What should be the ecclesial consequences for Anglican churches that have consciously rejected the “mind of the Communion” during this past decade? Many have waited a long time for Archbishop Rowan Williams to spell out his own views. Since 2007 he has openly talked of the costs involved in going one’s own way, however conscientiously, in opposition to the formally stated teachings of the Communion on the matter of sexual behavior and other key matters of doctrine and discipline. But what costs? The archbishop’s Pentecost letter has now begun the formal process of both laying out and setting in motion these consequences. This alone makes the letter significant.
Until this point, the archbishop has steadfastly followed two tracks in responding to the divisions of the Communion. First, he has formally initiated and supported Communion-based processes of consultation and evaluation leading out of the 2004 Windsor Report. By and large, and based on commonly accepted standards of doctrine and discipline around the Communion, these have consistently pressed for Anglican churches around the world to adopt and enforce moratoria on the consecration of partnered homosexual bishops, on the affirmation and permission of same-sex blessings or marriages, and on the cross-jurisdictional interference of bishops in the dioceses or provinces of another church. Through the Instruments of Communion ”” the Primates’ Meeting, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Lambeth Conference ”” as well as through representative commissions like the Windsor Continuation Group, the acceptability of this track has been reiterated over and over. Yet, for all that, there has never really been stable resolution emerging from these repeated requests for moratoria.
The archbishop’s second track has been to champion the Anglican Covenant….
An insightful read but overly optimistic. Let us remember the Windsor Report became the Windsor Process and the Covenant has been weakened and one might ask does it serve its intended purpose.
Secondly, the Archbishop of Canterbury is good on rhetoric and weak on action. He is excellent at punting and restarting the discussion but not good at decisive action.
Until there is more than talk, the unity of the EC, ACiC, and the Anglican Communion will continue to deteriorate.
This is a hopeful and helpful understanding of things. I think the fly in the ointment could be this:[blockquote]That he formally recognizes some Episcopalians, like the Communion Partners, as still committed to the Communion may also influence questions of identity and mission in this regard, in that he has thereby indicated the possibility of providing distinctive recognitions of various groups within provincial churches.[/blockquote] What if TEC nominates Communion Partner Bishops as representatives to Communion Commissions that other TEC Bishops would be barred from? Then, in what way is TEC influence diminished in the WWAC? TEC could still say that they have a full seat, voice and vote in the WWAC.
Not likely. As the full metal jacket of diversity and inclusion clamps down ever harder on the dioceses, the more probable fate of the CP Bishops is to be presented for non-conformity to whatever the next GC comes up with for enforcing its latest notion of spirit-led progress. Pray for ’em, and keep reading the martyrologies.
My thanks to Dr Radner. As we all grapple with the significance of the ABC’s Pentecost Letter 2010, it is helpful now to have another ‘sextant’ before us, to complement the PB’s “Pentecost continuesâ€. The latter certainly makes things plain enough in the last paragraph: “As a Church of many nations, languages, and peoples, we will continue to seek every opportunity to increase our partnership …â€; “we look forward to the ongoing growth in partnership …â€. It sounds every bit as if TEC is now turning itself into an Alternative Communion – which some of us figured from GC 2006’s dias’s flags!
The positioning of Dr Radner’s efforts could not be more different. While acknowledging “‘diverse’ human voices†as good and necessary, what truly counts is whether we recognise “the one voice of [the Chief Shepherd] Jesus Christ†in these echoes of the Spirit around the Communion. And here “mutual discernment†is ever a function of “mutual submission†in the NT’s canonical eyes; so that prevailing matters simply speak for themselves … Lord have mercy …
A second thing that took my attention was his handling of ACNA. Many have felt a serious imbalance among the three Moratoria, due to a moral equivalence being applied where there was none. The “border-crossings†were provoked and were pastoral responses to that which was caused by others. They were furthermore responses engaged in due to a lack of sustained, appropriate response by the official organs of the Communion. As Bp Schofield so eloquently put it years ago: “to recognise the tear is not to cause it!†Just as the ABC himself (frequently in his Advent Letter of 2007) and now Dr Radner significantly gravitate to this word “recognizeâ€, so we must all now recognize the way the various forms of oversight provided by the African churches are becoming normalised, by the respective Houses of Bishops divesting themselves of these formal “jurisdictional linksâ€, as Radner notes. This clearly proves the non-equivalence that has been the case all along. Especially while TEC maintains its own course …
Lastly, to my own sextant’s eye, is the clear sense that finally [sic] consequences are ensuing. Of course many have already said the likes of “too little too lateâ€. But I have tried to argue before that we must hold to an adequate sense of the historical in all our assessments – even as I have tried to warn too of the significance of the age when information (not necessarily weighed knowledge, let alone wisdom) is seemingly spread before cyberspace’s table. Some appreciation of the ABC’s ecclesiology has always helped to gauge (to my mind) his own sense of timing – even if it is not one’s own! For a “ditherer†he almost certainly is not! Therefore, my own sextant now plots a course of clear division, even as the process of dividing will prove messy and confused for some time to come. Yet, just as a glacier moves imperceptibly for the most part, when it cracks off the end and falls into the valley below, all and sundry know well what has occurred. That sound is nearing its time! And to mix the metaphor: I shall rejoice, even as I mourn, when the Angel of the Communion sounds that trumpet.
A thoughtful but wildly over-optimistic assessment of the past, current and most likely future actions of +++Rowan, Cantaur. Dr. Radner seems to engage in selective amnesia as he neglects the many times over the past 7 years that the ABC has signaled right, then turned left at the last moment. To take just one obvious example: “The archbishop’s second track has been to champion the Anglican Covenant….” Yes, we all remember that steadfast championship of the Covenant in Jamaica last year! The ABC’s position and strategy has no theological integrity, which Dr. Radner refuses to concede. +Cantaur’s response is driven by purely institutional concerns: how to keep everyone at the table for as long as possible. It’s no more complicated than that. Based on his past actions, he will continue to veer one way, only to suddenly change course and move in the other direction. To read more than that into the ABC’s actions is nothing more than self-delusion and wishful thinking. His Pentecost letter is a very mild and tepid response to the Glasspool “consecration.” Does it signal some new found moral resolve on the part of the ABC? No. TEC has responded already through its Primate, and, at some point in the not-too-distant future we can anticipate some statement from Lambeth Palace that will give great comfort to TEC and ACC. “Actions Now Have Consequences,” Dr. Radner declares. Actions ALWAYS have consequences, but if he means by this that the ABC will do anything that actually holds TEC accountable for their actions vis-a-vis their position in the Communion, Dr. Radner is engaging in self-delusional fantasy. The ONLY thing that is consistent about the ABC’s response to date has been his strategy of doing the absolute minimum necessary to appease the vast majority of the Communion that accepts Lambeth 1.10 and thereby assure that TEC and ACC are allowed the space necessary to continue on the path they have chosen. History will show that this institutional strategy of doing whatever it takes to keep everyone at the table, even if just barely, was ultimately a failure, and a failure with tremendous long-term consequences for the office of the ABC. There is no way to hold these two profoundly different “visions” together within Anglicanism. Anglicanism is remarkable for how much it can hold together in dynamic tension, but the current crisis reveals that what Anglican Christianity cannot hold together in dynamic tension is Christianity and heresy. Time will not solve the problem as the ABC hopes it will. His strategy has already failed, and that failure is reflected in the historic shifts in global Anglicanism now underway. New structures are emerging, new relationships are being forged, and alternative structures of authority are being mapped that completely by-pass the historic institutions of the Communion that have failed the test of the current crisis – foremost among them being the office of the ABC.
Time will of course show us all whether you are right Chris Taylor. But this time it is not the endless ‘wriggle time’ of post Dar-e-S, I suspect. The scheduled Primates Meeting is early next year; and consultations before that will (apparently) be setting the agenda. And if either those consultations or the agenda prove ‘weak’ and more-of-the-same, as you divine the probable case, then I shall perforce have to agree with your assessment. For a good few Primates will probably never go to another such Meeting … And frankly, this time, I fancy the ABC does really know this …
I agree that this is as much an over-reaction [of wishful thinking] as KJS’s is an over-reaction of anger and fear.
At least this one is not shrill and strident and wildly incoherently and irrationally inconsistent nor does it make a huge [but smile-inducing] historic error as KJS’s does.
I also appreciate that Ephraim Radner is one of the few to note that one side of the moratoria-violaters are perfectly capable of rescinding their actions and either have [Kenya, Uganda] or are in the process of doing so [Nigeria, Southern Cone], or won’t [Rwanda]. The current progressive activist leaders of TEC, however, are not capable of rescinding their actions as it would negate their gospel.
But back to the overreaction — “consequences” must be consequential. And not allowing TEC to be a part of some ecumenical thingies is not consequential to TEC. That’s, so far, the only “consequence” that has occurred.
It’s true that others have been implied — but that’s no different than the past 7 years has been. Real consequential consequences have been “implied” for seven years, and haven’t occurred. I don’t see any reason to suppose that they will occur now.
While true that Rowan Williams will consult with the Primates . . . he “consulted” with them on other occasions, including the Lambeth Meeting invitations. And we all know how that “consultation” worked. I don’t see any reason why he shouldn’t issue a declaration that he’s “consulted” now and all is well with TEC folks attending and voting anyway. In fact, that’s what I ultimately think will happen. Schori will be a voting attender at the Primates Meeting.
In fact, a [i]classic[/i] RW maneuver would be — knowing as he does that a number of GS Primates have announced that they are not attending the Primates Meeting with Schori present — for him to decide that Schori can attend but they are all going to “vote” on the consequences at the Primates meeting, using that as a stick to achieve his continual and ultimate goal that indicates “all is well” — which is to have everyone “show up and dialogue” together. I would expect the GS Primates who have so indicated to not show up and then the “vote” to take place with TEC/allies winning.
Finally, I don’t agree at all with the theology that Tony Clavier and Ephraim Radner and various other CP folks have touted over the years. It’s articulated with these sentences:
[blockquote]For when Christians separate, it means first, that they do not recognize the voice of Christ being heard and spoken by their Christian neighbors; and second, in this lack of recognition, caused and acceded to, the very redemptive purposes of God are being thwarted and rejected. . . . our desire and work for truthful reconciliation is not optional, but remains an ever-demanding claim upon our lives as followers of Christ. If there are consequences, they cannot include the wholesale rejection of one another, without risking our rejection of the Spirit himself as the Father’s gift in Christ.”[/blockquote]
No. That’s what’s known as begging the question. “Christians” have not separated in the division between TEC revisionist activists and traditionalists — at least where he is speaking of the other-gospel believing and promoting TEC activist revisionist leaders. All one can do is read their words and look at what they believe and promote — and it’s not the Gospel. So in regards to the division between the two parties, there is no separation among Christian believers.
Further, when division occurs among false teachers and those who believe the Gospel, that is in no way a thwarting or rejection of God’s redemptive purposes — rather it is the acceding to God’s redemptive purposes for the Church as articulated in Holy Scripture which outlines clearly that there should be no “reconciliation” with false teachers but rather [i]rejection[/i] until the false teachers repent and are converted. Of course, “wholesale rejection” of any human being should not exist, as all — whether pagans or false teachers or Christian believers — are made in the image of God. So declaiming against wholesale rejection doesn’t really speak to anything that anyone is touting or pushing for anyway.
Thanks as always Sarah for your own considered words. And to comment on only one element of what you said, the block quote and thereafter.
One of the things over the years that makes me want to agree with, firstly, Radner’s stance is just this: none of us has a monopoly on the truth. Not you, not me – nor Ephraim Radner! Neither, in my view, has any [i]one[/i] tradition got it nailed! That’s why even in the wider Body, the ear needs the feet, as much as individuals need each other. Yet secondly, yes; occasionally there is a time to genuinely heed the warnings of 2 Cor 6, 1 Jn as a whole, etc. Jesus was especially strident and consequential in his judgments regarding the likes of some of his own listeners. And if in your view the current PB and others have crossed such a line, and others agree with that judgment – call it for what it is: heresy! Yet curiously even there, sometimes in Church History – and Radner has previously mentioned the likes of the monophysites and their rehabilitation – we’ve had to learn a degree of humility …
So; by all means call the H word for what you see it as being. It’s just that we Protestants at the start of the 21st C have no actual means of promulgating such a thing, nor, and this is vital to your own case, any due means of effecting consequential outcomes as some other forms of Church might have had historically. So you see – as I view it – we really are seeing “The End of the Churchâ€, to quote a certain title of a wee book …! And in this light, we all need to tread with both firmness and gentleness – a well nigh impossible task …
#7 Sarah says:
I can see that happening. The other thing I can see happening is this: I think it’s likely, based on the ABC’s Pentecost letter and his history, that he will suggest to the Primates essentially the same thing he has decreed with respect to IASCUFO: that TEC, Canada, and at least one or two of the border-crossing GS provinces attend as “consultants” only.
Clearly that will not be acceptable to the GS Primates: they have stated repeatedly that they do not want ++KJS attending in any capacity, and they are not likely to sit still for any of their number being bumped down to “consultant” status. So, if the ABC does indeed consult with them prior to the Primates’ Meeting, and if he makes a proposal in any way like that one, they are going to push back hard. However, the ABC tends to resist quite strongly, in his polite British way, any course of action that appears as one-sided as the GS want; so I’m not sure how far he can be pushed in that direction.
++KJS, meanwhile, might well decline to attend if she is not to be invited as a full voting member. It smacks so of colonialism, or something.
So I see it as not impossible that both ++KJS and the GAFCON GS Primates refuse to attend the upcoming Primates’ Meeting. Which would of course be +++Rowan’s nightmare scenario: if he had a table and nobody came.
Call me cynical, but I see this as the arch-ditherer offering up two tiny wet noodle wrist slaps, Ms Schori then replies with feigned outrage. Finally, a scenario will play out in the manner that Sarah suggests with Ms Schori, in the end, is still an active participant in the primates meeting and the “Standing Committee.” Probably it is all being choreographed by the puppeteer Jon Bruno.
Once again, the football will be snatched away from Charlie Brown/Global South by Lucy/Rowan Williams. Who will be surprised? I wonder if anyone talented with photoshop could make a [url=http://www.boston.com/sports/columnists/pierce/1107charlie_brown_lucy_football1.jpg] cartoon with Lucy’s head replaced with Rowan’s and Charlie Brown’s with ABp Akinola or something[/url].
Its always the next meeting. No thanks. Been there, done that, played that game. It’s time to move on.
There is a problem with what Dr Radner says
[blockquote]…who is involved in withdrawing from the councils in question? The Episcopal Church is explicitly mentioned, but the implication is that other churches, like Canada, that by synodical approval permit same-sex blessings may also be affected. But so too are the representatives of all churches that have rejected one or other of the moratoria. In theory, this might include Rwanda, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, and the Southern Cone.
However — and this the archbishop did not mention — all but Rwanda, and perhaps Nigeria, are now disentangling their houses of bishops from the American bishops they have held under their wings to this point. It is probable that very soon most of these provinces will have no American bishops and congregations jurisdictionally linked to them. These Americans will all, instead, be a part of the Anglican Church in North America, rooted in North America (recognized by some though not all members of the Communion). If that is the case, the presence of these particular global south provinces on all the councils of the Communion will be, at least in this respect, formally unimpeded in comparison with the Episcopal Church.[/blockquote]
The problem is that while Dr Williams has set his stony heart against the provision for North American Anglicans demanded from every Council from the Windsor Report to Dar and on, he has done everything he can to freeze ACNA out. He is now moving to encourage the provinces who have come to the aid of the churches in ACNA to cut their formal links, thereby ending the dual passport scheme that means that ACNA members have a definitive link in to the Anglican Communion through the assisting Global South provinces, while the status of ACNA is regularised. This he seeks to achieve while he has thrown every obstacle he can in the way of Communion recognition of ACNA and particularly by requiring that the ACNA enter under the hostile auspices of the ACO. It looks like a cynical and not particularly Christian attempt to push ACNA out into the cold.
I think that the Global South and Communion Partners should be wary of this blatent attempt to divide them again, and that others should be wary of going along with this deception of even-handedness in a similar treatment of TEC. TEC can live with not being represented in talks with ecumenical partners, who would not talk to them anyway. As far as I can see this is yet another example of the manipulativeness of the Archbishop which borders on the sociopathic.
Of course in doing so the Archbishop sets his face against the demand of the Global South Primates Steering Committee Pastoral Exhortation
[blockquote]We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight.[/blockquote]
My hope is that the Global South will stand together and firmly reject Dr Williams’ manipulative attempts to divide them again. We really can do better than this for the faithful Anglicans of North America.
I am reminded of what Archbishop Laud said of Charles I: that he “knew not how to be, or how to be made, great.”
Would that Rowan Williams deserved the efforts of Dr Radner.
I also think it is a big mistake to think that AB Williams has the interests of the Communion Partners at heart and they should be chary of finding encouragement from the efforts to freeze out ACNA. He seeks to use them for his own ends and they will find that in due course, when their usefulness is over, the support they believe they have from him will somehow evaporate [he has done it before including intervening at Jamaica to move against dioceses signing the Covenant, notwithstanding the contrary recommendation of the Windsor Continuation Group].
Don’t be surprised if you find he has just slithered off elsewhere.
Interesting comments. Again, I suppose someone must grapple with the arcana of communion politics. It would seem to be important that we speak with one voice to other Christians. However, in a previous post here Dr. Radner mentioned the importance of catechesis in this row, and I think we should continue to return to this theme. In other words, it’s MORE important what we teach our kids and catechists than what we babble in councils and ecumenical boondoggles. Those who are working on what we teach about central Christian tenets, such as marriage, are doing the most important work. Who and where are they? We dropped the ball (as a whole) when we let teaching central tenets to our kids and our catechists sink in priority. Once again, if you wonder where our communicants have gone over the last 25 years, look to parishes and churches where parents could take their kids with confidence they were being taught Christian truth. If we return this to it’s rightful place at the center (near our obsession with liturgy and cultural relevance) again, the Holy Spirit will sort it all out, and nothing can stop that. This, not all the covenants and meetings and committees and horses and king’s men, will put things right.
At the heart of the problem, there has been a failure to deal with the elephant in the room – GAFCON and the Global South which led to the boycott of the last, and largely pointless Lambeth Conference. Williams and his advisers think that they can maintain power in the Communion by dividing and ruling the Global South. The reason why there is a call for a non-Canterbury led Communion is grounded in Williams’ past leadership actions.
Even now in my view it is possible to redeem the situation, but it seems unlikely given the latest pastoral letter. The Archbishop and his advisers have failed to note the lessons of Singapore where the reception of his video address demonstrated just how far he has lost the plot. Now only left with AB John Chew, if that, Williams continues to play games with the Global South.
Dr Williams – you really are going to have to stop your manipulative games with the Global South and start treating all the Global South Primates like grown-ups. That is the only hope for the Communion and the place of your office in it. And the Primates also need to step up to the mark and make sure we have some proper governance in the Communion in place of the infantalised patronage put in place by Williams, Indaba and all. We need regular meetings of the Primates set by the last meeting, and an agenda also determined by the Primates, not the TEC-scheming ACO or Lambeth Palace.
Art #8, are you saying that since we Protestants have no means of effecting consequences to heresy, we should go to Rome or Constantipole? I’m confused.
Hi Art,
I certainly think that *some* Protestants have failed at excising false teachers from their midst and exercising the church discipline called for by Holy Scripture. But not all — there are some Protestant churches who do that pretty consistently.
So it may well be that the Anglican Communion is ending as a Church. But there are others that are not.
Art, in #8 you say: “So; by all means call the H word for what you see it as being. It’s just that we Protestants at the start of the 21st C have no actual means of promulgating such a thing, nor, and this is vital to your own case, any due means of effecting consequential outcomes as some other forms of Church might have had historically. ”
If what you say is true, then the Reformation was a dead end and Protestantism a terrible mistake. Heresy is not a word to be bandied about lightly, and it is a word that has been overused and incorrectly applied too many times in the past. That does not, however, mean that there is no such thing as heresy. There most certainly has been, is and will be. And, if what you say about Protestants being unable to name and deal with heresy is true, then the Protestant Reformation was truly an historic failure. Although I realize that many RC and Eastern Orthodox Christians feel this is the case, I cannot share that judgment. I disagree with you and Dr. Radner because I think that the crisis in Anglicanism now unfolding is revealing that we actually DO have ways, messy and untidy as they may be, that, despite the total failure of the historic instruments of Communion (including the ABC), can and ARE dealing with heresy. The great good news of the current crisis for me is that there is no paralysis of analysis of the sort you suggest. On the global level Anglicans aren’t having a problem either recognizing heresy for what it is, or confronting it forcefully and effectively. Yes, the historic instruments of Communion have failed, but ways around that failure are emerging — this is the great good news about Anglicanism. The profoundly concillior quality of Anglicanism, which draws from the earliest history of Christianity, and the recovery of which is Anglicanisms greatest gift to Western Christianity, is working – despite the catastrophic failure of the historic instruments of Communion. Faithful Anglicans globally are finding real ways to connect and to move forward. The booms have been lowered into the water, and heresy is being contained, even after the massive failure of the blowout preventers!
Dr. Radner and Dr. Seitz are still hoping that the ABC and the historic instruments of Communion can be reactivated and spring to life. They put great faith in the Covenant. I respect what they are doing, but I don’t hold much hope that it will work. We analyze the nature of the failure differently. They think that another instrument will turn the tide. I disagree. I think Anglicanism already has the instruments needed to meet the challenge – and, make no mistake about it, the challenge here is heresy. Why did they fail then? They failed because of the collective failure of many individual leaders over a long period of time, culminating in the tremendous failure of the current occupant of the See of Canterbury. In view of these many individual human failures, there is no new instrument, no new magic institutional device that would save the day for us. This is why I believe that even if we have the Covenant, the same failed individual leaders will ensure the same results. Our colleagues at ACI put more faith in human institutions, such as the Covenant, than I do. I feel that the Holy Spirit is guiding faithful Anglicans to do the right things in spite of the failures of the historic instruments of Communion, and without a Covenant. Anglicanism is evolving in response to the crisis, and that may be part of God’s plan. Anglicanism existed long before the “historic” instruments of Communion emerged in the 19th and 20th centuries, and I expect it will be around long after their failure is forgotten. We need to see this moment in the perspective of the long sweep of history.
I believe that Archbishop Williams needs to be told…..point blank and undiplomatically…..to stop dithering and stop supporting TEC, or he will have to accept the fact that the Anglican Communion is fast-disappearing on his watch; something he is supposedly anxious to avoid at all costs.
All of this beating around the bush has gotten us nowhere, and it is time for a decision. This summer…..not in January, 2011.
Thank you Sarah (#17) and Chris (#18) for your thoughtful replies.
Surely; there are those denominations who discipline their members, and who are thereby kicked out. But among the world of the Protestant Supermarket … they just slip off down the street, popping in elsewhere: it’s their consumer choice! That’s much of the problem in many western societies …
I am not sure how you, Chris, join the dots and conclude as you do: “…, then the Reformation was a dead end and Protestantism a terrible mistake.†I concur with the key idea conveyed in Alister McGrath’s book, [i]Christianity’s Dangerous Idea[/i], which chronicles (among other things) the effect of the Reformation’s overthrow of the RCC’s priestly caste’s supreme control over ‘ideas and practices’. As much as dealing with “heresy†per se, this is what was occurring at the Reformation – a real power struggle.
As for the present, you say: “Why did they fail then? They failed because of the collective failure of many individual leaders over a long period of time.†I’d be very interested to have you interpret “a long period of timeâ€. For when I invoke – try to invoke! – my understanding of the ABC’s own ecclesiology, I sense he has very long time indeed in mind – not years or even decades, but more half and full centuries. In which light, we’ve to go back to at least the 1960s to now chronicle and evaluate our present woes – which for me is the flux of the shift from “modernity†to the “postmodernâ€. That’s the first thing (for the moment!).
And then secondly, I am not nearly as confident as you that the GS plus GAFCON/FCA (to name but two groupings; there are more of course – which is also part of the problem) are able to construct (sorry; I cannot avoid the pun) those structures, even conciliar ones, necessary to deal effectively with the matter of heresy long term. For example, already I am aware of moves in Australia that would simply qualify as “territorial invasions†in many Anglican eyes. Ratchet that sort of thing regionally, and … And yes; once more it is a matter of power – but this time power is even more disparate in its spread than at the Reformation. So; no “promulgations†here either will “holdâ€, I sense – even should ‘they’ try to utter them, which of course ‘they’ will not … Rather; my own take from this point on – at least, one serious scenario I have running in my mind – is the collapse of the AC globally, with multiple associations cris-crossing multiple ‘identities’. This picture I derive from my own times in Africa plus Europe plus Australasia, plus good friendships in North America. To be sure; that scenario is offset by the possibility still (also running in my mind) of a yet to be seen but hoped for majority buy in into the Covenant, as a structure – hardly an Instrument – that may under God’s providence bring some coherence.
For at root, I see heresy as only one of the drivers; human power, and its relation to God’s power-in-Christ are the other key drivers to watch … But I go on too long now …