March 25, 2017

May 28, 2010

What does Rowan’s letter mean in actual terms?

Mark Harris has an excellent (and extremely prompt!) answer to this question:

Here is a list of those on the Anglican Communion Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order. Those highlighted in red [David: and italicised] would be reduced to consultant status (whatever that means) under the moratoria rule the Archbishop speaks of in his letter.

The Most Revd Bernard Ntahoturi, Primate of Burundi and Chair of Commission
The Rt Revd Dr Georges Titre Ande, Congo
The Ven. Professor Dapo Asaju, Nigeria
The Revd Canon Professor Paul Avis, England
The Rt Revd Philip D Baji, Tanzania
The Revd Canon Dr John Gibaut, World Council of Churches
The Rt Revd Howard Gregory, West Indies
The Revd Dr Katherine Grieb, Episcopal Church (USA)
The Revd Canon Clement Janda, Sudan
The Revd Sarah Rowland Jones, Southern Africa
The Revd Dr Edison Muhindo Kalengyo, Uganda
The Rt Revd Victoria Matthews, Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia
The Revd Canon Dr Charlotte Methuen, England
The Revd Dr Simon Oliver, Wales/England
The Rt Revd Professor Stephen Pickard, Australia
Dr Andrew Pierce, Ireland
The Revd Canon Dr Michael Nai Chiu Poon, South East Asia
The Revd Dr Jeremiah Guen Seok Yang, Korea
The Rt Revd Tito Zavala, Bishop of Chile, Southern Cone
The Revd Joanna Udal, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Secretary for Anglican Communion Affairs The Revd Canon Dr Alyson Barnett-Cowan, Director for Unity, Faith and Order
Mr Neil Vigers, of the Anglican Communion Office.

I am not sure of the status of SE Asia and Tanzania. I am sure this will be further corrected.

So, in a nutshell, TEC would be asked to stand down one member and the orthodox would lose 3. Somehow I don’t think this is going to please the Global South. Furthermore, I find it very hard to believe that Rowan did not know this before writing the letter - you draw the obvious conclusion from that.

Share this story:

Recent Related Posts



Orthodox demoted = 3
Revisionists demoted = 1


[1] Posted by Looking for Leaders on 5-28-2010 at 06:24 AM · [top]

readers should also note that The Revd Canon Dr John Gibaut, World Council of Churches is a Canadian priest, although not appearing in that specific capacity.

[2] Posted by David Ould on 5-28-2010 at 06:30 AM · [top]

Time for the Global South to move forward.  +Bruno didn’t listen to the rest of the Communion, +Schori hasn’t, and neither is +Rowan.  They have separated themselves and +Rowan will never do anything substantial enough to fix the problem.  The AC is broken with no plan for real repair.  +Rowan isn’t going to do it, time for the real leaders to step up and do it.

[3] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 5-28-2010 at 06:32 AM · [top]

If an archbishop of canterbury falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?


[4] Posted by tired on 5-28-2010 at 07:28 AM · [top]

I’m afraid that Mark Harris is spinning urgently. 

. . . Which is understandable.

Neither Nigeria or Uganda are engaged in border crossing.  I’d have to check on the Southern Cone.  But folks there’s a reason why those provinces have shed their oversight of ACNA entities.  Heh.  And now we know at least some of that reason.

I find it interesting that the only province *we know* doing any border crossing is Rwanda.  And they’re not on this little commission thingy.

[5] Posted by Sarah on 5-28-2010 at 07:43 AM · [top]


[6] Posted by Intercessor on 5-28-2010 at 08:39 AM · [top]

Wasn’t this always the Revisionist game:- make an equivalence between breaking the ecclesiastical rules wrt to a first order issue and breaking the ecclesiastical rules wrt a matter of (unclear) church tradition?! 

I wonder why +Rowan feels confident in making this move? 

- What does it do to the “balance” in the ecclesiastical political numbers game? 

- What happened in the recent CofE HoB’s discussions on homosexuality?.... the “noises”, that only came from from liberal bishops, were all either pro-gay or pro-“disagreement doesn’t really matter that much”!

ps Maybe it’s easy to get round anyway… EITHER Nigeria, Southern Cone and Uganda could just hand over their responsibilities to US based bishops and become supporting provinces rather than sponsors- OR two of them could hand over their parts to the other one (eg Southern Cone) and keep their places in the various ecclesiastical councils etc..

[7] Posted by Zwingli on 5-28-2010 at 08:47 AM · [top]

We all know that the Scriptures and 2000+ years of Judeo-Christian law and tradition are not supportive of homosex. 

None of the above says jack about “border-crossing”. 

I can’t believe Williams thinks that portraying the two as morally-equivalent is going to help him make friends or influence people in the Global South

But, as long as we keep Katie’s knickers from being in a wad, that’s ok. 


This is liable to backfire on him…

[8] Posted by Anti-Harridan on 5-28-2010 at 09:02 AM · [top]

Anglican Communion Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order. Oxymoron. Worse than military intelligence.

[9] Posted by Anglican Paplist on 5-28-2010 at 09:27 AM · [top]

AS I stated on the other thread:
”...the fact that TEc just blows on through and does what it wants with joy and glee should be a clear indication that they know that they are safe from rebuke that should come from across the pond. They already know that +Rowan will not do anything to remove them from the AC and we expecting him to do that or something else is a waste of time. He is not going to cut off the $$$ that helps to sustain the AC and he is in complete agreement with TEc’s false teaching thus he cannot turn on himself.”


“So the focus as I am reading in the comments is those who have provided over sight to churches and dioceses that could no longer bear being yoked to a heretical province. So in your opinions who is being “warned” (for lack of a better word) in this address? Southern Cone, Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya or TEc? Leaving TEc free to continue to do what they have already done, and will continue to do thinking that Canterbury is looking more at “Border Crossing” that quite frankly is nothing compared to false teaching that our Lord warns the teachers and leaders of the Church abound.  Not too mention the warning that comes with about the punishment if you do it.

Also, what does this say to ACNA in regards to recognition? If +Rowan is giving rebuke to those who are providing temporary oversight then how can anyone think that recognition coming from Canterbury to the ACNA is in the near future?”

[10] Posted by TLDillon on 5-28-2010 at 10:09 AM · [top]

What’s sauce for the goose is sauce is sauce for the gander

The three moratoria:
1. No authorization of blessings services for same-sex unions.
2. No consecrations of bishops living in same-sex relationships.
3. No cross-border interventions (no bishop authorizing any ministry within the diocese of another bishop without explicit permission). These have been affirmed repeatedly in subsequent years at the highest levels of the Communion.

TEC falls short on #s 1 and 2
Some Global South Provinces fall short on # 3. Whether one likes it or not the ABC is being consistent.

Surely with the founding of ACNA there are no good reasons for those bishops to have USA Anglican jurisdictions, such as CANA, AMiA inter alia. They should withdraw from the the US scene and allow their respective affiliated groups to play a full role within ACNA. If this doesn’t happen ACNA won’t grow into the Province it should be.

By stepping aside from their USA affiliations they will be able to advocate for ACNA more effictively in the rest of the Communion. However, if they persist in keeping a presence in the USA their voices will be marginalized and go unheard.

I close with another cliche, as Orthodox believers we cannot have our cake and eat it.

Rev. Peter Dewberry

[11] Posted by Peter Dewberry on 5-28-2010 at 10:10 AM · [top]

Peter Dewberry, as I’ve pointed out a couple of times already, the only province that is definitely going to keep its oversight is Rwanda.  I know that Uganda and Kenya have transferred their oversight away to ACNA.  And my understanding is that CANA is well on the path towards that.

To put it another way—the GS provinces were always clear about their efforts being a temporary emergency action.  The revisionist activists leaders currently in charge of TEC have always been clear that their efforts are permanent and a part of their gospel.

[12] Posted by Sarah on 5-28-2010 at 10:15 AM · [top]

It remains painful and absurd that lawsuits disappeared from the requests for restraint.

[13] Posted by Timothy Fountain on 5-28-2010 at 10:24 AM · [top]

Sarah, then once CANA completes the process then The Ven. Professor Dapo Asaju, Nigeria and others should get their places back, wouldn’t you think?

Peter Dewberry

[14] Posted by Peter Dewberry on 5-28-2010 at 10:24 AM · [top]

I applaud the ABC’s letter. He has taken a positive step (although, perhaps, a small one) toward sanctioning those who are obviously at odds with the AC’s three moratoria.

Thank you, Revd Dewberry, for providing a thoughtful response to those other responses that seem not to take seriously what it means to be in communion in the AC.

The ABC is not saying that all three moratoria are, in fact, morally equivalent. But he is saying that to break the bonds of communion, to act apart from the intention of the AC, is to set one’s self, or one’s province, apart from the whole.

I’m not certain that TEC will pay much attention to the ABC’s letter. But perhaps those within the AC who actually take it seriously, will refrain from all three moratoria and participate within the bonds of affection that have been held up in this letter by the ABC.

ACNA will only become stronger, and only have a chance at survival, if the Anglicans in the US and Canada unite under an American leadership that looks to be full participating members of the AC.

[15] Posted by Danker on 5-28-2010 at 10:33 AM · [top]

#15, Danker, I wonder what you think Abp Duncan represents, if not seeking after “full participating members[hip]” in the AC.
desert padre

[16] Posted by desertpadre on 5-28-2010 at 10:44 AM · [top]

It seems clear that the decision of AMiA to take a step back from ACNA was wrong-footed—the movement should have been in the opposite direction.  Rwanda should let AMiA go now, maintining whatever special relationship of affinity and affection it cares to, but without provincial oversight. 

There is a nasty little effect of Rowan’s missive, which is that right now there are some tenuous connections to the Communion.  This might to the cynic appear to be an effort to extinguish those.  Of course the Global South can essentially keep ACNA in communion with the majority of the world’s Anglicans by their own actions.  But robbing ACNA, AMiA, et al. of their Communion bona fides, however thin, is a bit of a gift to TEC.

Of course I think Rowan has always made clear that this does not keep anyone from being an Anglican.

[17] Posted by RomeAnglican on 5-28-2010 at 10:54 AM · [top]

A few quick points.

1.  Mark Harris is simply and clearly wrong about the Ugandan rep needing to step down, as indeed Uganda has fully released oversight of its former parishes to the ACNA.  Uganda is NOT crossing boundaries anymore.  Southern Cone and Nigeria haven’t yet done so, but that means only two GS reps bounced or demoted, perhaps temporarily.

2.  David Ould seems to have overlooked the signficant fact that the Director for the group, Canon Alyson Barnett-Cowan, is also a Canadian priest (along with the WCC rep he mentions, Dr. Gibaut).  Again, please note, she’s not just a member of the ACSCUFO, but its director for heaven’s sake.  And she’s a flaming liberal to boot.

3.  Fr. Tim Fountain’s point (#13) is well taken.  What in the world happened to the fourth moratoria?  You know, the one on lawsuits, that the Primates came up with at Dar es Salaam in 2007. 

Oh yeah, silly me.  That got deep-sixed by ++RW, just like the rest of the hardwon agreement.  Not that it’s really needed now to show TEC’s open defiance, but the way the lawsuits moratorium is just quietly dropped confirms the ABoC’s reluctance to grant it any weight or legitimacy.

4.  Mark Harris is ignoring the fact that the Canadians are also clearly in breach of the moratorium on SSB’s.  And thus BOTH the Canadians on this figurehead group could theoretically also be banished or demoted, just like VTS prof Katherine Grieb.  Including the group’s DIRECTOR!  (The WCC rep could easily be given a pass, as not representing the ACoC).

And that means, by my reckoning, that the ratio changes significantly.  The GS loses two (2) reps, the Nigerian and Chilean ones (S. Cone).  And the liberal GN stands to lose at least two, maybe three.  Depending on whether the WCC rep is seen as representing the ACoC or not.  (And again, I doubt that he would or even should be; he represents the whole WCC).

So that creates a tie, 2-2.  Liberal north loses two, conservative south loses two.  Except that the north loses the big advantage of fielding the group’s director.

But nonetheless, I say that it’s still no big deal.  Who in the world cares about the ACSCUFO anyway?  Sounds like a group researching UFO’s, and it should probably be taken just as seriously.

David Handy+

[18] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 5-28-2010 at 11:12 AM · [top]


[19] Posted by Steve Lake+ on 5-28-2010 at 11:24 AM · [top]

Rwanda and AMiA made a decision, and to my thinking it was the correct one. Severe relations or being on an irrelevant ACO bureaucratic committee. The ACNA and AMiA are still in formation. The ties with godly leadership in the Global South are more important than getting to play in a game where Rowan is making up the rules.

[20] Posted by robroy on 5-28-2010 at 11:26 AM · [top]

Robroy, re. your comment “The ACNA and AMiA are still in formation, The ties with godly leadership in the Global South are more important than getting to play in a game where Rowan is making up the rules.”

Why do those ties have to include Episcopal oversight? Both ACNA have their own very competent and godly Archbishop and Bishops. The plea for continuing the present situation sounds like the paternalism that the African Church rightly resented from the Western Church, only this time operating in reverse.

[21] Posted by Peter Dewberry on 5-28-2010 at 01:46 PM · [top]

(Also posted over at TitusOneNine and Covenant)

A few thoughts.  This letter, absent anything more, is very much “too little, too late”, an abdication of Rowan’s responsibilities, the probable end of any meaningful Anglican Communion, etc., etc.  But  (as has been said above by the very learned Sarah) this letter is very intriguing in that it suggests that this is just the beginning  of the REAL conversation.  Again, as the equally learned Matt has written, if Rowan actually does what he hints at (i.e., disinviting the affected Provincial representatives from the Primate’s Meetings, and demonstrating the moral leadership necessary to have them suspended from the ACC and JSC) then this letter could be the first sign of the watershed event in the Anglican Communion.  So in other words, we need to repeat the time worn words “we shall see.”  Many people (myself included) have our severe doubts as to Rowan’s capability or will to do what needs doing, but, on the other hand, it can also be argued that it isn’t until now that Rowan’s back is against the wall.  TEC has brazenly declared its intent to violate the moratoria and the Global South has similarly indicated that the Instruments of Unity are hanging by the merest thread of credibility.

I don’t have the same problem with Rowan’s “equating” of the border-crossing (i.e. reactive) violations with the two sexuality (i.e. primary) violations.  However, I certainly DO have a problem with the fact that there is no addressing at all about what to do in North America.  It’s one thing to say consistently “all must be done in order” in response to an emergency situation (and Rowan must realize that SOMETHING must be done in North America) but then not offer any assistance whatsoever.  What I think Rowan needed to have done is make some reference to the need for an extra-Provincial holding structure for the ACNA/AMiA types which is “in order” pending final resolution of this mess.  Border-crossing always was a reaction against Communion-breaking innovations in North American, and these innovations have continued and TEC and ACoC have indicated that these innovations are seen as permanent.  So the “need” which led to the border-crossings is stronger then ever.  If Rowan takes border-crossings off the table, he needs to replace it with something.

I also wonder at some of the finer definitions of some things…

For example, what does it mean when he writes

provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria

  Does this mean that permissive as well as active policies are culpable (e.g. we will let dioceses violate the moratoria, but don’t command them to do so)?  What about policies which were adopted which logically translate to action which later no longer technically violates the moratoria (e.g. GAFCON provinces which initially engaged in border crossing but then released their bishops to the ACNA, thus no longer technically border-crossing, but fully recognizing the ACNA bishops)?  What about diocesan decisions that violate the moratoria, but which are neither officially approved of nor officially disapproved of by the Province (e.g. a diocese which openly permits same-sex marriages but is not disciplined by the Province, OR if say a GAFCON province turns over its North American operations to a single diocesan bishop, officially washing their hands of it, but allowing it to go on anyway)?

In short, this letter puts the pieces in place for what needs to be done, but I am yet to be convinced that Rowan will yet actually make the necessary moves.  However, this is, nevertheless, a lot more from Rowan then I was expecting.

[22] Posted by jamesw on 5-28-2010 at 01:54 PM · [top]

That his letter causes this much parsing to try and figure out what ++Rowan means is just par for the course. Very little will change, very little will be done, and everything is punted until the next meeting, ad infinitum. How depressing for all Anglicans.

[23] Posted by Branford on 5-28-2010 at 02:40 PM · [top]

Actually, there never was an unqualified Anglican Communion moratorium on cross border oversight. 

Review of the Dromantine Communique qualified a commitment “to neither to encourage nor to initiate cross-boundary interventions” for the period the Panel of Reference was to be in effect.  Review of the Dar es Salaam Communique qualified a commitment that the Primates would “end all interventions” and “congregations or parishes in current arrangements” would “negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above,” the structure being the primatial vicar “scheme of pastoral care” when it is “...recognised to be fully operational.”  The Windsor Report was simply a report, a report which was received and its suggestions acted on by the primates as described above.

[24] Posted by tired on 5-28-2010 at 03:02 PM · [top]

RW is the Rodney King of the Anglican Communion.  ‘Why can’t we all just get along?’  Rowan’s extremely mild rebuke to TEC just doesn’t provide the leadership the Anglican Communion needs.

[25] Posted by DFS on 5-28-2010 at 03:26 PM · [top]

I have long since given up on expecting ++Rowan Wlliams to do anything about TEC’s behavior, and I am disgusted by the fact that he has done absolutely nothing favorable towards the ACNA.  He is meek and mild when he should be strong and forceful in the performance of his duty.  Unfortunately, he has neither of those character traits.

[26] Posted by Cennydd on 5-28-2010 at 03:34 PM · [top]

Peter (#21), having partnership relationships is NOT the same thing as having episcopal oversight. Not being able to play in Rowan’s sandbox is a small price to pay to for having the much more intimate ties with Global South partners. A Rowan Williams centered Anglican Communion isn’t worth a proverbial hill o’ beans.

[27] Posted by robroy on 5-28-2010 at 04:14 PM · [top]

What does Rowan’s letter mean in actual terms?


[28] Posted by B. Hunter on 5-28-2010 at 07:00 PM · [top]

What does Rowan’s letter mean in actual terms?

About the same as John Nance Garner’s assessment of the vice presidency: “a bucket of warm spit.”

[29] Posted by The Pilgrim on 5-28-2010 at 07:04 PM · [top]

So, has anyone ever heard of the “Anglican Communion Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order” before this letter? Has it done anything worth while? Will it do anything worth while?

So the ABC’s idea for punishment is to remove people from a committee that has no importance in the life of the communion? Sign me up for that one!

Yours in Christ,

[30] Posted by Jacobsladder on 5-29-2010 at 11:50 AM · [top]

[30] Jacobsladder

So, has anyone ever heard of the “Anglican Communion Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order” before this letter? Has it done anything worth while? Will it do anything worth while?

Anglican Communion Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order. Here is the crucial fact.

The Commission has been established by the Lambeth Conference, the Primates’ Meeting, and the Anglican Consultative Council. It builds on previous work done by the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission, the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations, and the Windsor Continuation Group. It reports to the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. 

So they will be removed from a Commission that reports to a Committee that is a wholly-owned subsidiary of TEC.  The level of pain anticipated by 815 must be excruciating.


[31] Posted by carl on 5-29-2010 at 01:16 PM · [top]

I’ve gone for a simple summary here, couched in terms comprehensible to anyone familiar with the English public school system, which is surely everyone, is it not?

[32] Posted by John Richardson on 5-29-2010 at 02:09 PM · [top]

This is not the first time ++Rowan has played this little game. Remember that stunt he pulled prior to Lambeth, withholding invitations from both Gene Robinson and the missionary bishops from AMiA and CANA? He continues to draw a moral equivalence between the unlawful actions of the two former North American provinces and the emergency relief efforts of the Global South provinces. Okay, ++Rowan, let’s play by your rules for a moment.


Think of it this way, ++Rowan. By your logic, the Allies were equally in violation of international law for storming the beaches of Normandy to drive out the Nazis as were the Nazis for invading France in the first place. France was not liberated by the French, but by an invading army of American, British, and Canadian troops. When an enemy has conquered a territory unlawfully, it will, more often than not, require intervention from outsiders to restore the territory to the natives.

[33] Posted by Jagged Edge on 5-29-2010 at 04:07 PM · [top]

The AC has become an organization without order or direction.
Who’s in?
Who’s out?
Who cares?

[34] Posted by RalphM on 5-29-2010 at 05:00 PM · [top]

He is meek and mild when he should be strong and forceful in the performance of his duty.

Rowan is neither meek nor mild, and he is doing his duty in a most robust fashion.  He’s simply Schori’s stooge, a catspaw for TEC.  Nothing is going to happend to TEC if he has anything to say about it.  Ever.

[35] Posted by Jeffersonian on 5-29-2010 at 06:11 PM · [top]

Hey Carl,

So in other words, no it has no real function, and hasn’t done anything of note, and owing to the Standing Committee to which it reports, it never will?

Just getting this straight in my head, the ABC says by removing these folks from their roles representing the Communion “you are not fit to represent us” but by not removing them from leadership roles like the Standing Committee and the like, “you are fit to govern us”. Fascinating.

Yours in Christ,

[36] Posted by Jacobsladder on 5-29-2010 at 11:07 PM · [top]

TEC border crosses - in Europe.

[37] Posted by martin5 on 5-30-2010 at 09:04 PM · [top]

{null set}

[38] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 5-30-2010 at 09:35 PM · [top]

Like several others, I am struggling to see how +++Rowan Williams has done anything for orthodoxy in this. He has threatened to remove some people from an obscure committee (and noting that according to several posters here, this committee reports to the liberal dominated ACC). How does that amount to anything?

It has also been suggested that certain relinquishing of ties by overseas provinces was done in anticipation of this. Really? Even if the overseas provinces had known that ABC was going to come up with this weird pronouncement, why would they have cared? It seems more likely that the overseas provinces relinquished their oversight because that is what they had always said they were going to do (and also because they have very limited resources and higher priorities at home).

What has ABC actually said, of any substance? It sounds like he wants everyone to start buzzing about some unimportant committee, so they won’t realise that he either hasn’t responded at all to the Glasspool consecration, or (as I suspect) is actually working as much as he can in favour of the liberals, without making that obvious.

Surely this just reinforces the importance of building up Communion ties that are independent of a liberal ABC? That is also the best way to pressure the CofE to NOT choose a liberal ABC next time.

[39] Posted by MichaelA on 5-31-2010 at 01:55 AM · [top]

Like several others, I am struggling to see how +++Rowan Williams has done anything for orthodoxy in this.

Not one thing.  Not one single, solitary, effective, worthwhile, godly, helpful thing. 

What does Rowan’s letter mean in actual terms?

Not one thing.  Not one single, solitary, effective, worthwhile, godly, helpful thing. 

Let’s all turn up the volume on this:  Pathetically omplete-waste-of-time-on-the-Stour needs to be drummed out of leadership.  Period.  Get it done!

[40] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 5-31-2010 at 04:14 AM · [top]

#39. I am not as sceptical as many, but I do think the potential impact and outworking of this letter will vary from context to context. In ACANZP, my sense is that it will tip the political balance back in the moderate-conservative direction. With +Victoria Matthews on the ‘Faith and Order’ commission, and Archbishop Moxon as co-chair of ARCIC III, there is likely to be some pause for thought before any official sanction to same-sex blessings at General Synod level. I think the latter is now significantly less likely as a result of the ABoC’s letter (although much depends on the Primate’s Mtg outcomes).

A similar dynamic may come into play in Australia, with the Primate being in favour with Lambeth Palace in a number of contexts, and other reps on ARCIC III and ‘Faith and Order’ etc. I would anticipate the ++Brisbane is less likely to push for the authorising of same sex blessings in his own diocesan synod (otherwise the most likely diocese in Aust. to do so), and it would never get the support of General Synod.  Again, I think the letter will tip the balance towards status quo prevailing in Australia, where the HoB has for a number of years informally agreed to hold to Lambeth 1:10 (in its entirety).

The letter has changed the landscape, and speaks to a post-crisis scenario (for the first time from the ABoC). In effect, TEC has failed to make its case, Lambeth 1:10 stands as the AC standard, and other than TEC reversing its official policies (as if…), or persuading the wider communion to change the existing standard at an official level (ie. another Lambeth Conference or Primates Mtg resolution to overthrow Lambeth 98 1:10), they are pretty much permanently and officially in a 2nd tier of sorts - but as I say, much depends on the Primates Mtg question.

In contrast to the above, I can see the ‘border crossing’ scenario continuing to change as alternative arrangements become more established.

[41] Posted by Tim Harris on 5-31-2010 at 04:20 AM · [top]

Here’s a question. If one of the African Provinces had tried something new in, say, Canada, whilst Mary Glasspool had not been consecrated, and Rowan had written a letter suggesting TEC face suspension from these bodies, what would be the reaction in the US?

I think, I just think, I know!

[42] Posted by John Richardson on 5-31-2010 at 06:07 AM · [top]

RE: “It has also been suggested that certain relinquishing of ties by overseas provinces was done in anticipation of this.”

No.  It hasn’t. 

It hasn’t been suggested at all that such a relinquishing of ties has been done in anticipation of people being booted from the Anglican Communion Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order.

[43] Posted by Sarah on 5-31-2010 at 08:30 AM · [top]

[42] John Richardson

I think, I just think, I know!

They would probably be pulling up pavement stones and shouting “¡No Pasarán!”  But then Leftists are always looking for excuses to relive the seminal events from their foundational narratives.  RW doesn’t credibly fill the shoes of Franco, but then most TECites wouldn’t have joined the Abraham Lincoln Brigade either - what with having to carry rifles and risk being shot at.  It’s simply a way of vicariously demonstrating one’s revolutionary passion and commitment.

The fire-eaters in TEC would be enraged at the thought of being disciplined simply to maintain equilibrium.  They are just as enraged at the thought of being disciplined for acting on their convictions.  They are enraged because the unenlightened have presumed to reject to their enlightened wisdom, and worse have acted to oppose it.  They are enraged because some dare to stand athwart progress and cry “Halt!”  They are enraged because progressives are completely self-referenced, and cannot understand how any thinking person could come to different conclusions other than through ignorance or malice.

The more radical elements will react to this letter by grumbling that TEC should take its money, walk across the valley, set its flag on a competing hill, and form its own progressive communion.  Cooler heads would realize that TEC is winning the long-term battle, and that the only possible long-term outcome for this war of attrition is a mass departure of orthodox provinces.  Whether there are any cool heads remaining in TEC is an open question. 


[44] Posted by carl on 5-31-2010 at 08:33 AM · [top]

Carl, I think they’ve already set that flag up on that hill across the valley.

[45] Posted by Cennydd on 5-31-2010 at 08:45 AM · [top]

Sarah at #43,

Yes, it has. I wasn’t referring to your post.

[46] Posted by MichaelA on 5-31-2010 at 07:23 PM · [top]

Tim Harris at #41,

Very interesting analysis. Thank you.

[47] Posted by MichaelA on 5-31-2010 at 07:25 PM · [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.