness in Canon Twinamaani’s paper, IMHO. The crisis came prior to their involvement, and theirs is an attempt to restore some semblance of order. Whether or not its the right solution is still to be determined – but let’s be honest about the source of disorder.
I’m sure that this is a nice man, and that he is orthodox.
But besides the funny quote that the above commenters point to about forcing “the bishops of their sponsoring provinces to boycott the Lambeth conference altogether” he also makes a ton of weird claims about legal challenges that will arise to property based on bishops not being invited to Lambeth. I have never thought that would be an issue in the US courts — it’s going to be all about state property law, and frankly, if the ABC announced excommunication and courtyard decree burnings of ECUSA tomorrow it would not make one bit of difference in the cases confronting California and Virginia.
Furthermore, he blames the Global South provinces for violating Anglican order, when in reality, Anglican Order is lost due to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s NON-ACTION and NON-DISCIPLINE of ECUSA.
Some have determined that the ABC will not act to protect the Anglican Communion’s identity — and, as with most institutions when that happens — a good portion of people have decided that they are not really interested in being a part of it anymore.
I have two big problems with this article and, therefore, with ACI publishing it.
1. It furthers the myth that boundary crossings are an equal sin with actively gay bishops and same sex blessings under Windsor.
2. The reckless accusation mentioned in the first two comments.
It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that undermining CANA, AMiA, etc is on the ACI agenda. Otherwise, why are they promoting this piece? ACI needs to put out a retraction or a disclaimer and quickly.
“….withheld from some bishops (Gene Robinson of New Hampshire because of his same-gender relationship on one hand, and on the other, Martyn Minns of CANA and Charles Murphy and his colleagues of the AMiA for the crossing of TEC provincial/diocesan boundaries by their sponsoring archbishops of Nigeria and Rwanda respectively.”
Really, +Minns and +Murphy are not being invited as punishment? Looks like some cloaked editorializing to me….
The ACI continues their unfortunate hostility against CANA, AMiA and the other continuing churches, a sure course towards irrelevancy.
I also am very skeptical the statement, “Unfortunately for the Global South, it is the dioceses and churches in the Global South that critically need to be present at the Lambeth conference” so that they can highlight human rights concerns in the own provinces. Especially if Gene Robinson comes to Lambeth in any fashion, the press is going to give very little attention to such issues and focus on the gay issue which the press seemingly intentionally is pressing to centrality.
I agree with Sarah in that he is reading the Preamble as proscriptive and not descriptive. The Preamble might serve to help TEC, if it remains in the AC, but there has yet to be a court ruling to indicate that leaving the AC would legitimize the property claims of parishes/dioceses that chose to leave TEC and remain in communion with the ABC. So, I don’t think TEC is clearly in the great bind that he portrays, although is might cloud up things if there were two provinces in the U.S. both in communion with the ABC.
He seems to be saying that bringing the crisis to a head at this time would create a “disturbance in the [Order]” such that both parties would be equally damaged. The AC would be in disarray such that the GS would not be able to avail itself of the much needed support of the AC as it has in the past and TEC would hurt itself from a property point of view. But seeing as I think he has overstated the property issue, perhaps he has also overstated the issue of the ramifications to the GS if the Anglican Order is disturbed. Hard to tell.
As to who is “strong-arming whom” and why, here is a direct quote from Archbishop Orombi, made on May 14 at St. James’, Newport Beach a few days before the Lambeth invitations were issued. At that point, the only “irregular” bishop who had been announced was Martyn Minns. I asked the question, “It’s been reported by Ruth Gledhill of the London Times that all American bishops will be invited to Lambeth, so will you go?†He answered very firmly, “My bishops [i]have told me[/i] that they will not go if the American bishops go.â€
I had assumed that Bishop Robinson’s invitation would be the sticking point, but it became clear that he was including the entire American House of Bishops when he pointed out, “Uganda is not in communion with The Episcopal Church.â€
He added that he knew that the Nigerian bishops would not attend, as well as those from two other African provinces.
The writer ignores the fact that the Global South Primates are doing exactly what they said they would do should TEC’s leadership refuse to sign on to the Dar Communique.
The sides have hardened off and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s invitations are designed to exclude the hardest of the hardened off. ++Rowan must feel that this is the only way forward for a Lambeth based Anglican Communion.
The question of the Preamble’s force in adjudicating legal representation for TEC is one that has been hanging around since before the 2003 General Convention. As someone pointed out, however, there is no precedent about this, and therefore wno knows what courts could/would/will do with it. However, Fr. Twinamaani’s questions here have been publicly raised already by many, e.g. Bp. Stanton and the Diocese of Dallas among others. I have no doubt that 815 is well aware of this potentially explosive element in the Constitution, which is why they have pressed to clarify — e.g. at the last House of Bishops’ meeting — that no one has the right to interpret the Constitution except General Convention itself. Such claims, however, do not make reality.
Fr. Twinamaani is certainly right in pointing out that the “Road to Lambeth” strategy is not uniformly embraced by Global South Primates — as a document, it was not “subscribed” to by all, but rather received for consideration. Some Primates have obviously moved forward with its outline as their guide, but hardly all. And I know for a fact that there are some who do not accept its direction and presuppositions. It is important to understand this, because there is a real possibility arising that the Global South Primates themselves are being pried apart through this particular wedge issue.
In general, I think it is a useful thing to realize that there is a diversity of opinion among “Global South” church people as to the best way forward with respect to dealing with the Communion’s malaise and challenge, and this diversity is held among those with strong commitments to the central truths of the Christian faith. Those who think otherwise are misconstruing a difficult situation. Fr. Twinamaani’s concerns about pressing ahead with a single strategy that risks the order of the Communion are ones I share; and the basis for his concerns — that the cost of pressing ahead will be unequally borne by many Global South churches — is one worth pondering, even if one does not in the end accept it.
I have long encouraged a far more robust discussion about these matters among conservatives, one that can be carried on with openness and without the need constantly to take offense. If Fr. Twinamaani’s views are expressed with forthrightness and even judgments that seem confrontative to some in our midst, we in America — even conservatives — ought to be willing to listen to them with the patience we demand from others as we ourselves have long been used to confronting them about what we see as misconceptions.
Alice wrote
[blockquote]
The writer ignores the fact that the Global South Primates are doing exactly what they said they would do should TEC’s leadership refuse to sign on to the Dar Communique.
The sides have hardened off and the Archbishop of Canterbury’s invitations are designed to exclude the hardest of the hardened off. ++Rowan must feel that this is the only way forward for a Lambeth based Anglican Communion.[/blockquote]
I said immediately after the early invitations that all, including the ABC, knew about the position of the Global South. The ABC also knows that the Americans do not have the steely spines of the Africans. Thus, I disagree with her second assertion that the ABC was excluding the all the hardened. He was tacitly excluding the Global south only. The Americans [i]sans un[/i] will be at Lambeth (if there is one) with their bells on.
Again we hear the “oh, but the global south are not uniform in opinion” line from ACI. Did ACI choose to publish this essay from Father Twinamaani, so that we could hear from an African? Is this helpful? Is this credible evidence? There does seem to be credible evidence of uniformity in a large portion of the Global South provinces representing gazillions of Anglicans. Is, for example, Tanzania on board? I hope so. If not, what of it? The Global South, not the ACI or the covenant is the last, best hope of the orthodox here in Anglicans. I truly wonder what is the reasoning for the harping on this “lack of uniformity” in the Global South? If the ACI folks repeat in oft enough, will it be self fulfilling?
Fr. Radner,
I was wondering if you could respond to the apparent charge that Canon Twinamaani is making that the AMiA and +Minns are compelling their provinces to boycott Lambeth. Such a claim seems to invite charges of American arrogance against those who see TEC as being the arrogant player in this situation.
I also wonder if you could explain your phraseology in that the GS received the “Road to Lambeth” document for consideration. My recollection of the news at the time was that the document was not merely received but acted upon with only one dissenting voice (South Africa, IIRC) Did I miss something or am I recalling a different event?
I should follow up my first question to Fr. Radner by also asking, does Canon Twinamaani’s comment suggest that it would be best if [b]all[/b] Americans stay out of Global Anglican affairs to avoid these charges of arrogance?
RobRoy wonders if we — ACI– are just sowing seeds of dissension among the Global South Anglicans by continually noting the lack of uniformity among some/many of their members. “Self-fulfilling prophecy”? I sometimes wish any of us had such power (though not on this score)! RobRoy seems more concerned with North American Anglicans than with the Communion or with Global South Anglicans. That is fine — he is a North American. But Fr. Twinamaani’s paper notes, from personal experience, the benefits of the larger Communion to his own part of the world, and the fact that the Communion’s demise will affect that part of the world perhaps more tangibly than North America. I tend to agree with him, based on my experience in both Africa and elsewhere in the Communion: America’s bull-in-the-chinashop approach has wreaked havoc in the Communion, and has placed many e.g. African bishops and Primates in impossible positions. Well, that’s life I suppose. But American Anglicans have little to lose in this fight other than the comforts of their traditions and habits. Our Christian faith can be lived out without pain with or without TEC, AMiA, CANA, or the Anglican Communion as a whole. This is not always the case elsewhere, and in fact we Americans (including myself) have little sense of the nature of the choices facing many of our brothers and sisters in the Communion elsewhere in the present ecclesial struggle. RobRoy’s judgment regarding, say, Tanzania’s possible place in the Lambeth shake-out — “what of it?”, or basically, “who cares?” — strikes me as unfortunately blinkered and revealing in this light. Many do care, including of course Tanzanians themselves, from laypeople, priests, bishops, church workers, teachers, and Western Anglicans bound up with them. This is not about ecclesial politics, where calculations about who is expendable as long as the goal is reached come into effective play. It is about maintaining the unity of the Body of Christ — such as our small portion of it is in Anglicanism — in truth and love both. It it not a luxcury to worry about divergences in attitude among our Global South brothers and sisters, and about the effects these will have on our common life; it is essential and a simple part of Christian responsibility. Fr. Twinamaana’s perspective is not to be dismissed just because he is not a “player” in GS politics.
MikeS asks about the “Road to Lambeth” document. The point isn’t that the document was rejected by anybody, but rather that its content was not embraced as policy by the Global South Primates as a whole. That is a fact, and I can name several Primates for whom this is the case. ACI’s real concern in all of this — consistent, I guess, to the point of “tiresome” and “harping” — has been the integrity of the Communion, for which the integrity of the GS Primates and churches is required; and given the real danger that the GS Primates will split (unevenly) and the Communion as a whole thereby in ways that are not simply “theological”, raising these issues strikes me as reasonable, even if not always comfortable.
And is Fr. Twinamaana’s perspective implying that all of us americans should “stay out” of GS affairs? (That would include people like ACI, obviously!) Perhaps! And perhaps he is right. (I have read another paper of his regarding “American” thinking or “cognition” that would indicate his sense that we in the US, no matter our theological positions, have a hard time working “with” anybody.) The “poison-apple” approach has been one of American Christianity’s great contributions, of late, to the Anglican Communion.
Rev. Radner – Many progressives (if not most), like myself, see the break in the GS (as you describe it) as being brought about by the members of the GS itself. In other words, certain members of the GS have forced this “wedge issue” on the AC and, it seems, on themselves as well. And in the end may do more damage to themselves, than to TEC.
I could be mistaken, but it seems that you are saying that despite the greater numbers in GS, they are in fact weaker, less able to do and know what is in the best interest of those whom they are charged to serve. There is some irony here because progressives see nothing but an orchestrated effort to portray the GS as not only knowing what is best for itself, but for all “orthodox” in the AC, particularly in North America.
If you and others wish to make an appeal to the parties to “stand down,” at least for a period of time, much more will need to be done to convince us (and perhaps conservatives, as well) of what is actually at stake for our brothers and sisters in the GS provinces – whom we all care about.
Fr. Radner,
I would tend to agree with the appeal to Americans (both sides) to stay out of GS affairs or even out of Anglican affairs until this situation is resolved. I think Twinamaani is right about American inability to listen or work with others. America is often seen by many overseas as the cowboy nation of loners doing their thing.
I’ve lived outside of the US for some time now and have witnessed American interactions with the people around me as well as how the US is perceived in the wider world. Even among people friendly to the US there is head shaking and comments about American mentality. For those living in the US, it is almost impossible to see except in cross-cultural situations, especially among new arrivals.
Last week, I received my Spring 2007 copy of [i]Leadership[/i] magazine. The interview with Oscar Muriu, pastor of Nairobi Chapel, should be required reading for all Anglicans considering their place in the Communion. He says the gifts of being American that work so well in our culture are actually a curse upon arrival in Africa. He even says at one point [i]”When the American speaks, the conversation is over.”[/i] He says for successful long-term relationships Americans need to learn to be quiet and not give their opinion about the issues at hand. We do not know how to walk in the way of Christ, only to debate like disciples about who is number one.
Unfortunately as we all know that is almost impossible for Americans to do. And many comments on this blog and others from both sides reflect not only the American inability to be quiet, but also the quick dismissive attitude towards those who are not as equally assertive in making their points or even gently disagreeing with the American viewpoint.
This has been my non-African experience as well. Thus if Twinamaani is saying the American Anglicans are the cause of the stress in other provinces, I would agree. Therefore, I would concur that a long step back for both sides in the US would do much for healing the breach in these bonds of affection, no matter who has caused them.
But that may be even more impossible to accomplish as everyone will wait for evidence that the other side is stepping back as well. My concern is that we will end up with the old diplomatic/defense doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction within the Angican Communion.
GS opinion is not unanimous. Oft repeated by ACI folks. The few countries cited usually include Tanzania as one example. I, of course, did not mean to diminish the Tanzanian contributions to the communion. I would love to swap the TEC hierarchy (KJS, Chane, Sisk, etc) for the Tanzanian hierarchy. The TEC phonies would last about 15 minutes in Africa before being rightly tossed out of the churches in a very Pauline fashion, and we would be blessed with God-fearing pastors of the church. Ah, would that we could! Yes, I know wishful thinking.
It is apparent that the neither the ACI personnel nor myself are in the loop in the seeming ongoing discussion between GS primates and Common Cause. Speaking hypothetically if there is a GS/Common Cause sponsored alternative orthodox North American Anglican province (ONAAP) and the participating provinces included Uganda, Nigeria, Kenya, Southern Cone, Rwanda, Central African Republic, maybe a few others, but suppose Tanzania cautiously held back endorsement. Would it matter? That is not a cavalier dismissal of the wonderful country of Tanzania, rather, even without the Tanzanians, representatives of half of the worlds Anglicans would have endorsed the new province. Good enough of an endorsement for me!
Am I talking from a North American centered point of view? Hardly. I recently went to Kenya on a medical mission and seen how they are on fire for Christ in contrast to the spiritually walking dead we have here. I have said before that such a scheme would be of benefit to both the orthodox North American Anglicans and the GS Anglicans. We need their orthodox leadership, and they would benefit from our resources. Father Ephraim has talked about how the epicenter of Christianity has moved from the middle east to Rome to northern Europe to North America and now to the global south. Absolutely true. The TEC tells the rest of the Anglican communion, “follow us” in our apostasy. The American orthodox (CANA, AMiA, etc.) are saying, “You carry the light of Christ, We will follow you.”
The ACI are concerned about the communion. The question is what will the ABC do if an ONAAP was run up the flag pole in October. Would he salute? My personal opinion is that I was so thoroughly disgusted with his subcommittee report and the early invitations and that I don’t care too much. The communion needs to prune itself of the TEC if it has any chance of survival. If the ABC chooses to be pruned also, so be it. Radical corrective measures for the AC? You bet.
Am I concerned that Common Cause and the GS aren’t showing their cards? I look to the team they are forming and trust they will do the right thing. Nothing but superlatives have been said about them by colleagues and their laity.
Robroy,
[blockquote] We need their orthodox leadership, and they would benefit from our resources.[/blockquote]
This is the kind of comment I was talking about that carries a whiff of American arrogance to it. I’m not saying that is what you intended but it is how it would be read by many in the GS.
It is built on the American (Western?) model of what ever works do it. It is not built on relationships but on the quid pro quo. At this point it sounds very much like what Griswold was reported to have said that led some of the African provinces to cut off their reception of American financing.
I agree that TEC needs to be pruned, maybe even a severe pruning. But saying we want GS leadership and they need our resources only puts Americans back in the position of dictating what should happen. What happens when we don’t like their leadership? Do we stop giving?
I think the rest of the Anglican Communion (and maybe the world at large) is reaching their end with Americans telling them they need something from us. I would be willing to venture that Canon Twinamaani is, in part, trying to help us see that point.
Better to say we need their leadership, period. Let them tell us if they need our resources. Yes, there are lots of problems on the African continent (and elsewhere in the world) that could be solved with Yankee ingenuity. But telling them they have a problem that we can solve is seen as very condescending.
This is a relationship killer. If we tried it on our spouses for as long as it has been going on in the GS, we might find ourselves with higher level of stress in our home life than would be tolerable. The Anglican Communion is not merely about what works, it is also about our relationships with like-minded people who follow and worship Jesus Christ as we do. That should be cherished.
I cannot recommend the article I previously mentioned from [i]Leadership[/i] magazine highly enough. It is not long, but Oscar Muriu describes in simple terms how Westerners have come to be perceived and how we can change. You can find it [url=http://www.christianitytoday.com/le/2007/002/3.96.html] here. [/url]
Please return to comments on the original post.
-Elf Lady
To the elf lady: The discussion seems to be the most on-topic thread I have seen in Titus, the relationship between GS and American orthodox as well as questions regarding motivations of ACI for choosing this essay to publish on their website.
To Mike: Thanks for the link. Good discussion of short term missions which I do. Appreciate your point on not wanting to appear as though orthodox leadership vs American resources is a quid pro quo. If one sees where TEC MDG money goes, one can see that it is very much strings attached. However, there is a big difference between “support our heresy, and we’ll send money” and “preach Christ crucified, and we’ll send money.”
It would be nice for this crisis to be averted in deliberate discussions at Lambeth 2008 and 2018. Father Twinamaani rather naively thinks that the crisis can be avoided by the TEC [i]simply[/i] seeing the error of their ways. The reality that is understood by Orombi, Nzimbi, Akinola, Kolini, etc., is that the TEC has led to communion so close to the precipice that it is teetering over the edge.
Elf-lady,
I’m not sure if I’m the one who took the conversation off-track or not. If so, I apologize.
I’m trying to flesh out what Twinamaani means when he says that GS bishops in North America are compelling their provinces to boycott Lambeth. If Twinamaani is saying that all Americans should take a long step back and be quiet for a while, it would be good to hear ACI clearly say that and follow up instead of lamenting AMiA, CANA or the others in the GS alphabet soup. I think they raise some good points, but at the same time I think such comments do not help the Communion, nor do they encourage the reasserting side to hold their common ground. I say that as a weak-kneed Federal Conservative who more than ever appreciates the contribution of the Communion Conservatives, like ACI.
Robroy,
I appreciate that difference between “support us as we give you money” and “you preach Christ, we’ll help.” I would still phrase that last as a request though, asking “May we help?” It places us in the position of being submissive to their leadership not just on paper, but with our actions/money. Those principles about short-term missions apply even more in long-term ministry relationships.
I also agree that the time to deal with this is now, 2007, not at Lambeth. I fear by the time we get to Christmas TEC will have burned her half of the rope bridge to the Anglican Communion. Which will be sad because it will leave me and my family in one part of the Anglican Communion and my parents in another.
Sarah Hey at Stand Firm has written a great piece about the sudden clarity coming from TEC that matches the clarity coming from the primates and GS leaders. Both sides are speaking clearly, but with completely different worldviews.