March 25, 2017

April 23, 2010

BREAKING: Global South Singapore Communiqué

Just received now.

Fourth Trumpet from the Fourth Anglican Global South to South Encounter

St. Andrew’s Cathedral, Singapore, 19th – 23rd April 2010

  1.    The Fourth Anglican South to South Encounter took place in Singapore from April 19th through April 23rd, 2010. The theme for this encounter was: “The Gospel of Jesus Christ - Covenant for the People; Light for the Nations.” We marveled at the power of this Gospel as we met together from all corners of the globe united in our commitment to Jesus the Christ and the proclamation of His message of eternal assurance and transformation open to all people. We were renewed in our determination to assist each other in fulfilling the Great Commission to make disciples of all nations and to do all that Christ has commanded.

  2.    Grateful for the gracious guidance of the Holy Spirit a total of 130 delegates from 20 provinces in the Global South (Comprising Africa, West Indies, Asia and South America) gathered together. We represented the vast majority of the active membership of the Anglican Communion. We were also joined by a number of our partners in the Gospel from Australia, New Zealand, and the USA. The entire delegation from the Province of West Africa and invited participants from the UK and Ireland were unable to be present because of travel difficulties.

  3.    We were immensely grateful for the wonderful hospitality provided for us by Archbishop John Chew and the people of the Diocese of Singapore and, in fact, the entire Province of South East Asia. The ministry among us by the former Primate of South East Asia, the Most Rev’d Datuk Yong Ping Chung as Encounter Chaplain was also a source of great blessing. The warmth of their welcome and hospitality provided a context in which we were able to pray, study, worship and take counsel together so that we might more clearly discover a united and prophetic voice about matters that affect our beloved Anglican Communion and our world.

  4.    We gave thanks to God for the visionary leadership of the Most Rev’d Peter J. Akinola, recently retired Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) as Chair of the Global South Primates Steering Committee for the past ten years. We welcomed the election of the Most Rev’d John Chew as the new Chairman, the Most Rev’d Henry Orombi as Vice-Chairman, The Most Rev’d Mouneer Anis as Secretary, the Most Rev’d Nicholas Okoh as Treasurer, and The Right Rev’d Albert Chama and the Most Rev’d Stephen Than as members.

  5.    We were encouraged by the warm welcome given to the Primates at the Istana (Presidential Palace), by the President of the Republic of Singapore, His Excellency Mr. S.R. Nathan. Singapore is a rich multi-cultural tapestry that provided great encouragement for us to have eyes to see clearly the various people groups in our own nation’s context of ministry.

  6.    We were appreciative of the greeting given by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, by means of a brief video that was shared at the beginning of our time together. We rejoiced in the welcome given to us by Elder Fu Xianwei, Chairman of the National Committee of the Three Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM) of the China Christian Church and the presence and warm greeting offered by His Grace Bishop Suriel representing His Holiness Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Orthodox Church.

  7.    We met under the shadow of a serious global ecological crisis as a volcanic ash plume from Iceland resulted in a massive disruption of international air travel.  We were reminded yet again of the fragility of our earthly existence and our utter dependence upon the grace of God for life itself.

  8.    We were mindful of the many difficulties confronted by the nations that we represent. These include natural disasters that have led to enormous devastation, deprivation and the loss of life, political instability that has too often resulted in corruption and violence and the ever-present challenge of living in a world of multiple religions and competing truth claims. We are grateful for those many places where it is possible to live out and promote our Christian convictions without threat but we know that this is not the experience of all our members and we honor those whose Christian faith has led to their marginalization, persecution and sometimes their violent deaths. We uphold all of them in our prayers.

  9.    We received presentations on the Gospel of Christ, mission and ministry from the Nigerian, West Malaysian and Ugandan settings. Huge political, social and economic changes are taking place as we begin the 21st Century. The global shift in Christian demography brings with it new opportunities for evangelistic outreach. However, we also need to understand afresh the challenges that are confronting the Church and the wider society. We encourage Provinces to develop intentional plans and structures for Church growth in the post-Christendom context of today’s world. Above all, we call for a new quest for personal and corporate holiness in the Communion.

  10.    We responded positively to the call to declare the next ten years a Decade of Mission and Networking and urge our respective Provinces to take up the matter, especially in expanding mission sending capacity to enhance networking among Global South Provinces. We call upon our Churches to pay greater attention to the role of Christian professionals in the mission, ministry and witness of the Christian community. We also need to pay particular attention to the pastoral needs of the laity, especially women and young people, who are witnessing to their faith at the cutting edges of mission.

  11.    We rejoiced to receive the report from the Global South Anglican Economic Empowerment Track that was established in the Third Encounter. We affirm the actions already taken in the past four years that focus on:
      * Developing in each Province an Economic Empowerment Fund;
      * Developing sustainable Empowerment strategy;
      * Promoting biblically-based teaching on stewardship;
      * Promoting regional partnerships;
      * Networking and increasing active engagement of both public and private sectors in improving the economic livelihood of local communities.

  12.    The youth leaders from the Provinces of Egypt, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Southeast Asia met together to celebrate their Anglican heritage. We agreed that the future of the Communion lies in winning the next generation for Christ. We urge each region to adopt initiatives to better understand the needs and characteristics of this new generation so that we might better communicate the Gospel and Christian values to them. It is essential that the ethos and traditions of the Church be imparted to the youth in creative and dynamic ways so that they will be equipped to live for Christ for their generation and beyond.

  13.    During our plenary sessions, bible studies and small group discussions we were called back to a fresh vision of God, of the Church and of Christian leadership.  We saw God in His stunning holiness and absolute sovereignty through Isaiah’s vision (Is 6: 1-13), and correspondingly saw our own ingrained sinfulness and utter foolishness in trusting man rather than God alone. We caught a “ big” vision of the Church from her role as ‘servant of the Lord’ (Is 42: 1-9) to bring God’s justice or ‘right order of living’ to the nations of the world. This established the absolute necessity and priority for the Church to disciple her members under the authority of the inspired Scriptures so that they may transform their societies and reach the nations with the Gospel. The fresh call upon the Church’s leadership, from the Servant of the Lord’s costly obedience (Is 50: 4-9), is to be courageous and fully confident of the Lord’s sustaining grace and final vindication.

  14.    Upon this biblical foundation, we looked afresh at the theological underpinnings of the Encounter’s theme, found renewed strength to pursue its practical outworking and renewed our commitment to network with one another for mission, prayer and economic empowerment strategies so that we might enlarge the capacity of our provinces and dioceses to fulfill the Great Commission.

  15.    As a sign of our fellowship and an encouragement to our purpose, at the beginning of our assembly God sent into our midst two Nepalese Anglicans, members of the new Anglican Church in this principally Hindu and Buddhist nation. They shared with us about new Anglican initiatives that are bringing the gospel to their people and the way in which the Word of God has brought life and hope and peace, along with suffering. We rejoice with them in their newfound faith and their determination to be obedient to the Word of God in a setting where such obedience is very costly.

  16.    In contrast, we continue to grieve over the life of The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada and all those churches that have rejected the Way of the Lord as expressed in Holy Scripture. The recent action of TEC in the election and intended consecration of Mary Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, as a bishop in Los Angeles, has demonstrated, yet again, a total disregard for the mind of the Communion. These churches continue in their defiance as they set themselves on a course that contradicts the plain teaching of the Holy Scriptures on matters so fundamental that they affect the very salvation of those involved. Such actions violate the integrity of the Gospel, the Communion and our Christian witness to the rest of the world. In the face of this we dare not remain silent and must respond with appropriate action.

  17.    We uphold the courageous actions taken by Archbishops Mouneer Anis (Jerusalem and the Middle East), Henry Orombi (Uganda) and Ian Ernest (Indian Ocean) and are encouraged by their decision not to participate in meetings of the various Instruments of Communion at which representatives of The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada are present. We understand their actions to be in protest of the failure to correct the ongoing crisis situation.

  18.    Some of our Provinces are already in a state of broken and impaired Communion with The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada. Their continued refusal to honor the many requests [1] made of them by the various meetings of the Primates throughout the Windsor Process have brought discredit to our witness and we urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to implement the recommended actions. In light of the above, this Fourth South-to-South Encounter encourages our various Provinces to reconsider their communion relationships with The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada until it becomes clear that there is genuine repentance.

  19.    We were pleased to welcome two Communion Partner bishops from The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) and acknowledge that with them there are many within TEC who do not accept their church’s innovations. We assure them of our loving and prayerful support.  We are grateful that the recently formed Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is a faithful expression of Anglicanism. We welcomed them as partners in the Gospel and our hope is that all provinces will be in full communion with the clergy and people of the ACNA and the Communion Partners.

  20.    For many generations Anglicans have lived together with a shared understanding of our common faith; indeed among our great gifts has been the Book of Common Prayer that has provided a foundation for our common life. In recent years the peace of our Communion has been deeply wounded by those who continue to claim the name Anglican but who pursue an agenda of their own desire in opposition to historic norms of faith, teaching and practice. This has led to a number of developments including the GAFCON meeting that took place in Jerusalem in June 2008. [2]

  21.    Global South leaders have been in the forefront of the development of the ‘Anglican Covenant’ that seeks to articulate the essential elements of our faith together with means by which we might exercise meaningful and loving discipline for those who depart from the ‘faith once for all delivered to the saints.’ We are currently reviewing the proposed Covenant to find ways to strengthen it in order for it to fulfill its purpose. For example, we believe that all those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10. Meanwhile we recognize that the Primates Meeting, being responsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Covenant in its implementation, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.

  22.    Over the last 20 years we have been distracted by conflicts and controversies that have kept us from effectively fulfilling the Great Commission. While we have been so distracted, Christian heritage, identity and influence has continued to decline in the West.  We believe that there is a need to review the entire Anglican Communion structure; especially the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Communion office; in order to achieve an authentic expression of the current reality of our Anglican Communion.

Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. (Hebrews 12:1,2)



1. Specific recommendations are listed in the Windsor Report 2004, Primates’ Meeting Communiqué at Dromantine 2005, Primates Meeting Communiqué at Dar es Salaam 2007

2. “We, together with many other faithful Anglicans throughout the world, believe the doctrinal foundation of Anglicanism, which defines our core identity as Anglicans is expressed in these words: The doctrine of the Church is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal. We intend to remain faithful to this standard, and we call on others in the Communion to reaffirm and return to it.” Jerusalem Declaration, June 2008

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



We believe that there is a need to review the entire Anglican Communion structure; especially the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Communion office

Wow. Of course, not that The Episcopal Church (tm) will give a toss.

[1] Posted by cliffg on 4-23-2010 at 02:29 AM · [top]

Combined with Bishop Mouneer’s speech, going forward the GS is setting up structures under the control and direction of their Primates and will not be participating in Anglican Communion structures until they, also, come under the direction of the Primates and under the standards of the Scriptures.  They advise all their Provinces to consider breaking communion with TEC and ACoC while recognizing the ACNA as an Anglican church with whom they are in communion as well as those in faithful TEC places.  Those who wanted formal separation will be disappointed. De facto separation is what is happening.  They have too many important things to do to be playing Anglican Communion Office games any more.

[2] Posted by Katherine on 4-23-2010 at 06:11 AM · [top]

...matters so fundamental they affect the very salvation of those involved.

I am glad they clearly expressed the gravity of the situation.

[3] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 4-23-2010 at 06:19 AM · [top]

Biggest news imo is that they agree on the insufficiency of the covenant and that they believe 1.10 is a prerequisite for covenant signers…thanks be to God for that…with that heresy killing prerequesite the covenant would be far far more acceptable as a Christian document.

[4] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 4-23-2010 at 06:23 AM · [top]

This is a very fine statement that addresses the Anglican crises in the strongest terms possible.  While a united statement of broken communion with TEC and established communion with the ACNA and CP would have been nice, I realize that such decisions can only be made by the individual provinces.  I hope that all twenty provinces take steps to publically implement or reaffirm 18 and 19.

[5] Posted by AndrewA on 4-23-2010 at 06:30 AM · [top]

Nothing short of a call for the traditional, the orthodox, those who believe that historic Anglicanism (that grounded in Holy Scripture and embodied in our 16th Century formularies) is indeed the only way forward, to join hands and become intentional about bringing order to the faith community which we call the Anglican Communion. 

It is quite appropriate that this 4th Global South Encounter took place during the Great Fifty Days of Easter.  Easter, Christ’s defeat of sin and death and the new beginning and new life for each of us that his resurrection and ascension provide, is both the perfect backdrop and the perfect launching pad, for a reconciliation of the orthodox faithful within the Anglican Communion - reconciliation first with God, and then with each other, as members of the body of our Lord Jesus, the Christ.
Christians are a people of hope, and hope is the feeling that flows from this communique.  We have spent far too much time obsessed with the desires of some members of the Anglican family to “do a new thing” and we have allowed that obsession to distract us from our only true mission as members of Christ’s Church, to bring people to God as disciples of Christ.  Let us put our house in order and let us go forth rejoicing in the name of the Lord.  Alleluia, Alleluia!!

[6] Posted by Joe Roberts on 4-23-2010 at 06:42 AM · [top]

It is so heartwarming to see these men of God proclaim the truth so clearly and transparently.

Compare this to the “half-truths” and deliberately misleading statements from the TEC leadership, who “redefine” the meaning of words so it appears they mean one thing when in fact they mean something else.

Unfortunately, thier call for action will not make it past the fuzzy beard of the ABC, and they will be left with a decision to leave the Communion or not.

[7] Posted by B. Hunter on 4-23-2010 at 06:49 AM · [top]

So we have another statement?
Am I the only one wondering, so where is the action?
Am I missing something?

[8] Posted by naab00 on 4-23-2010 at 07:02 AM · [top]

Random thoughts
—The celebration of the Eucharist by Bp Robert Duncan was hugely significant, again setting themselves apart. 
—Although the idea of a covenant had begun as a watershed theological document, Lambeth Palace had, in the end, reduced it to an ACO parlor game.
—Of personal significance is this statement:

The fresh call upon the Church’s leadership, from the Servant of the Lord’s costly obedience (Is 50: 4-9), is to be courageous and fully confident of the Lord’s sustaining grace and final vindication.

A friend of mine had informally surveyed folks who had done lots of Bible studies and asked which was the best.  The answer, interestingly enough, was an Anglican one, Ariel, developed by an ordained woman and bishop’s wife within AMiA. I’m going to investigate the possibility of doing that.  God speaks life into our spirits through His word, all the more important for those of us in a decaying culture.

[9] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 4-23-2010 at 07:11 AM · [top]

Meanwhile we recognize that the Primates Meeting, being responsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Covenant in its implementation, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.

Thus, they are rejecting the latest draft of the Covenant. One wonders how they will proceed? Sign on to a previous draft? Modify then sign on to a new draft? How about a Stephen Noll draft?

[10] Posted by robroy on 4-23-2010 at 07:16 AM · [top]

Am I missing something?

Yes, naab00, you are missing something.  It is a great pity.  I would suggest you spend the weekend listening to the sermons and speeches from the Encounter, for a start.  They are wonderful and quite enlightening, and if you hear them, will bring you closer to Christ.  Hopefully, they will publish the insights from the Bible studies on Isaiah as well.  Then perhaps you will have an appreciation of the context the real Anglican leadership is working in, the love they bear for all of us, and where the future of the Anglican Communion will take us.

[11] Posted by tjmcmahon on 4-23-2010 at 07:25 AM · [top]

Well now members from both sides have “dissed” the covenant and the ABC.  When that happens you know that those speking up are on the extremes of the issue

[12] Posted by Eugene on 4-23-2010 at 07:37 AM · [top]

Jill, do you have an online reference or other directions to that Ariel bible study?  Thanks.

[13] Posted by Katherine on 4-23-2010 at 07:54 AM · [top]

Eugene- by definition, 51% of the Churches of the Communion and 75% of its congregants cannot be defined as “an extreme”.  The Global South is that 51% of the Churches and and 75% of the congregants.  The Global South, as ++Mouneer Anis said, is the Communion.
There is nothing extreme in the communique- no demand for lay presidency, pulling stained glass out of cathedrals, no anathema on the laity of TEC.  Just plain, old fashioned, Christian love and discipline.  Interesting, isn’t it, that the words discipline and disciple have the same root?  I give you the same advice I gave to the other fellow in 11.

[14] Posted by tjmcmahon on 4-23-2010 at 07:56 AM · [top]

yeah, I think you are missing at least three somethings:

1. The GS understands compliance with Lambeth 1.10 to be a prerequisite to signing the covenant…I cannot emphazise enough how important this is.

2. The GS, presumably as a whole, finds the current draft of the covenant unsignable for a number of reasons. In any case, they are not signing. Remember, the ABC has bet everything on the Covenant as the mechanism for saving the communion and he has done his best to manipulate the draft to its present sub-Christian form. This statement undercuts all of his maneuver.

3. The GS, presumably all of them, find the diminished role of the primates and the rise of the new Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion unacceptable. The sneaky communion restructing work done by Lambeth and the ACO between the last two covenant drafts will not fly—not only do the GAFCON primates reject it, but men like ++Chew and ++Anis, erstwhile “communion” primates will not accept it. The GS primates, representing a huge swath of worldwide anglicans, the majority, are clearly unhappy with the present Anglican structure. They have heard all the promises “process” mongers have to offer and seen what lies beyond them. Nothing.

Good, very good.

[15] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 4-23-2010 at 08:03 AM · [top]

19. We were pleased to welcome two Communion Partner bishops from The Episcopal Church USA (TEC) and acknowledge that with them there are many within TEC who do not accept their church’s innovations.

1. Who are the bishops?
2. What covenant will those bishops sign onto?

[16] Posted by Fr. Dale on 4-23-2010 at 08:09 AM · [top]

I have to agree with naab00.  There is very little meat on these bones, and I find that surprising.  There should have been an express call for a Primates Meeting, and/or a drop dead date by which all parties who are on board with the Covenant need to declare that they are on board with the beefed-up version of the Convenant described herein.  Absent that, the ABC and the revisionists are going to continue to run out the clock.

Less substantively, I also find it frustrating that they used the phrase “Windsor Process.”  IT WAS NOT A PROCESS.  Granted, they are referring to the process that lead up to the issuance of the Windsor Report.  But the revisists use the term expansively and weasely, to make it sound like the “Windsor Process” is continuing to unfold.  This was a unwise linguistic choice, especially as we all know what will happen with the revisionists and the covenant—they’ll do the exact same thing.  It will be a “Process,” not something that is enforceable. 
Surely we can all see where this is headed?  Even if the revisionists do ever sign up, it won’t mean anything because they’ll decide to interpret the covenant as liberals do the U.S. Constitution: Pretend that it evolves over time, and pretend that it does not say what it actually says.  They will cherry pick the parts they like and ignore the rest, confident that governing authority will ever have the balls to tell them “no.”

[17] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 4-23-2010 at 08:13 AM · [top]

Our Global South fathers are taking an incremental approach that will probably take a decade or more for full resolution.  We Americans are impatient, since we are so imbued with commercialism’s consumer-based ethos.  It took CENTURIES to fully implement the Council of Nicea throughout the Empire.


[18] Posted by FrJim on 4-23-2010 at 08:22 AM · [top]

#10. robroy, If you have listened to the interview with Dr. Noll on Anglican TV it is obvious that he is helping to articulate the mind of the global south. He is probably one of the silent architects of the revised covenant that the Global South will agree to. Since The Global South no longer sees itself in communion with the ABC, TEC or ACoC, [“We need a new way forward. We are no longer in communion with Rowan (Williams) or TEC or Canada. Archbishop Kolini] they don’t have to compromise on Covenant language in hopes of including the revisionists. I am most encouraged that Archbiship Duncan celebrated communion there. This indicates an acceptance and inclusion of ACNA that is stronger than any statement.

[19] Posted by Fr. Dale on 4-23-2010 at 08:23 AM · [top]

FrJim, I understand that an incremental approach is their plan.  But a decade or more is unacceptable for those of us who are (to use my own example), raising a two year old and a four month old.

[20] Posted by Nasty, Brutish & Short on 4-23-2010 at 08:25 AM · [top]

I very much appreciate three points made in this communique, in so far as they apply to the Anglican Communion as a whole.


“We uphold the courageous actions taken by Archbishops Mouneer Anis (Jerusalem and the Middle East), Henry Orombi (Uganda) and Ian Ernest (Indian Ocean) and are encouraged by their decision not to participate in meetings of the various Instruments of Communion at which representatives of The Episcopal Church USA and the Anglican Church of Canada are present. We understand their actions to be in protest of the failure to correct the ongoing crisis situation.”

This seems to imply that such a stance of not participating in meetings where TEC and the ACC are present might possibly continue and be encouraged.

Hope springs eternal.


We are currently reviewing the proposed Covenant to find ways to strengthen it in order for it to fulfill its purpose. For example, we believe that all those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10. Meanwhile we recognize that the Primates Meeting, being responsible for Faith and Order, should be the body to oversee the Covenant in its implementation, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.

This seems to imply that at least some of the provinces will not sign the Covenant without changes in both oversight and content.


We believe that there is a need to review the entire Anglican Communion structure; especially the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Communion office; in order to achieve an authentic expression of the current reality of our Anglican Communion.

This seems to imply that they will push for Communion structure revision—which makes them the “progressives”—heh.

Those are great—in fact, fabulous.

Furthermore, I seem to recall that there had been a thought that the Covenant would be signed at the South to South meeting—back 9 months ago, my understanding is that that was the assumption—there would be mass agreement on Covenant signing at this StoS encounter.  I don’t have time to look up the actual wording of those assertions, but I’m fairly positive that that was the plan.

Two analytical concerns.

1) There are no promises that all will actually *do* certain things—like not attend Communion instrument meetings when TEC/ACC are present, or like wait on signing the Covenant until it and the oversight issues are improved.

2) I don’t see any *means* of accomplishing what they wish.  The Global South can say all they want that the Primates Meeting should oversee the Covenant.  But they have no means of actually accomplishing that.

[21] Posted by Sarah on 4-23-2010 at 08:25 AM · [top]

6. We were appreciative of the greeting given by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, by means of a brief video that was shared at the beginning of our time together.

Damning with faint praise.

[22] Posted by Fr. Dale on 4-23-2010 at 08:25 AM · [top]

While I do rejoice and give thanks for these godly men and women and I am in no doubt what a wonderful time they had together (esp by comparison with official Communion gatherings) and how orthodox they are and how symbolic much of this is (not least Bob Duncan presiding) etc etc…..  I am wondering where to from here?
We could speculate that there is a lot now planned that will be put into action shortly but cannot be part of the communique.  We could speculate that Rowan is having it explained to him behind the scenes what his options are now or what the consequences will be.  But it is frustrating that there was much talk of action beforehand and I’m afraid there is little evidence of that…yet.

[23] Posted by naab00 on 4-23-2010 at 08:29 AM · [top]

I disagree with Sarah’s take in one respect. I understand, perhaps wrongly, that this communique represents the common mind of those present. If that is correct, then it seems to me that they are corporately stating that the covenant in current form is unacceptable.

[24] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 4-23-2010 at 08:30 AM · [top]

Katherine, #13,this should get you started:

[25] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 4-23-2010 at 08:34 AM · [top]

“we urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to implement the recommended actions. “

Does anyone know what these recommended actions are/were? Or were they made during private one-on-ones with the ABC?

[26] Posted by Marie Blocher on 4-23-2010 at 08:37 AM · [top]

Fr Dale (22), I also thought it interesting that Canterbury was mentioned in the section that essentially welcomed messages from ecumenical observers.

This Trumpet does proceed from the vantage point of a sense of resolve that the Global South (as ++Anis said) IS the Communion. The departure of TEC and ACoC (2 million MAX out of 60 or so million active Anglicans - most of whom represented at this meeting) is not so much a schism, as it is the splitting off of a minor sect.  Sad as that may be.

Were it not for the monetary influence of TEC on the Communion, one wonders how different this all would have played out.  Sadly, the current incumbent of Augustine’s chair seems unable or unwilling to listen and respond faithfully to these great men of faith.

Fr Darin Lovelace
St Johns Anglican
Park City UT

[27] Posted by frdarin on 4-23-2010 at 08:43 AM · [top]

RE: “If that is correct, then it seems to me that they are corporately stating that the covenant in current form is unacceptable.”

It seems to me that what they stated about the Covenant was very very carefully worded, such that there are no promises by various provinces to or not to sign it.

—They say “We are currently reviewing the proposed Covenant to find ways to strengthen it in order for it to fulfill its purpose.”

That does not say, for instance, that if they do *not* find ways to strengthen it, that they will not sign it.

—They say “we believe that all those who adopt the Covenant must be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10.”

That does not say that if the Covenant is not changed to include that that they will not sign it.

—They say that the Primates Meeting “should be the body to oversee the Covenant in its implementation, not the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.”

But that does not say that if that does not occur that they will not sign it.

I see the three sentences as asserting very clearly what they do find wrong in the Covenant—but I don’t see any kind of corporate avowal not to sign it, should those wrongs not be fixed.

I can understand that, too—it’s hard for me to believe that they have convinced all 20 Provinces not to sign the Covenant, but I could see all 20 being convinced of those three issues being wrong with the Covenant.

[28] Posted by Sarah on 4-23-2010 at 08:44 AM · [top]

Just to be clear, I would *love* for the communique to say “we will not sign this Covenant unless these three things are fixed.”

But I don’t see that they have done that.  It seems as if they got agreement on what is wrong with the Covenant, but not what they would ultimately do about it if the Covenant remains what it is.

[29] Posted by Sarah on 4-23-2010 at 08:46 AM · [top]

Good points Sarah. I suppose we’ll have to wait and see who is reading this correctly.

I think I still stand by my earlier assment. I see your point about the non-use of definitive conditions for signing the covenant and it is a good one.

At the same time, I do not see how one could sign onto or be in substantive agreement with a document that says: ‘we believe that all those who adopt the Covenant “must” be in compliance with Lambeth 1.10’ and then go on to sign a document that does not require compliance with 1.10.

So I believe this statement does represent a corporate rejection of the covenant in its present form.

in any case, I have been very wrong before so it will not be a new experience if I am wrong here

[30] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 4-23-2010 at 08:54 AM · [top]

#26 Marie, look at the footnote [1] referenced in the sentence or two previous to “the recommended actions” and you will see that the actions are those recommended in the Windsor Report and at the Primates Meetings at Dromantine and Dar es Salaam.

[31] Posted by Milton on 4-23-2010 at 09:01 AM · [top]

Thanks! I read them, but sometimes “the eyes do not see”.Or perhaps I was looking for something more.

Has anyone noted that it is St George’s Day. Awake, Rowan, there are dragons to be slain.

[32] Posted by Marie Blocher on 4-23-2010 at 09:09 AM · [top]

[comment urging people to join another church body deleted—commenter banned—clear and deliberate violation of commenting policies]

[33] Posted by AhKong2 on 4-23-2010 at 09:16 AM · [top]


I too would have loved to see them say, ‘We will not sign the Covenant unless these change are made.’ But I don’t think that was procedurally possible. This meeting was a meeting of delegates from each province, not a ‘mini-Lambeth’ with all the bishops present; not even all the primates were present from the involved provinces—some were represented by bishops they had sent on their behalf. Making a decision on whether or not they would sign it would only be possible if, at a minimum, each House of Bishops of each province involved were to decide so. In saying, however, that the present form of the covenant is unworkable and the present structure of the AC is in need of reform; and in endorsing absence from any meetings where TEC and ACoC are present, I think they are setting a position which most if not all the Provinces present will endorse, and which will give them a unified position going forward.

[34] Posted by tk+ on 4-23-2010 at 09:17 AM · [top]

Barring a miracle akin to the raising of Lazarus, the covenant is dead. The corpse however will not be buried. The ABC and his crowd will keep discussions open concerning the covenant to maintain the appearance of collegiality.

[35] Posted by AhKong2 on 4-23-2010 at 09:37 AM · [top]

#32 Marie Blocher

Has anyone noted that it is St George’s Day. Awake, Rowan, there are dragons to be slain

Bless you for remembering, it is indeed St George’s Day, But +Rowan is Welsh, and they have a dragon on their flag.

No doubt on St David’s Day, you will find him and his countrymen happily chomping on leeks.

[36] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 4-23-2010 at 10:01 AM · [top]

Friends -

Under the “for what it is worth” category, do remember that a man from a Confucian culture now heads the scene and presumable edits the communiques. In such a culture one does not deliver direct ultimatums. That, however, should not be taken as a sign of a lack of resolve - or an unwillingness to take action when it comes to it. Singapore is not Texas (viva l’differance & God Bless them both!)

- Captain

[37] Posted by Kookie on 4-23-2010 at 10:04 AM · [top]

The Covenant as an institutional agreement on paper (using Abp. Kolini’s very apt description) is most thoroughly, completely, and utterly dead.  In essence, the Anglican Covenant never ever was one to begin with. What more evidence do ye need?

Death Certificate for the so-called Anglican covenant:

22. Over the last 20 years we have been distracted by conflicts and controversies that have kept us from effectively fulfilling the Great Commission. While we have been so distracted, Christian heritage, identity and influence has continued to decline in the West. We believe that there is a need to review the entire Anglican Communion structure; especially the Instruments of Communion and the Anglican Communion office; in order to achieve an authentic expression of the current reality of our Anglican Communion.

[38] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 4-23-2010 at 10:05 AM · [top]

I think it is important to remember, when reading the communique, that the GS churches have many varied structures.  Some may have archbishops who can, on their own authority, determine whether the covenant is signed or not- either through constitutional authority, or by virtue of their synods having granted them such authority.  Others will have to take this up with their HoB, others with a synod including clergy and laity.  Some primates may be (as the TEC’s PB once was) simply the most senior active member of their HoB.  And as a result, what they could definitively and canonically bind their church to varied.
In addition to the Covenant, consider the communion relationship with ACNA.
1) It is clear, because of ++Bob Duncan’s presiding at the Eucharist, that all attending Primates and bishops consider themselves personally to be in communion with ++Bob Duncan, and by extension, the ACNA.
2) In some cases, the decision of the Primate is sufficient for the church to declare itself in communion with ACNA.
3) Many other churches will need to take this up in their HoBs or Synods.  Several already have.  To date, I believe it is accurate to say that in no province of the GS has a proposal for full communion with ACNA failed.  Even in the English Synod it has only been delayed, certainly not denied.  The communique calls on all the GS member churches who have not already declared full communion with ACNA to take this up.

There are also differing levels of respect for the ancient see of Canterbury (leave aside, for the moment, the opinion of the present occupant).  Some see this connection as very important, others not.  Personally, I think that the determination of ++Mouneer Anis as to the current leadership from that see carries great weight in the councils of the GS, and that this will indeed impact the development of Communion structures.  If it does not, the Communion does not have much time left.

Although not directly on the subject of the communique, I was quite heartened to see the participation of the Church of Southern Africa in the conference.  Its participation is indicative that it will maintain Lambeth 1.10 as the standard for the Communion- something that TEC has been working very hard to change in that province.

[39] Posted by tjmcmahon on 4-23-2010 at 10:08 AM · [top]


[40] Posted by off2 on 4-23-2010 at 10:37 AM · [top]

I would be interested in hearing any TEC reaction to this communique, official or unofficial.  I also wonder what type of retribution is planned for the two TEC bishops that attended the Encounter.  Do I think their action will be ignored?  Not in a million years!

[41] Posted by Goughdonna on 4-23-2010 at 10:53 AM · [top]

36.  Well, yes, pageantmaster, we do happily chomp on leeks, but we Welshmen also like bara brith and picau bach.  That’s currant bread and welsh cakes to you non-Welsh speakers.  Oh, and a taste of rarebit, too!  Yummy!

[42] Posted by Cennydd on 4-23-2010 at 11:07 AM · [top]

Goughdonna, any reaction coming from TEC would likely be no more than “So what?  We still hold all of the cards.”  Or so they like to think.

[43] Posted by Cennydd on 4-23-2010 at 11:09 AM · [top]

And Schori will probably “depose” those bishops for having the temerity to attend the meeting without so much as a “by your leave, ma’am.”  Should’ve checked with her Personal Executive Secretary first, I guess.

[44] Posted by Cennydd on 4-23-2010 at 11:12 AM · [top]

How much more “action” could people possibly want?  What do they expect, Anglican SWAT teams?  Gladitorial fights between Duncan and Schori?

[45] Posted by AndrewA on 4-23-2010 at 11:14 AM · [top]

Oooh that would be fun!!

[46] Posted by r3ussell on 4-23-2010 at 11:20 AM · [top]

#16, Fr.Dale. The answer to your question is simple. The Rt. Revs. Mark Lawrence (Bishop of South Carolina) and John Howe (Bishop of Central Florida) were there as CP representatives from TECUSA. Bishop Lawrence mentioned that he and John Howe of Central Florida would be going back in March at our diocesan convention. Only sad thing, he won’t be at our Diocesan ECW convention tomorrow as planned.

[47] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 4-23-2010 at 11:31 AM · [top]

OOPS only answered question 1,#16. I can’t say what convenant they may sign. That is their decision.

[48] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 4-23-2010 at 11:36 AM · [top]

I notice that His Irrelevancy is mentioned in the LAST of the “grateful for” paragraphs, lumped together with two eccuminical observers… and only receiving an “appreciative for” as opposed to the “rejoiced in” awarded to the others.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen!

[49] Posted by Aardvark on 4-23-2010 at 11:37 AM · [top]

Cennydd #44 - Our (L2) bishop John Howe or Dio. Central Florida was there as well as +Mark Lawrence of South Carolina.  +Howe went knowing great risks, and in the understanding that the +ABC would be there.  I think we all need to be thankful for these two men’s bravery instead of the cavalier attitude.  There are people praying for them, knowing this will probably place +Howe and +Lawrence in a harder position.  They could have stayed home but didn’t.  Both have our respect because they went to represent those still in TEC who perservere for Christ.  There are many in TEC who are not represented by their bishops and leadership who were represented by these two men.  Not all of us have an out with ACNA or CANA, etc.

I know what you meant by what you wrote and that you didn’t mean bad for them - and in some levels I could even agree with a grin, but these two need full support from all of us.

[50] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 4-23-2010 at 11:45 AM · [top]

Not all of us have an out with ACNA or CANA, etc.

What precludes that “out”?

[51] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 4-23-2010 at 11:52 AM · [top]

#45 and #46, LOL ! That reminds of something Bishop Lawrence said at the reconsecration of a newly renovated parish church. He mentioned that we should not be cowering behind closed doors like some may think of the stand at the Alamo but getting OUT THERE in there in the community as Anglican swat teams. I think that is what he said….. I remember being surprised that he used the image of swat teams as I visualized lots of people swarming to fight the good fight swords raised!!  In other words, our bishop expects us to be out there on the front lines.  He is surely doing his part representing us on the front lines of the Anglican Communion.

[52] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 4-23-2010 at 11:54 AM · [top]

Jill and Katherine—Erilynne Barnum is the Bible teacher for Call 2 Discipleship. She originally formed the series as Women in Discipleship, but her material is well done —both scholarly and practical, to the point men kept joining the two years teaching series. My husband does not impress easily, yet he was bowled over by Erilynne’s presentation.

She and her husband Thad have a website at:

As for the Global South Singapore Communiqué—all I can say is YEAH!!!!! We’ve just hosted an Anglican priest from Kenya for the passed week and a half. The shenanigans of TEC have cost them greatly in recent years.

Pat Kashtock

[53] Posted by Pat Kashtock on 4-23-2010 at 11:57 AM · [top]

#47 - +Howe moved things on his full diary to be in Sinagpore, too.  Both he and +Lawrence (and Kevin Kallsen and George Conger+)spent around/over 24 hours of travel to get there - and back.  It will take all time to physically recover. 

Our L2 feeling is shame on the +ABC for not doing the same - especially with his official calendar as on his website showing no conflicts.  While the +ABC may have had personal considerations, it would have been better to admit to that than “calendar conflicts/full diary”.  He had more than enough time to get things in order to go.  He should have been there and we all know that.  Poor form.

[54] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 4-23-2010 at 11:59 AM · [top]

#42 Cennydd - I thought you might pop up.  It sounds delicious - I haven’t had the privilege of an introduction to Welsh cuisine yet, but I do like Welsh lamb so long as it hasn’t enjoyed too much hill-walking, and I expect Welsh is a great language for playing scrabble in.

On topic, I think more remarkable than that two TEC C/P Bishops went to Singapore, is the fact that a majority of TEC Bishops, and some Canadian ones are no longer receivable by a meeting of 80% plus of the world’s Anglicans.  But no doubt some will continue to look down the wrong end of the telescope.

[55] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 4-23-2010 at 12:01 PM · [top]

#51 - Not sure what you mean by “precludes”, but no slight was intended at all.  An “out” in this case would be an ACNA, CANA, etc., entity nearby…or God saying it’s okay to ditch TEC.  In our case, we have neither.

Some of us are still in TEC because that is where God still has us.  Instead of sniping at those who are still in TEC, pray for us/them as we all pray for what these wonderful Godly bishops do to lead the way forward.

[56] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 4-23-2010 at 12:07 PM · [top]

#50 - I’m so proud of both those TEC bishops.  Perhaps they don’t believe “lockstep” with the way I do (they stayed, I left), but they ARE standing up for what they believe.  They both had to KNOW there might be nasty spikey consequences of their actions, but they went.  If they are deposted, I trust one of our faithful Global South archbishops will snap them up in a heartbeat!  I would consider those deposition papers as “badges of honor” to be displayed with their ordination certificates!  They may not agree, though.

[57] Posted by Goughdonna on 4-23-2010 at 12:13 PM · [top]

deposed!  Can’t type.  Am only a secretary!  LOL

[58] Posted by Goughdonna on 4-23-2010 at 12:13 PM · [top]

#58 don’t feel bad - we all make typos.  Most people’s brains make the correction when they read anyway!

[59] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 4-23-2010 at 12:19 PM · [top]

Go take a look.  +Duncan and +Howe address the GS.

[60] Posted by tjmcmahon on 4-23-2010 at 12:39 PM · [top]

Thanks for that great “visual”!
Onward Christian soldiers…

[61] Posted by r3ussell on 4-23-2010 at 12:41 PM · [top]

This is a preliminary to an outright declaration of independence from the Anglican Communion.
I think we should also consider the letter sent to ++Rowan two weeks ago in advance of this meeting by three of the Primates as we seek meaning from this document.
#14. This paragraph states a renewed committment by the twenty provinces and others at the Encounter together to develop not only the theological resources, but also the economic resources to fulfill the Great Commission.  (Note lack of any reference of the remaining AC).
#16. This paragraph is set in contrast to #14 as it characterizes the TEC and ACA and “all those churches that have rejected the Way of the Lord as expressed in Holy Scripture” as apostate.  I could not help but see the provinces that are standing with TEC in the Communion included by inference here.  It concludes “...we dare not remain silent and must respond with action.”
#17.  This paragraph praises and encourages the actions of the leaders of three of the twenty provinces in separating themselves from “Instruments of Communion” where the openly apostate provinces hold sway.
#18.  This paragraph is an indictment of the ABofC for inaction.  The Primates have made recommendations for actions that are not being implemented.  Some of the Provinces at the Encounter have resorted to self-help, and the others are encouraged to do likewise.
#19.  This paragraph welcomes those that have separated from ACNA and TEC into fellowship.  Full communion among the twenty and these groups is encouraged.  (Full communion with those that are apostate is discouraged.)
#20.  This paragraph declares that those who pursue an agenda that is in opposition to historic norms of faith, teaching and practice, are not “Anglican”, but are only pretenders.
#21. This paragraph reminds that the Primates Council proposed the original (Windsor) covenant for the purposes of articulating the essential elements of the faith together and proposing a means for discipline for those that stray. It was couched in terms of Lambeth 1.10.
The present version of the Covenant is defecient in these respects and is not fulfilling the purpose of “the Covenant” (the original one). The AC is an Episcopal church: Bishops are custodians of the faith and order of the Church, not a committee.  The structure that de-emphasises Episcopal leadership as the means to Faith and Order is unacceptable.
#22.  This paragraph states there is no longer anytime to wrangle over all this.  The West is in decline.  The present AC structure, especially the ACC and the ABofC are in need of re-structuring, because they are presenting an illusion of unity in the face of chaos. Implication:  the decline in the West (read Canada and the USA) will continue as long as the current structure of the AC remains committed to its perceived path.

In conclusion, I agree that independence has yet to be overtly declared, but this is a serious list of grievances that must be addressed or independence will be declared.  And since it appears presently that these grievances will not receive serious action in response, the twenty and others at the Encounter are beginning to move forward in anticipation of that eventuality.

“Choose this day whom you shall serve”  would seem fitting here.

[62] Posted by aacswfl1 on 4-23-2010 at 12:43 PM · [top]

I’ve read the communique and am very encouraged, and I hope to post a bit more commentary shortly, but I do want to call people’s attention to two prayer requests of the Global South leader, which Cherie Wetzel included in one of her latest reports:

Archbishop Greg Venables’ Mother died this morning in London. He was trying to make arrangements with his sisters, and had to go back through Buenos Aires before going to London. Please pray for him. He called it a blessing that he received the news while in the company of his brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Polynesian Islands are electing a new Archbishop this Sunday. Some of their bishops have already taken the slide to oblivion that haunts the West. Please pray that the Spirit will lead them into electing a Godly, Biblically orthodox primate.

Cherie’s report where these requests are mentioned is here:

Forgive me for a slightly off-topic comment, but I thought these were important to let people know about.

[63] Posted by Karen B. on 4-23-2010 at 12:55 PM · [top]

Look,The ABC went to Anaheim personally to address a group representing < 2,0000 Anglicans in TEC. He did not take the opportunity to attend the South to South conference that represents more than half the communion. His non appearance except by video this week did not allow for two way communication and I don’t believe he wants it. His listening process is with TEC. There is an ongoing mantra that the ABC’s prime directive is to keep everyone at the table. I don’t believe his conduct supports this. The fabric is no longer torn. There are two garments.

[64] Posted by Fr. Dale on 4-23-2010 at 01:00 PM · [top]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if +Lawrence and +Howe communed when ++Duncan presided over the Eucharist? That could mean major consequences from the PB if she finds out they did . . .

[65] Posted by WestTxAnglican on 4-23-2010 at 01:05 PM · [top]


I appreciate your analysis.  I do not think the Southern Provinces want to leave the Anglican Communion.  They keep saying that they are the communion and have no intention of going away.  I also do not think they want an Anglican Communion without the ABC. This is a very eloquent document.  Allow me to very poorly translate it into colloquial speech.

Rowan, you are first among equals.  Equals…remember that! 20 of your equals have a word for you.  You are out of time. Get it together or we will do it for you.”

There is much more to this wonderful document of course, but I think that is one of the notes this Trumpet blasts.

[66] Posted by Ed McNeill on 4-23-2010 at 01:05 PM · [top]

My prayers go to ++Gregory and his family.  It truly is a blessing that he was with his brothers in Christ, and I know he appreciated their support.  I will include him and his mother in my prayers this Sunday.

[67] Posted by Cennydd on 4-23-2010 at 01:07 PM · [top]

66.  Very well said, Fr Ed!

[68] Posted by Cennydd on 4-23-2010 at 01:09 PM · [top]

aacswfl made a lot of the points I was going to make!  That is substantially the same message I took from the Communique.

#65: because of the very risks you mention, why on earth should anyone satisfy our curiosity as to whether +Howe or +Lawrence took Communion from +Duncan?!

So glad that +Howe and +Lawrence attended and for the dual recognition by the Global South of both ACNA and Communion Partners - all who have meaningfully distanced themselves from TEC and its heresies.  May this lead to greater unity among all orthodox Anglicans here in N. America.

[69] Posted by Karen B. on 4-23-2010 at 01:09 PM · [top]

65.  I think you’d have to ask them.  I do think I saw at least one of them in one of the pictures taken duriing a eucharist, however….though I didn’t see who presided.

[70] Posted by Cennydd on 4-23-2010 at 01:11 PM · [top]

Agree completely with Matt+ in #4 and $15. 

There is a great deal for which to be thankful today!

With praise and thanksgiving to God:
1.For these courageous, steadfast and faithful leaders He has raised up at a time in which there is such a need for them.
2.For blessing us with their leadership
3. For being able to hear and see them speak through Anglican TV (truly renewing and inspiring!)
4. For “refreshing the hearts of the saints” throughout the Anglican Communion through their words, spoken and written
5.  For reminding us once again what real Christian leadership looks like—that it is always clear and never wavers from “the way, the truth, and the life” of Our Savior—and that we have it in abundance in the Anglican Global South
6. For the powerful prayers posted on the Global South web site and on Lent and Beyond—it has been a privilege to be in prayer for all of these faithful leaders
7. For knowing once and for all that these are my leaders, the true leaders given to every Anglican belonging to Jesus Christ in the body of believers; and that no matter what goes on under the table around the ABC, the ACO, and ACC in an attempt to keep the leadership out of the hands of the Global South leaders, the Lord has not allowed these schemes to prosper. 
The Kingdom of God is never at risk!
Psalm 99:1-3
“The LORD reigns,
Let the nations tremble;
He sits enthroned between the cherubim,
Let the earth shake.
Great is the LORD in Zion;
He is exalted over all the nations.
Let them praise your great and awesome name—
He is holy.”

[71] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 4-23-2010 at 01:12 PM · [top]

#65, I don’t know if Howe+ or Lawrence+  communed when Archbishop Duncan celebrated. However, If you take a look at the very beginning of all of these Anglican TV videos, look carefully when the words “Anglican TV specials” settle over the picture of the bishops.  I did see Mark Lawrence+  as the second bishop from the right (as you look at your computer screen).  I don’t know when that video was taken.

I do hope that Bishop Lawrence will communicate with the diocese as a whole perhaps through one of his wonderful letters when he returns. Safe travels home, Bishop Lawrence.

[72] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 4-23-2010 at 01:51 PM · [top]

Besides all the other very encouraging aspects of this communique that others have mentioned, let me call attention to yet one more.

In paragraph 9, the GS leaders wrote,
  “We encourage Provinces to develop plans and structures for church growth in the POST-CHRISTENDOM world.” 

Now actually, I think much of the GS may be in a PRE-Christendom state, but certainly the whole global north is very much in that awkward post-Constantinian situation.

Perhaps that doesn’t strike some of you as all that significant.  So what, you might wonder?  But considering our state church heritage as Anglicans, that recognition of our radically new status as a maligned minority in the West and our hostile social context in the north actually has very far-reaching implications.  IMHO, it has revolutionary ramifications.  It literally changes everything.

DAvid Handy+
Passionate advocate of fiercely counter-cultural, stridently Christ-against-culture style Anglicanism

[73] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 4-23-2010 at 01:53 PM · [top]

A brief clarification and amplification to my #73.  Even the GS provinces are in a POST-COLONIAL social setting, and some of them even face bitter persecution.  They hehyday of the British Empire ended long ago.

What the New Anglicanism of the future will represent, I believe, is a radically new style of operating that abandons our former servile subservience to the worldly powers that be that has characterized so much of Anglicanism for centuries.

That is, from my perspective, it’s not just our doctrinal vagueness, fuzziness, and incoherence and our lack of a strong enough disciplinary authority that’s been our Achilles Heel in Anglicanism up until now.  No, it’s also our deeply engrained, habitual tendency toward WORLDLINESS, our captivity to the world’s ways and lusting after the things of this world.  We desperately need to heed solemn scriptural calls to shun conformity to the world such as Rom. 12:2 or 1 John 2:15-17.  And that’s why it’s not merely empty pious rhetoric when the GS leaders call (again in paragraph #9) for “a new quest for personal and corporate HOLINESS in the communion.”  For worldliness and holiness are totally antithetical.

David Handy+

[74] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 4-23-2010 at 02:05 PM · [top]

All faithful GS Anglicans can be proud of our primates, for the way they put their focus on Jesus and for the measured Communiqué.  Understandably we from AC-NA are a bit impatient for TEC to be set to rights since we have suffered directly in TEC’s apparent merciless, anti-Christian assault. 

Undoubtedly Bishops Lawrence and Howe saw a markedly different Spirit in Singapore than the spirits at the last General Convention.  A witness we can be proud of.

[75] Posted by FollowerOfTheWay on 4-23-2010 at 02:09 PM · [top]


I did not intend to “snipe”.

“Precludes” was my interpretation of your statement:

“Not all of us have an out with ACNA or CANA, etc.”


Your statement prompted my wondering if:
  a) somehow ACNA or CANA was failing to make themselves available; or
  c) there was something else preventing (i.e. precluding) you from availing yourself of an “out”.

I do not consider geographic distance a significant impediment (probably because I am part of a small group which planted an ACNA parish).  Nor do I consider a call as eliminating an “out”, but rather compelling a choice where an “out” existed.  (You could always try to ignore a call, get on a boat going in the other direction, and end up in the belly of a big fish.)

My experience is that individuals (or sometimes small groups) are called.  It is rare for an entire parish or diocese to be universally called – they are generally led by an individual who has been called.

[76] Posted by R. Scott Purdy on 4-23-2010 at 03:31 PM · [top]

I am a long time lurker on this forum and a new CANA priest.  (I came over from “Geneva” as some folks on this board are fond of calling it).  The reason I am posting is two-fold:  1) I am sitting in Al Udeid waiting for the plane to come to get me out of the Middle East and back home and 2) (And more importantly, I hope) to try to get some sense of what the people on this board think will happen next.  I have read enough church history to know that the older the institution, the slower it usually is to change so I don’t think that I expected the GS to do anything rash.  Still, as a military chaplain, I don’t think I yet know how to interpret some of these “Anglican niceties” that seem to come out of these conferences.  While all things remain possible with God, it seems rather obvious even to the most charitable observer that the current TEC leadership and their Fellow Travelers aren’t going to repent of turning away from the Faith, Once for All etc. anytime soon.  Or probably ever.  I think this statement acknowledges that fact.  But where does that leave us?  Maybe I am asking an opinion question.  Where are we as a Communion in 5 years?  Ten years?  Please pardon my ignorance.
In Christ,
Ch Daniel Waterman

[77] Posted by CANA Chaplain on 4-23-2010 at 03:35 PM · [top]

I was elated to read the GS Communique!  For those of the faithful who have been marginalized by TEC for many years now, it must be thrilling to see that TEC, ACC, and ABC are the ones facing marginalization now!  And they deserve it because they have brought it on themselves.

God bless the Global South Delegates!!

[78] Posted by RicardoCR on 4-23-2010 at 03:47 PM · [top]

[64] I too have been reflecting on the disparity in the ABC’s conduct. 

In other fields, the law may characterize a state as being a ‘constructive’ state.  Constructive is:

“That which is established by the mind of the law in its act of construing facts, conduct, circumstances, or instruments.  That which has not the character assigned to it in its own essential nature, but acquires such character in consequence of the way in which it is regarded by a rule or policy of law; hence, inferred, implied, or made out by legal interpretation.”


On one hand, the ABC appears to embrace ambiguous circumstances, and appears content with an outward form of instutional integrity - so long as everyone shows up.  On the other hand, his conduct of record shows that he has treated global south, reasserting provinces as falling into a category somewhat lower than western, reappraising provinces. 

What would it look like for an ABC to constructively excommunicate provinces - if that same ABC held a competing affinity for the appearance of institutional integrity? 

*Would the constructively excommunicated provinces have a reduced role in communion governance? 
*Would the representation and participation from constructively excommunicated provinces on committees and in appointed positions be limited, even if they form a majority? 
*If the efforts of constructively excommunicated provinces produced an undesirable situation, could the ABC disregard, bypass, or thwart such efforts - standard rules of order may not apply to second level provinces?
*Would constructively excommunicated provinces deserve a lower category of communication and attention? 

In other words, if you found express excommunication distasteful, how would you freeze out a province sufficiently to marginalize their input, while preserving the appearance of unity?

And for how long could you keep it up?


[79] Posted by tired on 4-23-2010 at 04:11 PM · [top]

Well, I don’t see action, but I do see a change from “rowan should do something,” to “we should do something.”  Considering the recent change, it seems (unfortunately) premature to expect action.  Hopefully, now that they recognize the onus is on them, we can anticipate action, or movement to precipitate action by the white druid.  I too wish that they had established more concrete goals and timeframes, or had determined an agenda going forward. This is much more than I had expected, which isn’t saying much.

[80] Posted by paradoxymoron on 4-23-2010 at 04:21 PM · [top]

#76, Scott - *sigh*.  OK. Dictionary defines preclude as (if your definition differs, please advise)  to make impossible by necessary consequence : rule out in advance.

Snipe was intended more generally than specifically at you.  In specific to Cennydd’s comment at #44 re: checking with KJS’s secretary, etc.

I think that you have misunderstood my use of the word “out”.  Or if there was a better word to use, my apologies.  I did not intend it to be interpreted as an “excuse” for leaving, but as a route for one.

But since you are seeking a more detailed explanation, here goes.

You may not consider travel significant, but it is an impediment for us (or anyone who doesn’t have transportation).  I used to travel an hour each way to church over rough roads.  That is not possible now.  I travel round-trip 50 miles over the smoothest roads possible with the least about of stop and go because my spouse has a great deal of neck pain and can’t handle a lot of travel with stop and gos, bumps - and I drive very carefully.  The nearest ACNA congregation is 70+ miles for us, on roads that are terrible with tons of stop and go.  By the time we would get there, my spouse could not physically handle the service.  So distance does play a large role in our ability.  Glad it doesn’t for you and some others.

The second - the call.  If you have been called out, as many have, you have no other choice but to follow.  We L2 understand that completely and bless those who have.  We applaud +John-David Schofield for how he has led his diocese out.  We know he tried to reform for years from within. 

We have not been called out, in fact have been told to stay by God.  We have friends who have recently left - none have stayed in TEC, but left for other denominations.  We are blessed with a wonderful new rector who preaches the Word of God.  A blessing.  But if God called us to leave today, we would go in a heartbeat.  We all must follow what God tells us to do, building or not, congregation or not, structure or not.

I hope this clarifies things for you.  Be blessed that you can participate in a congregation where you are at peace and can spiritually grow. My concern is for those who are not so blessed, who are in situations where they do not have an “out” - an alternative choice of worship.  These people need the CP’s.  +Howe and +Lawrence represented them in Singapore.

[81] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 4-23-2010 at 04:29 PM · [top]

#80 - would agree.  Based on the videos, we think it has become “we will do something.  At least that is our hope.

[82] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 4-23-2010 at 04:31 PM · [top]

Paradoxymoron:  I really like what you wrote in #80.  I think you’ve phrased it very well:  there has been a shift.  The GS are standing up and saying that they are the future of the Communion, and that they are, and will be, taking action, and developing greater self-sufficiency. 

There was very little finger-pointing against TEC, Canada or ++Rowan in all I’ve read from the GS Encounter, but much more a focus on personal repentance and holiness, a focus on mission and developing mature and strong structures that will further the church’s growth in the Global South.  This is a declaration of maturity and a willingness to take responsibility for the shape of Anglicanism, at least in the Global South.

[83] Posted by Karen B. on 4-23-2010 at 04:33 PM · [top]

#80 Paradoxymoron
Following on from your perceptive post, I suppose the question I have is what are YOU going to do about it?  These folks in the Global South often face incredible mission challenges, poverty, persecution, absence of resources and materials.  Will you partner them, go and see them, make friends, build relationships on an individual, parish and diocesan level, and support them as well as be grateful for the support they give you?

Many of them produced the funds to travel to Singapore, but I have no doubt at considerable cost to themselves and their communities, and I have no doubt listening to the presentations, will return enriched by it.

I think it could well be an exciting as well as a challenging relationship to have.  Do you think?

[84] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 4-23-2010 at 04:41 PM · [top]

16. ...“In the face of this we dare not remain silent and must respond with appropriate action.”

What is “appropriate action”?

[85] Posted by r3ussell on 4-23-2010 at 04:50 PM · [top]

You can’t use much stronger language than this and remain bishops: #16 “.....The recent action of TEC in the election and intended consecration of Mary Glasspool, a partnered lesbian, as a bishop in Los Angeles, has demonstrated yet again, a total disregard for the mind of the Communion. These churches continue in their defiance as they set themselves on a course that contradicts the plain teaching of the Holy Scriptures on matters so fundamental that they affect the very salvation of those involved. Such actions violate the integrity of the Gospel, the Communion and our Christian witness to the rest of the world. In the face of this we dare not remain silent and must respond with appropriate action.”
A stunning statement…...........

[86] Posted by bradhutt on 4-23-2010 at 04:54 PM · [top]

Interesting to see TEC (or at least ENS) interpreted the GSE4 / Communique as a clear “call to action.”  Here’s the ENS headline:

SINGAPORE: Global South Anglicans call for action against Episcopal Church, Anglican Church of Canada

[87] Posted by Karen B. on 4-23-2010 at 05:00 PM · [top]

#85 r3ussell,
It would be very unwise and a strategic blunder to declare just what the appropiate actions are at this point, let TEC and the ABC worry about what the actions may be….........

[88] Posted by bradhutt on 4-23-2010 at 05:11 PM · [top]

Most astute!
Thank you!!

[89] Posted by r3ussell on 4-23-2010 at 05:13 PM · [top]

One thing we Laity could do is to email every one of these bishops to thank them personally and show our support in doing so. Anyone have their email addresses?

[90] Posted by bradhutt on 4-23-2010 at 06:24 PM · [top]

86.  Bradhutt, the question has been raised as to what TEC and the ACofC will do, now that this communique has been made public.  My guess is that they’ll do nothing….for the present.  What might happen after Mary Glasspool is “consecrated” may very well be a different story, and I think it would be a mistake for the primates to say anything at this point in time.  The old adage about “not telegraphing your moves and alerting the opposing team” comes to mind.

[91] Posted by Cennydd on 4-23-2010 at 07:04 PM · [top]

85, et al-
While it is indeed a good idea for the GS to keep some of its plans shrouded for the moment, they spell out several appropriate actions in the following paragraphs-
17- Do not participate in meetings with TEC and ACoC or which are not sanctioned by the appropriate Instruments (ie- do not go to a Standing Committee meeting that replaces a Primates meeting- like New Orleans)
18- Officially recognize that TEC has broken communion with your province.
19- Recognize, support, and establish full communion with CP bishops, clergy and laity in TEC, and with the ACNA.
All three are in and of themselves substantial consequences and indeed “appropriate actions.”

[92] Posted by tjmcmahon on 4-23-2010 at 07:49 PM · [top]

Interesting point, Karen B. #87.  The ENS article also fails to note the GS definition of ACNA as “a faithful expression of Anglicanism” or the celebration of Holy Communion by “deposed” Bishop Duncan.  They see the threat, all right.

[93] Posted by Katherine on 4-23-2010 at 08:33 PM · [top]

Over at Titus, Cherie Wetzel is implying there was definitely not consensus on how to proceed. I think this is reflected in the rather disappointing communique. As others have pointed out. The only action here is yet producing another document. People applaud that Lambeth 1.10 was held up a standard. Shoot, even the old ditherer has said that.

What did not happen was a group signing of the present Covenant which had been predicted to occur several months ago. What did not happen was the creation of a new and improved Covenant with Lambeth 1.10 explicitly affirmed and the “Standing Committee of the AC” explicitly expunged.

So where does the “Covenant process”?

[94] Posted by robroy on 4-23-2010 at 08:39 PM · [top]

Wow: contrast the ENS headline I cited above with the ACNS headline.  Pretty striking:

Anglican Communion News Service:
Global South’s final statement calls for greater holiness, purpose and discipline

Article here.

ENS’ article really does demonstate TEC’s self-centeredness.  The ACNS article is much more balanced.

[95] Posted by Karen B. on 4-23-2010 at 09:12 PM · [top]

I think that the Global South primates are telling TEC and the ACofC that “This is the Covenant.  Whether or not you accede to it is up to you.  Take it or leave it.  But remember:  When you accede to something, you agree with it.”

[96] Posted by Cennydd on 4-23-2010 at 10:45 PM · [top]

Thanks for your great insights and suggestions!

[97] Posted by r3ussell on 4-23-2010 at 10:53 PM · [top]

#60, thank you for the link: this joint statement from Abp. Duncan and Bp. Howe is wonderful in itself.  It’s heart-warming to see the delegates from ACNA and Communion Partners standing there together after Apb. Duncan asks them to stand with him.  Bp. Howe says he was queried directly if recognition of ACNA by the GS would hurt the US Communion Partners, and he said NO, not as long as the CP are also recognized along with ACNA.  I thought this was very significant.  Looking at the various headlines about the conference, the one at the ACNA website says a great deal: “LEADERS OF EIGHTY PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S ANGLICANS . . . WELCOME THE ANGLICAN CHURCH IN NORTH AMERICA.” Yes, I feel Duncan’s celebration of Eucharist Wednesday was as meaningful as anything we might have expected.

[98] Posted by Paula on 4-24-2010 at 01:54 AM · [top]

I agree with those who see the celebration of the Eucharist by Duncan++ as HUGELY significant. This man was “deposed” yet here he is celebrating HE with many leaders of the AC worldwide. The choice of Duncan for celebrant can not and should not be underestimated .  This one action says volumes more than any communiqué.  I can see KJS and her ilk getting very upset over this one choice. How dare they choose someone *I* deposed ???? Get it????

I too appreciated Duncan’s++ asking the other NA delegates to come stand with him. Again another significant happening. Anyway,  all of them standing together and Duncan saying we are partners with you is another significant statement.  I have always believed that many times actions speak louder than words. That comes through quite clearly at this conference.

Immediate action is not going to happen just because some may want things to develop sooner rather than later. There are consequences and actions taken will happen- perhaps not in the time frame we want - but there will be action taken by the Global South… don’t doubt that.

[99] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 4-24-2010 at 08:02 AM · [top]

Great comment #99 SC Blu Cat lady,

[100] Posted by Karen B. on 4-24-2010 at 08:26 AM · [top]

L2#81. Exactly. There are faithful Anglicans that remain in TECUSA. Bishop Lawrence gets e-mails and letters every day saying how our witness in the Diocese of SC helps them to travel the road before them in TECUSA. No doubt, Bishop Howe gets similar communications.  We should be grateful for these two faithful Bishops as they do represent more than their respective dioceses and CP. They also represent the faithful scattered everywhere in TECUSA. 

#84, Pageant Master. Yes exactly.  Partnering with provinces in the GS and elsewhere is exactly what is needed. Our bishop has asked our diocese to do this not only as a diocese but as individual parishes. We have a Anglican Communion Development Committee whose role is to figure out what efforts worldwide we can support that can help further Anglicanism worldwide. I believe Bishop Lawrence started this a way to answer those pleas he gets every day from around the world asking for our help. [If anyone is interested, he told the diocese about this committee and why he created it at 2009 Diocesean conference. You can read his address at the diocesan website and check my memory of what he said]  I am always amazed at the missionary efforts from this diocese. If anyone has watched the conversation with 4 Bishops that happened recently in Charleston,SC, you will hear how that parish is partnering with another overseas. Not many parishes have done so… so far ... but I pray that many more will.

Surely, if the economic empowerment fund ever gets started, that would be an easy way for those faithful here to tithe in a way that would be important in furthering the Gospel as well as developing Anglicanism in the GS.

I must go and start getting ready as I am part of our parish choir which will be singing at our Diocesan ECW convention today. Have a great Saturday all.

[101] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 4-24-2010 at 08:26 AM · [top]

Thanks, SC blue cat lady.  Agree.

One other thing I forgot to address from R. Scott Purdy’s comment at #76:
<blockquote> My experience is that individuals (or sometimes small groups) are called.  It is rare for an entire parish or diocese to be universally called – they are generally led by an individual who has been called. <blockquote>
I don’t agree.  Here in Central Florida alone that was not the case at New Covenant or St. John’s Melbourne.  The congregations were very much a part of it, not just following a leader.  It took individuals to vote there - vestries and individual parishioners, at diocesan convention in San Joaquin, etc.  More than small groups.  I don’t disallow Purdy’s experience, but disagree with his conclusion.  I would agree that it sometimes takes a leader to coalesce the people into action.  The fact that we are bleeding individuals as members tells me that more are called to a holier life than leadership is willing to listen to.  Of these, we know far too many.

[102] Posted by Lakeland 2 on 4-24-2010 at 08:58 AM · [top]

BTW - I’m half of the L2 on a different computer.

[103] Posted by Lakeland 2 on 4-24-2010 at 08:59 AM · [top]

The fact that Archbishop Duncan celebrated the Eucharist speaks volumes, and is a very significant piece of history in the making.  For the first time, a huge percentage of the Anglican Communion has spoken loudly and clearly against those who deny the authority of the scriptures, the divinity of Jesus, who say that He is not the only way to the Father, who contribute to the debasing of humanity by aiding and abetting those whose lifestyle is harmful and so often deadly, and whose presiding bishop has committed uncanonical acts which, in previous years, would have resulted in his being deposed.

The clock is ticking.

[104] Posted by Cennydd on 4-24-2010 at 09:23 AM · [top]

Amen 104,
In more ways than one.

[105] Posted by r3ussell on 4-24-2010 at 09:38 AM · [top]

There are faithful Anglicans that remain in TECUSA.

Yes, but some of us are getting nervous. Some are speculating that the PB will somehow punish Bps. Howe and Lawrence for their participation. That would only affirm the decision that 4 dioceses have made to leave TEC, and further strengthen the ACNA.

I’m not saying that this additional PB-Reichskristallnacht would make me bolt, but it would have me seriously exploring a “Plan B.”

[106] Posted by Ralph on 4-24-2010 at 10:47 AM · [top]

Daniel Waterman (#77), alias CANA Chaplain,

Pardon us all here for being slow in responding to you.

First, let me say a hearty THANK YOU for serving our country as a miliatry chaplain.  I don’t know your personal situation, but it’s always a significant sacrifice to do that, and I’m sure I speak for many in saying that we deeply appreciate your service to the Lord by serving our troops.

Second, welcome to Anglicanism!  We’re glad to have you.

Finally, however, in answer to your query about the future prospects of Anglicanism, I certainly can’t speak for others here, since the future is very unclear in many ways and there are lots of different takes on that.  Nonetheless, personally, I think the prospects are now brighter for orthodox Anglicanism than they’ve been in generations.  For example, the ACNA may be small, but it has superb leadership, and is displaying a vigor when it comes to church planting that’s very exciting and encouraging.  As I like to say, quoting American missionary to Burma Adoniram Judson, “The future is as bright as the promises of God.

Just keep watching this site, Daniel, and you’ll soon get up to speed.

[107] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 4-24-2010 at 12:18 PM · [top]

If I were still an Episcopalian, I’d be more concerned about what KJS is not saying at this point, and I’d be surprised if she does nothing.  As for me, nothing that woman says or does surprises me.

[108] Posted by Cennydd on 4-24-2010 at 12:23 PM · [top]

Oh just give her some time, 108, just give her some time.

[109] Posted by r3ussell on 4-24-2010 at 01:07 PM · [top]

#106 Ralph. Agreed. There is real reason to be nervous about recent events in TECUSA.  I don’t how people in Dio Central Fla feel but here many of us realized the very real possibility that Lawrence+ may be deposed from the day of his consecration. Not an encouraging thought. However, he has been extremely good in reminding what we need to be about as a diocese.  Bishop Lawrence would prefer that he not have to spend any time or worry about the national church and its recent intrusions into diocesan affairs but they must be addressed (that is why our diocesan convention was delayed). As Bishop Lawrence wrote, he will not spend all his time and energy dealing with these problems -and he has encouraged us to do the same- especially when there is other work that we are called to do.  So yes nervousness is here among many of us ....  don’t let that lead you astray from being faithful however you might do it (and yes considering a plan B may be one way to remain faithful). For more encouragement from our bishop, read his letters to the diocese from our diocesan website There are several links to his letters on the homepage.

[110] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 4-24-2010 at 02:06 PM · [top]

ooops a correction to my post #99.

It was actually Bishop Howe, Diocese of Central Florida, who said what I thought was said by Duncan (can’t trust my aging memory…sigh)

The Communion Partners have a sincere desire to remain your partners in ministry for Jesus’ sake. Pray for us as we pray for you.

[111] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 4-24-2010 at 02:38 PM · [top]

@99 SC blu cat lady: “How dare they choose (someone to preside at eucharist) that I deposed” offers a great comment on the significance of +Duncan being invited to celebrate Holy Communion for the conference.

This action also has a continuing significance by demonstrating that deposition is not to be feared by orthodox clergy in TEC and ACoC. Indeed, deposition just might be a narrow gate into the fullness of joy of communion with the Anglican world. What a strategic encouragement and simultaneous condemnation.

[112] Posted by tomken on 4-24-2010 at 06:29 PM · [top]

Hmmm, I would think that since a “deposition” by KJS is considered an honor by most so far, it would be something to seek as a means of entering “into the fullness of joy of communion with the Anglican world,” and with a good bit of the rest of Christianity, as well; something that TEC and the ACofC seem to have lost.

[113] Posted by Cennydd on 4-24-2010 at 07:13 PM · [top]

Not that anyone should actually seek such a “deposition” from the likes of her.

[114] Posted by Cennydd on 4-24-2010 at 08:14 PM · [top]

While I doubt that either Bishop Lawrence or Bishop Howe would suffer much spiritually if deposed by KJS, per se, they both understand the havoc that she will wreak on their dioceses.  I have little doubt that both dioceses would try to pull out of TEC, knowing full well that heretic bishops would be imposed.  Whether they leave or not, dozens or perhaps hundreds of clergy would be deposed- if they leave, because they left, if they stay, the imposed heretic bishop will depose them anyway. And this means things like loss of pensions to young priests who are not vested yet, not to mention division of parishes between leavers and stayers.  It may be more difficult for KJS to sue in S Carolina, but that will not stop her from trying. 
So I don’t think +Lawrence or +Howe are fearful for their orders- given that the CP is a creation of the ABoC himself, it is difficult to see how he could recognize their deposition, and I think we have the assurances of all the Primates of the GS that they will not.  But they do have a lot of people under their care, and both have gone to great lengths to defend both the faith even within TEC, and the people of their dioceses.

[115] Posted by tjmcmahon on 4-24-2010 at 09:30 PM · [top]

so you all pardon my ignorance and stupidity,
i have left the catholics in the early 70s because they wanted to “normalize” homosexuality, especially within
the priesthood, then followed by the united church,
then followed by multiple protestant denominations,
like that one from colorado ( not that i want to remember
these “servants of God “);
so this issue or moving forward to “normalizing” homosexuality and along with it homosexual marriages(
and then their “justifiable divorces as in adultery”;
so because of my ignorance and stupidity, let me conclude
the churches (regardless which denomination and the anglicans are no exception), the “leadership” have revealed the following:
(00) their moving away from the Christ’s teaching  
    and the congregations are equally responsible
    for not standing up by simply recognize, its time
    to move on, by the way i am NOT LOOKING FOR
(01) the leaderships are moving away from Christ teaching
    because they themselves are contaminated and now
    too well of and too much time on their hands to
    “discuss” these issue related to sexuality;
(02) am i condamning the homosexuality here ??? nope,
    for there is no greater sin nor lesser sin, a sin
    is a sin, so if we “normalize” these sin related
    to sex, where is limit of this “normalizing”
    process ??? or why do we not just throw out
    YES i do make that judgement for myself, the act,
    the homosexual act, and not the person,
(03) as i recall from the new testament and the book
    of acts, i do not recall anywhere that Mat./John
    /Peter/and so on were elected nor their duties,
    they were chosen by Christ, and in their own hearts
    they wanted to follow, following Christ and His
    teachings, and not men’s teaching of what is right
    and what is wrong, and definitely NOT this bull:
    political process;
so all of you guys, if the leadership of your
denomination is not following Christ and His teaching(
and not this “interpreted” teaching ), then pray and
follow Him, and NOT MAN !!!
hopefully what has been this shared here would wake up
some ( even one ) of you , quit the bickering, regardless , even if these “progressives” gets to
“win” the financial aspect, MOVE ON;
and as i suspect, all this bickering is over the loosing
the financial component of it all;
last but no least, so i hope all of you guys will forgive my ignorance, stupidity and “ranting”,
as to the leadership of the tec/whatever, please
if you are not going to follow Christ, i dare you to show your colors; and again i am NOT LOOKING FOR FOLLOWERS !!!

God Bless you all

[116] Posted by sunny on 4-25-2010 at 01:37 AM · [top]

If you were forced to chose, would you rather have your orders recognized by the Primates of the Global South or TEC. It is getting to the point that segments of TEC, the ACoC and even CoE will not be recognized by most of the WWAC. In other words being deposed by KJS may be a part of the legitimate credentialing of Holy Orders for reception in most of the WWAC. It will be a not a stigma but a mark of authenticity. As time goes on, the authenticity of the consecrations of Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons in TEC will be increasingly questioned in the rest of the Communion. Apostolic succession is at risk in TEC.

[117] Posted by Fr. Dale on 4-25-2010 at 08:29 AM · [top]

Fr. Dale,
There is no question in my mind that KJS cannot in reality depose anyone- all she achieves with each deposition is to move herself farther and farther away from the Church (capital C- the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church- no acronyms or denomination).  Without touching upon the verboten subject, I do not recognize her as a bishop to begin with.
I am a member of ACNA.  I have not set foot in a TEC church since I first attended an ACNA church.  I occasionally lead Morning Prayer.  If ++Greg Venables, ++Henry Orombi, or ++Bob Duncan say you’re a bishop, you’re a bishop.  If +Kieth Ackerman or John David Schofield say you are a priest, you are a priest.  No question in my mind.  But that someone appears on a clergy roll of TEC means very little to me- I know a great number who have abandoned the faith, and not a few who were never qualified in the first place.
I completely agree with the leaders of the GS- most of the bishops and clergy of TEC have abandoned the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Communion.
I have no question that deposition by TEC would be meaningless to the holy orders of any bishop.  All I was trying to point out in #115 is that Bishops Howe and Lawrence have considerations in addition to the validity of their own orders.  They both know that action taken against them will have negative ramifications for those under their care.

[118] Posted by tjmcmahon on 4-25-2010 at 08:56 AM · [top]

oops, the omission was accidental, to be consistent, that should have been “+John David Schofield”

[119] Posted by tjmcmahon on 4-25-2010 at 09:00 AM · [top]

The PB can acknowledge that this or that bishop is no longer part of TEC but she has no authority or power to remove anyone from Holy Orders. Only God does that, just as only God ordains. Human beings recognize ordination but don’t actually do it.

As the PB further distances herself from God the chill that she feels won’t be just a draft in her office. But it would seem that she can look forward to warmer times. I pray that God will show her the Way.

[120] Posted by Ralph on 4-25-2010 at 09:31 AM · [top]

TJ, Just so I understand you if Mark Lawrence+ or John Howe+ said this person is a priest would you agree or disagree?? No doubt that both realize the consequences of   being deposed for their dioceses. I think the only possibility that KJS+ could not deal with is if the Diocesan Standing Committee refused to recognize the deposition which I could easily see this diocese’s (SC) standing committee doing.  Just write her a letter saying:  sorry but we don’t recognize this non canonical action. Within days, I would bet that there would be letters and e-mail from all over the Anglican world saying essentially the same thing.  Then where would her plan be??  This diocese may not be as easy to get rid of as you might think.. Then again who can predict the future…..

[121] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 4-25-2010 at 01:08 PM · [top]

#121. SC blu cat lady,
I think KJS and DBB have dug a ditch for themselves. They must continue to argue in court that TEC is a hierarchical church. They must argue successfully that the PB and GenCon determine polity in the church. If not, their case against any departing Diocese will not be able to hold up in court. Their first move M.O. is to establish a faux Diocese and Bishop and then claim that is the legitimate diocese. Once they do that, they dismiss the Standing Committee from the original Diocese and form a new Standing Committee for the faux Diocese.

[122] Posted by Fr. Dale on 4-25-2010 at 01:25 PM · [top]

Yes, but it becomes rather tricky does it not if the original diocese refuses to budge/ just leave. Then there would be two entities in one state both saying that their are the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina.  That is all I am saying.  What could KJS and DBB sue over in this state ?? Property? That issue is settled.  Anyway, predicting what may happen is not a talent of mine. Confusing times for sure if that happens.

[123] Posted by SC blu cat lady on 4-25-2010 at 01:45 PM · [top]

For clarity, my Reader’s Digest Illustrated Encyclopedic Dictionary defines hierarchy as: The body of clergy in a country or area, especially the bishops, and makes no mention at all of the laity.  It is also defined as “a body of entities arranged in a graded series.”  The Episcopal Church cannot historically claim to be a hierarchy on the same model as the Church of Rome, since it is organized from the bottom up and not from the top down, as in Rome’s case.  Parishes unite to form dioceses, and dioceses unite to form a Church.

[124] Posted by Cennydd on 4-25-2010 at 02:09 PM · [top]

SC Blu Cat Lady,

A) I don’t think my recognition means much one way or the other.  I am not the Archbishop of Canterbury, I am just a simple country layman.
B) I’ve never had enough conversation with either bishop to know exactly how they view holy orders.  Bishop Howe once referred to VGR as a friend of his.  Does he recognize VGR as a priest?  As a bishop?  If yes to the latter, does he recognize him as a “bishop of the whole church” or just as a “bishop of TEC?”  (Remembering that there is not supposed to be a difference, but clearly in the modern day, there is).
C) It is my understanding that both +Howe and +Lawrence ordain women, and that does leave me in a bit of a quandry, as an Anglo Catholic, as to how to answer the question.
D) Referring back to A) I am beginning to get a little uncomfortable that people put much stock in what I think.  These questions would be better put to the closest orthodox bishop.  But if what you are asking is: would I take Holy Communion in a TEC church in S Carolina, then the answer is “yes”, assuming it is ok with the bishop and priest in question.  Will I take communion in N Michigan, “no”.  In most dioceses, if you look closely, you can still find an orthodox priest here or there, so I don’t know that I would be absolutist about it- donatism is tempting for me, so I try not to go there. 
E) At this point, I am as confused as everyone else- 2 CP bishops attend the GS Encounter a few days after another CP bishop consecrates Ian Douglas- one of the architects of the modern TEC- concelebrating with KJS- an act that I do not think passes muster with the GS Primates.  So, I think the CP are as confused as I am.

[125] Posted by tjmcmahon on 4-25-2010 at 03:34 PM · [top]

Item 11, planning for economic development in the underdeveloped world, may turn out to be highly significant. It is clear to me that Christ the Redeemer is at work in this, bringing good out of our sorry Anglican debacle. The sight of the South determining to take responsibility for their own economic development rejoices me. Even at the cost of shame at their recognition that Western “aid” is from a poisoned well.

[126] Posted by tomken on 4-25-2010 at 04:34 PM · [top]

Robroy at #94,

As others have pointed out. The only action here is yet producing another document.

It is worth remembering that scripture is merely a document, so too the Nicene Creed and the festal letter of Athanasius. The 95 theses which Luther nailed to the door of Wittenberg church were also, in the end, just a document. Sometimes these can be very powerful.

What did not happen was a group signing of the present Covenant which had been predicted to occur several months ago.

True. Mind you, I would have been devastated if they had signed that document, and I am over the moon that they did not sign it.

What did not happen was the creation of a new and improved Covenant with Lambeth 1.10 explicitly affirmed and the “Standing Committee of the AC” explicitly expunged.

This assumes that the covenant can be made suitable just by adding a bit, and by expunging a couple of other bits. Given the wholesale involvement of closet liberals that went into its development, I would rather they re-looked at the whole thing first.

Bear in mind that some (including some quite senior people in the GS) don’t think we need a covenant at all. Others are divided as to what it is supposed to accomplish. I would have thought better to talk it all through first. Its not as though any of the essentials of our faith depend on a covenant - we don’t need one in order to evangelise, build our churches, disciple new believers. Those who are being prevented from doing these things because of liberal bishops (e.g. in TEC or CofE), well, such liberals probably won’t take any notice of an orthodox covenant anyway.

I am not saying that a Covenant may not be a useful and godly thing, but I don’t think its anything that needs to be rushed.

[127] Posted by MichaelA on 4-26-2010 at 03:04 AM · [top]

#127 Some sensible comments, MichaelA
In particular the attempt by Lambeth Palace to push the Covenant through this GS meeting with the assistance of Singapore may have been doomed by the continued failure of the ABC and ACO to deal with the glaring problems, and in particular: [1] the presence of TEC representatives on bodies which adjudicate upon the implementation and compliance with the Covenant; and [2] the ‘secret constitution’ of the self-appointed “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion”.  There is no way anyone can meaningfully assess this particular Covenant draft without these matters, which are integral to it, being resolved

But it may be something peculiarly British to believe that you can bluff it out by pulling a fast one on people, and get away from it.  As ever, egg on face is the predictable result.

[128] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 4-27-2010 at 05:03 AM · [top]

#128. Pageantmaster,
If the ABC was so invested in the Covenant being signed onto at the Global South conference, why didn’t he even show up to promote this? His non appearance was a definite snub.

[129] Posted by Fr. Dale on 4-27-2010 at 07:09 AM · [top]

#129 I expect he was up to some mischief or other - no doubt we will find out before long.

He couldn’t have got there anyway, and given the reception his mis-judged speech got, it is probably just as well.

[130] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 4-27-2010 at 07:39 AM · [top]

All flights out of London were grounded because of the ash cloud, and that meant that Archbishop Akinola couldn’t attend, either.

[131] Posted by Cennydd on 4-27-2010 at 08:39 AM · [top]

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more explanation, and the posts here, here, and here for advice on becoming a valued commenter as opposed to an ex-commenter. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments which you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm site administrators or Gri5th Media, LLC.