March 22, 2017

September 25, 2010


A Timeline of the Dissolution of the Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion

Just a few definitions of the word “dissolution” that I pulled from a dictionary . . .

dis·so·lu·tion (ds-lshn)
n.
Decomposition into fragments or parts; disintegration.
Termination or extinction by disintegration or dispersion: The dissolution of the empire was remarkably swift.
Extinction of life; death.
Annulment or termination of a formal or legal bond, tie, or contract.
Reduction to a liquid form; liquefaction.

Jill Woodliff has produced a very useful timeline—a sort of Magnum Opus—of the slow fragmentation of the Instruments of Unity.  It’s now rather obvious that they are not unifying in effect at all, but rather swirling-apart depictions of the chaos and disunity that now is the Anglican Communioin.  Once the center does not hold, the rotating spheres fly apart.  And that is what has happened.

Still, it is helpful to have a reference guide to the actions that have brought about this dissolution of the Instruments.  I’ll be interested in any helpful additions you may have, or edits, or deletions.  This is a good post for feedback and discussion on the actions of the past 12 years within the Anglican Communion.

Timeline of the dissolution of the faith and order of the Anglican Communion

This timeline focuses on Communion governance and is not intended to be all inclusive.  The actions of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada provide the backdrop (black).  The response of the Communion can be visualized as three parallel tracks: the Windsor Report (blue), the Covenant (green), and the Articles of Association (red). Entries dealing with Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion are also in red, as they are also the work of the Anglican Communion Legal Advisors Network.  There is some overlap, and sometimes the designation of color is arbitrary. 

Note how slowly and imperceptibly the control of the Covenant process is wrested from the Primates Meeting that originated it to the ACC.  Note also the use of small ad hoc committees.

1967 Preamble to the Constitution of the Episcopal Church defines TEC as a “constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer” (Constitution and Canons, Preamble.).

1998 Lambeth Conference upholds Scriptural and traditional teaching on marriage and human sexuality in Resolution I.10.  (By permission, the Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council 2006 )

March 2000 Primates’ meeting in Oporto, Portugal, issued a pastoral letter upholding the authority of Scripture.

March 2001  Primates’ meeting in Kanuga, NC, issued a pastoral letter acknowledging estrangement in Church due to changes in theology and practice regarding human sexuality, and calling Communion to avoid actions that might damage “credibility of mission.” They heard a presentation by Professor Norman Doe of the Centre for Law and Religion at the University of Wales, Cardiff, and the Revd Canon John Rees, Registrar of the Province of Canterbury on shared principles of canon law. 

Sept 2002 Anglican Consultative Council Meeting in Hong Kong approved a motion urging dioceses and bishops to refrain from unilateral actions/policies that would strain communion. It also established the Anglican Communion Legal Advisors Network to produce a statement of principles of Canon Law common within the Communion; examine shared legal problems and possible solutions; provide reports to the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council as the work progresses.

May 2003 Primates’ meeting in Brazil issued pastoral letter stating “The Archbishop of Canterbury spoke for us all when he said that it is through liturgy that we express what we believe, and that there is no theological consensus about same sex unions. Therefore, we as a body cannot support the authorisation of such rites.”

July 2003 In a letter to the Primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury warns that “certain decisions” on human sexuality could have “the effect of deepening the divide between Provinces”

Aug 2003 The General Convention of the Episcopal Church defeated Resolution B001, which sought to affirm the authority of Scripture.  It voted to confirm Gene Robinson, a non-celibate, partnered homosexual man, as bishop of New Hampshire.  It approved Resolution C051 recognizing blessings of same-sex unions as “within bounds of our common life.”

Oct 2003 The statement released by the Primates of the Anglican Communion at the conclusion of their extraordinary meeting in Lambeth Palace states, in part,

Therefore, as a body we deeply regret the actions of the Diocese of New Westminster and the Episcopal Church (USA) which appear to a number of provinces to have short-circuited that process, and could be perceived to alter unilaterally the teaching of the Anglican Communion on this issue. They do not. Whilst we recognise the juridical autonomy of each province in our Communion, the mutual interdependence of the provinces means that none has authority unilaterally to substitute an alternative teaching as if it were the teaching of the entire Anglican Communion. . . . If his consecration proceeds, we recognise that we have reached a crucial and critical point in the life of the Anglican Communion and we have had to conclude that the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy. In this case, the ministry of this one bishop will not be recognised by most of the Anglican world, and many provinces are likely to consider themselves to be out of Communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). This will tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level, and may lead to further division on this and further issues as provinces have to decide in consequence whether they can remain in communion with provinces that choose not to break communion with the Episcopal Church (USA). . . . We have noted that the Lambeth Conference 1998 requested the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a commission to consider his own role in maintaining communion within and between provinces when grave difficulties arise . We ask him now to establish such a commission, but that its remit be extended to include urgent and deep theological and legal reflection on the way in which the dangers we have identified at this meeting will have to be addressed. We request that such a commission complete its work, at least in relation to the issues raised at this meeting, within twelve months. . . . Questions of the parity of our canon law, and the nature of the relationship between the laws of our provinces with one another have also been raised. We encourage the Network of Legal Advisers established by the Anglican Consultative Council, meeting in Hong Kong in 2002, to bring to completion the work which they have already begun on this question.

Nov 2003  Rev Gene Robinson is consecrated as bishop.

Oct 2004 Lambeth Commission releases the Windsor Report, which calls for moratoria on public rites of same-sex blessings, on the election and consent of any candidate to the episcopacy living in a same-sex union, and further episcopal interventions in other provinces. It also spoke of Canon Law and Covenant:

. . . No church has a systematic body of ‘communion law’ dealing with its relationship of communion with other member churches. Surprisingly, then, inter-Anglican relations are not a distinctive feature of provincial laws.  . . . This Commission recommends, therefore, consideration as to how to make the principles of inter-Anglican relations more effective at the local ecclesial level. This has been a persistent problem in Anglicanism contributing directly to the current crisis, and could be remedied by the adoption by each church of its own simple and short domestic ‘communion law’, to enable and implement the covenant proposal below, strengthening the bonds of unity and articulating what has to-date been assumed. Our opinion is that, as some matters in each church are serious enough for each church currently to have law on those matters - too serious to let the matter be the subject of an informal agreement or mere unenforceable guidance - so too with global communion affairs. The Commission considers that a brief law would be preferable to and more feasible than incorporation by each church of an elaborate and all-embracing canon defining inter-Anglican relations, which the Commission rejected in the light of the lengthy and almost impossible difficulty of steering such a canon unscathed through the legislative processes of forty-four churches, as well as the possibility of unilateral alteration of such a law.
This Commission recommends, therefore, and urges the primates to consider, the adoption by the churches of the Communion of a common Anglican Covenant which would make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion. The Covenant could deal with: the acknowledgement of common identity; the relationships of communion; the commitments of communion; the exercise of autonomy in communion; and the management of communion affairs (including disputes). . . . The Covenant could be signed by the primates. Of itself, however, it would have no binding authority. Therefore the brief ‘communion law’ referred to above (paragraph 117) might authorise its primate (or equivalent) to sign the Covenant on behalf of that church and commit the church to adhere to the terms of the Covenant[79]. As it is imperative for the Communion itself to own and be responsible for the Covenant, we suggest the following long-term process, in an educative context, be considered for real debate and agreement on its adoption as a solemn witness to communion:
discussion and approval of a first draft by the primates
submission to the member churches and the Anglican Consultative Council for consultation and reception
final approval by the primates
legal authorisation by each church for signing, and
a solemn signing by the primates in a liturgical context. . . .
A worldwide Anglican Covenant may also assist churches in their relations with the States in which they exist. At such moments when a church faces pressure from its host State(s) to adopt secular state standards in its ecclesial life and practice, an international Anglican Covenant might provide powerful support to the church, in a dispute with the State, to reinforce and underpin its religious liberty within the State.

Feb 2005 Primates meet in Dromantine, Ireland, to collectively examine the Windsor Report and produce a Communiqué calling on ECUSA and Canada to “voluntarily withdraw” their representatives from the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) until Lambeth 2008 and to show that their regret and penitence was genuine by agreeing to halt both the actions which have shattered our common life until and unless a new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges.
The Primates also commended the covenant in concept and asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to explore ways of implementing it.

Mar 2005 The Archbishop of Canterbury elects to implement the covenant proposal through the former Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and of the Anglican Consultative Council, which commissions a study paper, written by six people from the United Kingdom, convened by the Deputy Secretary General at the request of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Secretary General.

June 2005 The ACC meeting in Nottingham voted to reconstitute the work of the Council within the framework of a limited liability company. It also upholds Lambeth 1.10 teaching on human sexuality and endorses the Primates’ request for ECUSA and Canada to withdraw their representatives from the ACC until the next Lambeth Conference.
The ACC forwards the Covenant for Communion in Mission to those bodies of the Anglican Communion tasked to consider an Anglican Covenant as commended by the Windsor Report and the Statement of the February 2005 Primates’ Meeting.

Mar 2006 The consultation group on the Covenant commissioned by the JSC produces Towards an Anglican Covenant, that introduces the ACC into the picture as having shared rights of final approval over a covenant draft:

The revised draft could be brought to the full meeting of ACC in conjunction with a meeting of the Primates in 2009….On approval of the final draft by ACC and the Primates, JSC could commend the text for adoption by the central assembly of each church.

The Joint Standing Committee adopts this consultation paper.

May 2006 The Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the Anglican Consultative Council ask the Archbishop of Canterbury to establish a Covenant Design Group.

June 2006 The General Convention of the Episcopal Church meet in Columbus, Ohio. An opportunity to support Lambeth 1998 1.10 is turned down in committee. A resolution affirming the Anglican Understanding of Holy Scripture, quoted verbatim from the Windsor Report, is modified in committee so that the affirmation of Windsor’s teaching was lost. Finally, when the resolution expressing regret for “breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection” is considered, the House of Deputies would not accept the language of the Windsor Report, which properly expressed the depth of the problem. Instead, they insist on changing the language to straining the bonds of affection. Neither of the two moratoria is instituted as requested.
Presiding Bishop Schori is elected; eight dioceses request some form of alternative primatial relationship.

Sept 2006 The Global South Primates meeting at Kilgali, Rwanda, issue a Communiqué that laments, “We deeply regret that, at its most recent General Convention, The Episcopal Church gave no clear embrace of the minimal recommendations of the Windsor Report.”

Oct 2006 The Presiding Bishop’s chancellor, David Beers, writes letters threatening legal action against the dioceses of Fort Worth and Quincy. 

Dec 2006 In a letter to the Primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury explains his rationale for not withholding an invitation for the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church to the Primates Meeting scheduled for February 14-19 in Tanzania, saying “I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organised.”

Feb 2007  At the Primates Meeting in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, the Nassau draft of the Covenant is presented to the primates.  The Report of the Communion Sub-Group (on TEC’s response to the Windsor Report) was released:

 
The response of the 75th General Convention to the Windsor Report as a whole in its resolutions was positive . . . The Group feels that the reality of the change of direction that some see in the resolutions of the General Convention can only be tested however by the way in which the Episcopal Church lives out these resolutions.

The final Communiqué from the meeting provided a short deadline, till September 30, 2007, for The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops confirm back to the Primates,

  In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);  . . .
unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).
If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council to act on behalf of the Primates in consultation with The Episcopal Church. This Council shall consist of up to five members: two nominated by the Primates, two by the Presiding Bishop, and a Primate of a Province of the Anglican Communion nominated by the Archbishop of Canterbury to chair the Council.  . . . We acknowledge and welcome the initiative of the Presiding Bishop to consent to appoint a Primatial Vicar. . . . Once this scheme of pastoral care is recognised to be fully operational, the Primates undertake to end all interventions. Congregations or parishes in current arrangements will negotiate their place within the structures of pastoral oversight set out above.

In their 2007 communiqué from Dar, the Primates gave final approval rights over the Covenant to the ACC:


The proposal is that a revised draft will be discussed at the Lambeth Conference, so that the bishops may offer further reflections and contributions. Following a further round of consultation, a final text will be presented to ACC-14, and then, if adopted as definitive, offered to the Provinces for ratification. The covenant process will conclude when any definitive text is adopted or rejected finally through the synodical processes of the Provinces.


Mar 2007 The House of Bishops of TEC determined that the primates’ pastoral scheme would be “injurious to The Episcopal Church” and a violation of the church’s laws.

May 2007 Archbishop Williams contravenes the primates’ September 30 deadline and issues the Lambeth invitations.

Sept 2007 The House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans released this statement:

We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election Of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees “to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.”
* We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
* We commend our Presiding Bishop’s plan for episcopal visitors.

Jul-Aug 2008 The St Andrew’s draft of the Covenant is submitted to the bishops of the Anglican Communion at the Lambeth Conference.  The Anglican Communion Legal Advisors Network releases Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion.

May 2009  The Ridley-Cambridge draft of the Covenant is submitted to the Anglican Consultative Council meeting in Kingston.  Section 4 of the Covenant is opened to “possible revision” by a chaotic parliamentary vote, punctuated by autocratic resolution, of dubious legality.
Ugandan alternate delegate, Rev. Phil Ashey, is refused a seat because it would violate the moratorium of provincial interventions.  Yet PB Schori and Bp Ian Douglas, supporters of same-sex blessings and the consecration of a bishop in a same-sex relationship (also Windsor moratoria), are seated on the Standing Committee of the ACC.

July 2009  TEC’s General Convention authorized the development of liturgies for public rites of blessing

Dec 2009 The Standing Committee receives and adopts the Section 4 of the Covenant, considerably revised (not by the Covenant Design Group but by an appointed ad hoc group). Canon Janet Trisk elected illegally to the Standing Committee under the existing constitution.  The Standing Committee determines that there is not enough money for the primates to meet annually and makes their meetings biennial.

In his December 18, 2009 letter formally transmitting the final text of the Anglican Covenant to the member churches of the Communion, the Secretary General referred to a document then publicly unknown to explain key procedures for determining membership in the ACC. This document was unknown even to the Covenant Design Group and the subgroup of the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order tasked to review the Communion structures.  It came to be called the “new” or in some cases, “secret,” constitution. 

Jan 2010 President Bishop Mouneer Anis, coming to the “sad realization that there is no desire within the ACC and the SCAC to follow through on the recommendations that have been taken by the other Instruments of Communion to sort out the problems which face the Anglican Communion and which are tearing its fabric apart,” resigns from the Standing Committee.  Also resigning in January-June are Archbishop Henry Orombi, his alternate Archbishop Justice Akrofi, and Bishop of Iran, Azad Marshall.  Bishop Marshall said, “Indeed it became abundantly clear to me that the Anglican Communion had ceased to be a representative body of non-Western churches. Its main concern was how to maintain a relationship with TEC and other churches…who have repeatedly defied the communion’s stand on human sexuality.”

Apr 2010  Rev Ian Douglas consecrated as bishop, thus rendering his clerical seat on the ACC and the Standing Committee vacant, according to the existing “old” constitution.  Analysis of the existing ACC constitution showed that an immediate reappointment would not be canonical.

Apr 2010 Global South leaders from twenty provinces meet in Singapore, uphold the Global South resignations from the Standing Committee, and call for the Standing Committee’s responsibilities for Covenant oversight to be transferred to the Primates.

May 2010   The General Synod of the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia indicate that it passed a resolution approving in principle the first three sections of the Anglican Covenant, but requesting legal advice on the “appropriateness” of Paragraph 4.2.8. 

May 2010 Rev Mary Glasspool is consecrated as bishop

July 2010 Registrar of Companies publicly discloses new Articles of Association of the Anglican Consultative Council.

July 2010  Standing Committee meets.  The Standing Committee admitted that its December appointment of Trisk had been unlawful, but they proceeded to appoint her again anyway.  Bp Ian Douglas continues to serve on Standing Committee.

July 2010 The Anglican Communion Institute states that the new constitution is inconsistent, both in vision and in detail, with the Covenant.

 



Share this story:


Recent Related Posts

Comments

58 comments

Quite relevant to the “Anglican Timeline” issue:

GetReligion has been quite diligent in reporting problems in the Mainstream Media about the Anglican Timeline - see, for example, http://www.getreligion.org/2010/01/nailing-the-anglican-timeline/ - you can see how many articles they have referencing the general problem by looking at http://www.google.com/search?q=anglican+timeline+site:getreligion.org

And particularly relevant just now: I *just* finished helping them fix their RSS feed and get their Facebook page in order, and it was published today.  Head over to http://www.facebook.com/pages/GetReligionorg/106150042767864 and then invite all your friends that understand how important good reporting on religion is, and also how often Mainstream Media gets this wrong.

While you are at it: there is a similar project at http://theMediaProject.org - disclaimer: I’m a bit involved with this site having done their web development.  This site is aimed more at religious journalists (in particular, Christian journalists).  Its articles tend to be more international, while GetReligion primarily covers American news.  TMP’s facebook page is at http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Media-Project/66579497746 - see if any of your friends might be interested in this page - especially if you know any Christian journalists.

[1] Posted by Wilf on 9-13-2010 at 11:48 AM · [top]

Incredible how 2000 years can be undone in a decade…

[2] Posted by B. Hunter on 9-13-2010 at 01:53 PM · [top]

The timeline is longer of course, and history proves that the instruments are a failure, but the question in the long run is whether or not the Anglican Communion can ever, or should ever be put together again.

As far as the “should” goes, I believe there is a great history and tradition in Anglican worship that bears preservation, but he Anglican methods used to hold various churches in communion as new ideas and issues emerge over time have shown that they should not be preserved.

As far as the “can” goes, it is looking more and more like the efforts of man “can’t,” and maybe it is time for these instruments to admit it.

[3] Posted by Undergroundpewster on 9-13-2010 at 02:52 PM · [top]

Good read. However no mention of Pike, Spong, the 1979 prayerbook travesty, the escapades of Griswold, the ordination of the Philly eleven and the “Test of Reception”, the consecration of Harris.

[4] Posted by jross on 9-13-2010 at 03:03 PM · [top]

Hey Jross—that would be a timeline of the dissolution of TEC rather than a timeline of the dissolution of the Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion.

???

[5] Posted by Sarah on 9-13-2010 at 03:15 PM · [top]

Well, in that case, which came first….the chicken or the egg?

[6] Posted by cennydd13 on 9-13-2010 at 05:17 PM · [top]

The dissolution of TEC is directly related and intertwined in and with the dissolution of the Anglican Communion. TEC is and was, the incubator of the rotting disease. I know, I was involved and contributed to it.

[7] Posted by jross on 9-13-2010 at 05:44 PM · [top]

Hey Jross—there are plenty of timelines on the dissolution and heresies of TEC—this is the *only* one on the dissolution of the Instruments of Communion of the Anglican Communion.

Feel free to go comment on the many other threads documenting the heresies of TEC

But this thread is going to be about the deliberate fragmenting and ruin and dissolution on an international basis of the Anglican Communions primary four Instruments of Communion.

Thanks.

[8] Posted by Sarah on 9-13-2010 at 05:49 PM · [top]

Excellent work. 

When I see something like this, I am also struck by the fact that there was one leader in a position to really change the outcome—the ABC—and he utterly failed. In fact, he made it much worse by collaberating at key points with TEC.  He could have implemented the early resolutions differently, withheld the Lambeth invitations, or opposed the slight of hand covenant amendment.

But that is spilt milk. What can be depressing to me (if I forget God is in charge) is that no leader I have spoken to sees a path other than for the continued, slow fading of the Anglican Commmuion into irrelevence.  The COE continues to decline, soon to fall behind both Islam and Roman Catholism in terms of weekly worship attendance.  The next ABC will be no better, and likely worse, than the current occupant.  While Global South leaders such as in Uganda, Nigeria, Rwanda and the Southern Cone continue to push forward with bilateral ties with the ACNA and other orthodox elements, there is no expectation that a majority of Primates will be willing to take firm steps to expel TEC from the Communion, certainly not if it risks a break with Canterbury. So we are left with a Communion that remains in the day to day control of revisionists, with nominal participation by the Global South, and which does not include the ACNA.

How do you get off this ferris wheel?

[9] Posted by Going Home on 9-13-2010 at 06:41 PM · [top]

LEAP?

[10] Posted by cennydd13 on 9-13-2010 at 06:58 PM · [top]

Thank you Sarah for putting this sad story together…“how do you get off?” and that is the sad conclusion…how many have—will get off officially and the real number to look at is the number who just can’t bear to leave and go elsewhere..but also cannot bear to continue going to a church that has wandered so far away from traditional Christianity.

[11] Posted by ewart-touzot on 9-13-2010 at 07:19 PM · [top]

So, how much longer will it take?  Sort of like my nominal friends who want to ask a Bible question which usually is “What chapter of the book of Revelation(s) are we now in?”  I guess they mean how far down are we before the end, so I will know when to finally repent?  Enquiring minds want to know.

[12] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 9-13-2010 at 08:31 PM · [top]

Thank you, Sarah, for the posting.  The most effective disintegration is the result of actions from within.  Join an organization you wish to defeat, work your way into a position of power and responsibility, and then begin to disassemble it.  A frontal assault would be repelled, but folks on the inside of this whirligig are insidiously weakening the bands that hold it all together. 

Good comment [9].  As to the Ferris wheel, perhaps it isn’t the best analogy; for on a Ferris wheel you’re not really going anywhere.  You simply ride it until it makes you sick, then you stumble off very near the spot where you got on.  You look back and wish you had exited earlier.  Aside from the hangover, you’re not seriously damaged.

Many of us realize that we’re in a hand-basket.  We peek through the reeds and don’t like what we see, but we’re comfortable enough and not sure we’d find our way should we jump out.  A safe landing seems a bit out of our reach.  Besides, our friends seem to be satisfied with the course that’s set, despite our pleadings.  I fear that someone is quietly stitching up the napkin covering the basket.  Not to worry!  We’ll ride it to the end.  In the meantime our children are being entertained over at Progressive Church.

SkyFox

[13] Posted by SkyFox on 9-13-2010 at 09:27 PM · [top]

TEC swallowed Pike and Spong.  How could anyone actually imagine that they would strain at Robinson?

[14] Posted by Ed the Roman on 9-13-2010 at 10:40 PM · [top]

Getting off the Ferris wheel is absolutely necessary if there is going to be a reestablishment of a cohesive and faithful worldwide Anglican presence.  There is a misconception that time is on the side of the orthodox Global South churches, because they are growing (or at least not shrinking), while the western liberal Anglican branches are diminishing in attendance numbers.  But this ignores the corrosive effect of the being tied to the liberal political activists within the Communion and the never-ending efforts, supported by the Anglican bureaucracy and trust fund money, to divide and conquer, even in Africa.  It also fails to take into account that the Global South leaders have pressing matters at home that will make it difficult to continue to spend as much time looking outward in the years ahead. The window for internal reform of most of the western “official” branches of Anglicanism, most notably TEC and the COE, has passed.  Every available resource, including time and money, needs to instead be focused on developing a new structure that provides support and structure for orthodox Anglican churches in the western world.  If such a structure maintains any connection to Canterbury, it should be a dotted line, and line that doesn’t run through the ACC.

Such a radical reformation is very unlikely to occur through an internal vote of the Primates. The votes simply aren’t there, and if they were, the bureaucracy would block the matter being presented in a clear up and down fashion.

What is needed is more formal, radical action by the Gafcon group, action that creates a fait accompli to the ABC, and gives Canterbury one option to preserve a connection with the global south churches.  The Standing Committee and ACC should simply be repudiated and ignored.  If the ABC is unable to come to grips with the new reality, and does not seek an association with the new structure, so be it.

[15] Posted by Going Home on 9-13-2010 at 11:55 PM · [top]

Thank you, Sarah.
utmost

[16] Posted by utmost on 9-14-2010 at 12:05 AM · [top]

have to agree with both going home (15) and sky fox (13)

[17] Posted by ewart-touzot on 9-14-2010 at 02:09 AM · [top]

Hi there,
Sorry to be super nitpicky, but under the Dec. 2009 entry, it should read the the ACC decided to make the primates meeting “biennial” (every two years), not “bi-annual” (twice a year). It is actually rather an important correction, since it makes it sound like the Standing Committee is being generous to the Primates, rather than cutting them off at the knees as is the case.
I don’t know if this timeline on Stand Firm is the original, or if it was originally posted elsewhere, but if there are other versions floating around it would be helpful to update them also.
Thanks for drawing all these events together in a single timeline.
Cheers,
Andrew Reid

[18] Posted by spicksandspecks on 9-14-2010 at 02:22 AM · [top]

Random thoughts:
—For a post reported to have limited powers, the Archbishop of Canterbury has used the powers of invitation, of calling (or not calling) meetings, of setting agendas, and of creating and appointing committees to great effect.
—The establishment of the Anglican Communion Legal Advisers Network predated the confirmation of VGR and subsequent intense public scrutiny.
—Because canon law is esoteric reading, the documents produced by the Legal Advisers Network are known less well than the Windsor Report and the Covenant.  Non-lawyers know very little about Norman Doe despite his considerable influence in the Anglican Communion.
—The lies and deceits are a sorry spectacle.

[19] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 9-14-2010 at 02:32 AM · [top]

#18, Andrew, thanks.  Important correction.

[20] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 9-14-2010 at 02:35 AM · [top]

Regarding #9: 

“I am also struck by the fact that there was one leader in a position to really change the outcome—the ABC—and he utterly failed”.

I don’t believe he failed, I believe this was the deconstructionist outcome he wanted.  At any point, he could have taken steps(or even ONE step) to change or prevent the net result. 

This is an AB of C who has successfully divided and conquered the primates such that they have had no meeting since Dar es Salaam.  And at that meeting, based on its Communique, TEC actually had to face some serious music(which was never executed or continued) and of course, that has not happened since, unless you count the fluff of TEC being “removed from ecumenical councils”, even as TEC remains a constituent member of the Communion, the ACC, the “SCAC”(or whatever its nom du jour), and KJS/Ian Douglas and co. appear to or truly run the table. 

I don’t believe that one gets a PhD from Oxford by being a bumbling idiot, even if administration is truly outside his skill set. On this score, a leader with smarts simply surrounds himself with immediate underlings who ARE strong administrators. 

No, IMHO, the AB of C has spit in the face of the majority of the world’s Anglicans in order to embrace and overindulge a wealthy sect of his Church with theological views similar to his. He truly doesn’t have a whole lot to show for that, especially with the Anglican Communion in unnecessary chaos. 

Yet chaos is always the goal of counterculturalists. 

Thus I am shocked, shocked to find out that there is gambling going on in here.

[21] Posted by Anti-Harridan on 9-14-2010 at 03:57 AM · [top]

With respect to the timeline and the ABC’s role: IMHO - he strikes me as a rather bland revisionist who holds to the doctrine that ‘politics is the art of the possible.’  He hearts progressivism, but doesn’t want to create too much of a mess while he is in office.

Would that his witness over these years impressed upon me that he loved differently. John 14:15.

[22] Posted by tired on 9-14-2010 at 07:49 AM · [top]

RE: “What is needed is more formal, radical action by the Gafcon group, action that creates a fait accompli to the ABC, and gives Canterbury one option to preserve a connection with the global south churches.”

Just reminding everyone—yet again—that “the Gafcon group” is made up of a grand total of six Primates and thus is not an equivalent to “the global south churches.”

Thus, the issue is—yet again—the fact that Gafcon and the rest of the Global South traditional provinces are NOT in agreement on strategy.

[23] Posted by Sarah on 9-14-2010 at 09:36 AM · [top]

Thank you Andrew—I will make the change in the text as the original is above in the post.

THANK YOU JILL FOR DOING THIS!!!!

[24] Posted by Sarah on 9-14-2010 at 09:47 AM · [top]

In this timeline of the dissolution process, what do folks over here make of the post at TitusOneNine?

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/32093/
and the article to which it points:
http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/-/2558/1008948/-/opavntz/-/

The article claims that many African provinces are in fact ready and organizing to break away?

[25] Posted by Via Mead (Rob Kirby) on 9-14-2010 at 10:33 AM · [top]

Slowly but surely, I think.

[26] Posted by cennydd13 on 9-14-2010 at 12:09 PM · [top]

“Just reminding everyone—yet again—that “the Gafcon group” is made up of a grand total of six Primates and thus is not an equivalent to “the global south churches….Thus, the issue is—yet again—the fact that Gafcon and the rest of the Global South traditional provinces are NOT in agreement on strategy.”

Sarah, don’t get me wrong, I don’t dispute that there is not universal agreement among the Global South. The lack of a cohesive strategy among the Global South churches has been frustrating for to watch, particularly in the early stages, and I believe made it impossible to put maximum pressure on the ABC at key junctures during the timeline, such as the issuance of the Lambeth invitations. (I still wonder what would have happened in May of 2007, if a broader coalition of GS Primates had told the ABC that it would be over if he invited the disobedient TEC Bishops to Lambeth.)

In any event, if you include the primates who signed the Bermuda communique (I guess you call them the GAFCON/FCA Primates?”), the number rises to 8 provinces (Uganda, Nigeria, Sydney, Kenya, Rwanda, West Africa,Tanzania, Southern Cone), plus the ACNA, instead of six.  It may simply be impossible to get beyond that, given the publicly stated hesitancy, of Southeast Asia and Singapore. I certainly don’t know, and if any of us had hard information about any future events we obviously wouldn’t put it on the internet. But at some point you must go forward with a coalition of the willing, given the costs of staying in this unproductive cycle. I see no alternative.

#25, That article is vague, does not list its sources, and seems to be a third party characterization of what was intended by the participants. We also know that the folks can mean different things when they discuss seperation or “walking apart.”  However, the numbers of Provinces cited in the article as favoring more definitive seperation happen to be consistent with the   8 cited in the proceeding paragraph.

[27] Posted by Going Home on 9-14-2010 at 01:01 PM · [top]

Going Home,

Good point. Church history teaches us that there are times when action often must be precipitated by a prophetic few, rather than waiting for consensus.

Equally, there are times when the church must wait for the majority to catch up, and ratify what has happened, but I think you are right that this is not one of those times.

Your query about South East Asia bears this out - it is a mix of strongly orthodox and weakly fraternising dioceses. It is no accident that ++Tay (who consecrated the first border crossing American bishops in 2001) came from this province, nor that at other times the province has shown a marked reluctance to take any action outside of an unachievable consensus. 

The creation of ACNA has been a game-changer - it demonstrates to everyone what is possible, which in turn acts as both an encouragement and a warning, depending on your point of view.

However, the ABC’s mastery over the gullible has been a game-changer for the liberals also. Time and again, he has blunted or diverted strong orthodox action.

This in turn highlights the great providence for ACNA that there has been no American Rowan Williams (at least not since Griswold) - KJS and her cronies cannot hide their loathing of ACNA and thus have made no serious attempt to suborn it - a much more effective liberal tactic than open opposition.

One factor that assisted the formation of ACNA in America but doesn’t apply elsewhere was the existence of the REC - a fairly large separate Anglican entity with an established diocesan structure. When the four dissenting TEC dioceses were grafted on to the existing REC structure in 2008, ACNA was born fully-formed, as it were. That sort of alternative is not available in other places.

But we must remember that Reform in England has already declared its intention to form alternative structures. It includes anglo-catholic groups as well as evangelicals. Reform members should be encouraged to form links with orthodox brethren overseas.

[28] Posted by MichaelA on 9-14-2010 at 05:31 PM · [top]

Although it did not garnish much attention over on T19 (having been buried immediately by articles pointing out the various ironies of post modernism and recent outrages by TEC), I think the recent address by Metropolitan Hilarion at Lambeth Palace is a fine summation of where the Anglican Communion is, and how it got here.
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/32108/#comments

It does seem to indicate, as some of us suspected, that the removal of TEC representatives from various ecumenical bodies of the Communion was at the instigation of the Orthodox and Roman Churches. Which is to say, it was not discipline in any form, it was a requirement in order to maintain dialogue with the other Churches.

[29] Posted by tjmcmahon on 9-14-2010 at 06:34 PM · [top]

That might perhaps be the case with the Orthodox dialogue. It seems unlikely, to me, with respect to the other dialogues from which TEC representatives lost their place or status:

The folks involved were:

Lutheran dialogue - Very Rev. William H. Petersen
Methodist dialogue - Right Rev. C. Franklin Brookhart
Old Catholic dialogue - Rev. Carola von Wrangel
Orthodox dialogue - Rev. Thomas Ferguson and Right Rev. William Gregg
Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order - Rev. Katherine Grieb (may only serve as consultant

[30] Posted by driver8 on 9-14-2010 at 06:58 PM · [top]

Tjmcmahon at #29,

I agree. ++Hilarion’s speech should be sent to everyone in the Church of England. God alone knows how ++Wiliams felt as he listened to it - perhaps his conscience is too seared for it to affect him, or perhaps (hopefully) it showed him the cost that his encouragement of liberalism will bring.

And note also ++Hilarion made clear that, even if removal of TEC representatives was done in order to maintain dialogue with the Orthodox, it will not be enough to maintain Anglican-Orthodox relations. The Orthodox can see (just as can the Global South and other orthodox Anglicans) that Rowan’s “window-dressing” is just that.

[31] Posted by MichaelA on 9-14-2010 at 07:58 PM · [top]

#31, and also that ++he’s willing to call the window-dressing what it is.

[32] Posted by Anti-Harridan on 9-14-2010 at 08:05 PM · [top]

RE: “the number rises to 8 provinces (Uganda, Nigeria, Sydney, Kenya, Rwanda, West Africa,Tanzania, Southern Cone), . . . “

Hi Going Home—Sydney is not a province, it is a diocese.

So we’re back to 7 provinces.

My point in pointing that out is that when you above stated “What is needed is more formal, radical action by the Gafcon group, action that creates a fait accompli to the ABC, and gives Canterbury one option to preserve a connection with the global south churches” . . . Canterbury will have no problem with “preserving a connection with the global south churches”—the 13 Provinces remaining within the Global South that are not on board with the FCA/Gafcon plan.

I understand that that’s considered no big deal that there are only 7 for the Prophetic Action of Gafcon.

I’m merely pointing out that when you say that Canterbury will have a problem with “preserving a connection with the global south” that is manifestly untrue. 

Now—I certainly wish that he would be concerned about preserving the connection with the 7 provinces in question.  But I have a feeling that the ABC takes the “long view” and fancies that 20 years from now, long after he is gone, “all will be well.”

Obviously, I don’t think that.  But I expect that the ABC does, delusory as he apparently is.

At any rate, years ago I predicted various groupings: the ACNA group, the “we’re remaining in TEC and being orthodox group” and the “we’re leaving Anglicanism altogether” group made up of people looking at the corruption of TEC and the . . . er . . . actions of ACNA revealing its identity and saying “I shall have neither, thank you.”

I expect that latter group to grow larger and larger and larger . . .

[33] Posted by Sarah on 9-14-2010 at 10:00 PM · [top]

I wonder if the distinction between GS members of FCA and GS non-members really matters all that much?

I am thinking of the Global South to South encounter in Singapore in April this year: ++Duncan was invited, +Howe and +Laurence were invited, but no-one from the liberal leadership of TEC was invited. That may only be symbolism, but its pretty strong symbolism. And so far as I am aware, none of the 20 Global South Provinces at the conference had a problem with it.

Similarly, at the All African Bishops conference just ended, ++Duncan was invited and actually given a seat of honour on the podium. There were only four Archbishops up there: two African (Ernest and Orombi, I think), ABC, and Duncan! TEC were not even invited to the conference, let alone allowed onto the podium. There were 12 provinces at the conference, of whom only 6 were FCA. There were allegations at one point that two of the provinces dissented from the final communique, however that appears to be just liberal spin, and in any case none of the provinces objected to ++Duncan being seated on the podium or asked where was TEC.

Doesn’t all that indicate that the Global South provinces in general reject TEC and accept ACNA, and accept ++Duncan as the legitimate representative of orthodox American Anglicans, whether in or out of TEC?

I write that last somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but it does seem to reflect the trend…

[34] Posted by MichaelA on 9-14-2010 at 10:37 PM · [top]

31—thanks for the info about Southeast Asia. I have been confused by the stance of the Province since Tay’s participation in the early AMIA consecrations.

33- Sarah, I don’t know how many, if any, of the remaining GS provinces would be spurred to follow the “prophetic” GAFCON leaders if they take the next step.  What would Southeast Asia do?  Perhaps there would never more than 7 GAFCON Provinces, plus the ACNA and some scattered churches in England and elsewhere.  In such event, it is certainly possible, if not likely, that the ABC would simply yawn in response to a formal breach.  He certainly could care less about having a relationship with the ACNA.

About ten years ago, my moderate/lukewarm Episcopal Bishop confidently predicted that TEC’s relationship with the Communion would never be endangered, because no matter what happened Canterbury would never acquiese to TECs expulsion, and that in the end the majority of Primates would be unwilling to force Canterbury’s hand.  I have come to the conclusion that he was right.  So be it.

[35] Posted by Going Home on 9-14-2010 at 11:51 PM · [top]

Thank you JIll for your work.  You mention the Diocese of New West, but fail to mention that its synodical actions and subsequent episcopal confirmation of same sex blessings in New West took place before the election and consecration of Gene Robinson.  At this time the first request for alternative episcopal oversight was made by 8 congregations of the Diocese of New West.  Also, you haven’t followed up on the 2004 and 2007 and 2010 Canadian General Synods’ communion “straining” actions.  Further, individual dioceses in Canada have joined New West in going ahead and blessing same sex unions.  And the General Synod has side stepped responding to the Covenant by sending it to committee for up to six years, and has refused to discipline the renegade dioceses for their breaking of the moratoria.  Legal action is also on going in Canadian dioceses, though not on the scale of Jefferts-Schori’s efforts. 

It might also be good to mention which bishops and primates offered alternative episcopal oversight.

And mentioning the mass boycott of Lambeth 2008 as a result of the invitation to those who consecrated Gene Robinson would also be good to emphasize.  Further, the “indaba process” instituted by the ABC to derail any legislative action by the bishops was disastrous for the traditionalists, for the authority of his position as ABC, and for the effectiveness and purpose of the bishops getting together at Lambeth every ten years.  Spending millions to produce a document of notes of contrary views without resolution was a waste of time and money, but oh so effective if you want to push a revisionist agenda.

[36] Posted by Free on 9-15-2010 at 01:59 AM · [top]

#36, thanks, Free.  You raise several good points.  My reference to TEC’s actions were to set the background, and Canada’s actions certainly qualify for more than “and also. . .”
The Lambeth boycott is strong evidence of the ongoing dissolution.  I agree wholeheartedly about the “indaba process” at Lambeth.  Putting together this timeline has given me a new appreciation of the power of setting the agenda for a meeting.

[37] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 9-15-2010 at 06:43 AM · [top]

RE: “Doesn’t all that indicate that the Global South provinces in general reject TEC and accept ACNA . . . “

Yes—I think it does—but recall that Going Home and I were talking strategy and tactics, not theology at all.

RE: ” . . . and accept ++Duncan as the legitimate representative of orthodox American Anglicans, whether in or out of TEC?”

I think his being seated as a Primate is simply their desire for ACNA to be recognized as a province and their intention of doing so.  He’s rather obviously not the “representative” of those in TEC, since we’re not in ACNA.  Nor do I think they believe him to be so.  They can look, I suppose, to other Communion Partner bishops as representative, although clearly they’re not Primates—nor seeking to be—of anything at all.

No, I think Schori is our representative.  That’s why it’s so important to reveal and demonstrate her utter corruption and falseness.  I think we on the inside are doing an okay job of that—she’s been quite helpful herself too.

RE: “I wonder if the distinction between GS members of FCA and GS non-members really matters all that much?”

Well—we’ll see when we count up how many Primates in either group are not attending the Primates Meeting.  I think at best we can hope for 8 or so—which will reveal that the distinction between the too matters a whole lot in terms of strategy.

Would that it were 18.

[38] Posted by Sarah on 9-15-2010 at 07:30 AM · [top]

Although it would perhaps just be icing on the cake, there should also be reference to the dates of the useless Panel of Reference, from the Primates’ request for its existence as a “matter of urgency” (at Dromantine, I believe) to the delay of over a year in its implementation, to its stacking with members like Peter Carnley of Australia, to its taking a matter of several years to fail to resolve even one disagreement, to its self-congratulatory dissolving with “mission accomplished.”

There should also be a mention of the meeting (in NYC, I believe) that included Robert Duncan, Jack Iker, and, I believe, around ten or so orthodox bishops, along with KJS and, representing Canterbury, Canon Kearon, I believe.  I believe this meeting was conclusive for the formation of the ACNA, with some (like Iker) stating that they would attend no more such meetings that accomplished nothing.

[39] Posted by William Witt on 9-15-2010 at 06:53 PM · [top]

Sarah:

At any rate, years ago I predicted various groupings: the ACNA group, the “we’re remaining in TEC and being orthodox group” and the “we’re leaving Anglicanism altogether” group made up of people looking at the corruption of TEC and the . . . er . . . actions of ACNA revealing its identity and saying “I shall have neither, thank you.”

I expect that latter group to grow larger and larger and larger . . .

Oh, that is soooooo wicked.

I like it! cool smile

[40] Posted by episcopalienated on 9-15-2010 at 09:32 PM · [top]

Well—we’ll see when we count up how many Primates in either group are not attending the Primates Meeting.

Hmmm, are we going to see another Primates Meeting, I wonder?

[41] Posted by MichaelA on 9-16-2010 at 12:15 AM · [top]

Jill Woodliff’s Timeline gives an excellent summary of the path of the Anglican Communion since 1967. 

Here are several other resources that, together with this one, offer a fairly comprehensive overview of the spiritual, historical and political factors and events influencing the trajectory of Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion:
The Stand Firm thread documenting the heresies and apostasies of the Episcopal Church  
The document published by the AAC presented at Lambeth 2008
[url=“http://anglicanprayer.wordpress.com/?s=Our+Wounded+Anglican+History”> David Virtue’s article Road to Realignment </a>
<a ]The history of Anglicanism published at Lent and Beyond before the 2008 Lambeth Conference[/url]
Beginning History of the Lambeth Communion at The Anglican Curmudgeon (A.S. Haley).

I hope you enjoy the latter two as much as I did!

[42] Posted by St. Nikao on 9-16-2010 at 07:16 AM · [top]

Sorry, I checked and double-checked my typing, but something went wrong with the links.

[43] Posted by St. Nikao on 9-16-2010 at 07:17 AM · [top]

There were typos desite my efforts.  Here are the correct links, I hope:
The Stand Firm thread documenting the heresies and apostasies of the Episcopal Church  

The document published by the AAC presented at Lambeth 2008

David Virtue’s article Road to Realignment

The history of Anglicanism published at Lent and Beyond before the 2008 Lambeth Conference

Beginning History of the Lambeth Communion at The Anglican Curmudgeon (A.S. Haley).

The historical background given in the latter two articles is important for understanding Anglicanism and despite being stories of sin and failure, they are most enjoyable reading.

[44] Posted by St. Nikao on 9-16-2010 at 07:28 AM · [top]

I think the timeline is interesting.  One thing I think is missing is the very idea of “instruments of unity.”  The phrase is used at a beginning point, defined over time with the most recent being the Windsor Report failure and assigned variant values over time.

FWIW
jimB

[45] Posted by jimB on 9-16-2010 at 11:16 AM · [top]

It voted to confirm Gene Robinson, a non-celibate, partnered homosexual man, as bishop of New Hampshire.

This should be changed. Robinson is a bisexual divorcee having been previously married to a woman, with children, who was engaged in a non-partnered homoosexual relationship when elected as Bishop.

[46] Posted by Festivus on 9-18-2010 at 03:00 AM · [top]

It seems, by the fact that the Africans (and ACNA) shared Eucharistic fellowship (one of the current indicatiors of Anglican unity as opposed to the problematic and politically corrupted ‘instruments of unity’) with the head of the CoE, Rowan Williams, that has ‘gay’ priests with spousal benefits for same-sex parthers, but are unwilling to commune with The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada leaders.  This seems to indicate that Africa and the ACNA have, by default, agreed to the (present) CoE standard for the Anglican Communion, the same standard that is stated in all the Anglican agreements from Lambeth 98/Resolution 1.10, Windsor and the ‘moratoria’ which is, Homosexual priests-YES/homosexual bishops-NO .  These documents each specifically forbid ‘gay’ bishops, but not ‘gay’ priests, lay leaders, nor the claim of the GBLTQ, etc. identity.  This is an unbiblical standard that cannot stand before Holy God or the light of Scripture, tradition and reason, and that will continue the spiritual, relational, moral and fiscal decline and dissolution of the Anglican Communion.

[47] Posted by St. Nikao on 9-21-2010 at 08:22 AM · [top]

well, i really thing you should carry on and do some term paper around the corner

[48] Posted by driadina on 9-21-2010 at 11:11 AM · [top]

May 2007 Archbishop Williams contravenes the primates’ September 30 deadline and issues the Lambeth invitations.

This was a wake-up call for those who had expected leadership from the ABC.

[49] Posted by Betty See on 9-22-2010 at 09:00 PM · [top]

The acceptance of unbiblical anti-Christian idealogies and agendas has caused the dissolution of the Anglican Communion. 

Here is a perfect example from the Dean of Canterbury quoted in an essay by Bill Muehlenberg:
“Consider the Very Reverend Hewlett Johnson, Dean of Canterbury. This is what he had to say about communism in general: “Communism has recovered the essential form of a real belief in God which organised Christianity just now has largely lost.”

And have a read of what he said about one of the most horrific mass murderers in human history: “No man of mystery dominates the Kremlin. Stalin is the embodiment of good-humored common sense, as much a man of the people today . . . . Stalin I found exactly like the speeches he had uttered through a quarter of a century as mouthpiece of the new Soviet Order. . . . A man, furthermore, who seeks friendship with Britain and believes in its possibility.”

Link

[50] Posted by St. Nikao on 10-5-2010 at 06:52 AM · [top]

Nikao, I can’t get that wound up about a man who has been dead for just shy of forty-four years. Johnson was hugely controversial in his day and it is dishonest to claim that anyone in the church today agrees with anything he said without a citation. I would also point out that the book Muehlenberg is using as a source was published, as even he admits, in 1985. In 1985, the Berlin Wall still stood, never mind the Soviet Union; Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Communist Party that year. In 1985 we were still hoping that Poland might become free of communism, never mind the rest of Eastern Europe. It is deeply anachronistic to attribute the views of those antediluvian days to the present.

[51] Posted by C. Wingate on 10-5-2010 at 07:45 AM · [top]

If this is the timeline of the dissolution of the Anglican Communion, is it now safe to declare the AC dissolved, dead, caput, finit…., or is it just a hypothetical dissolution, one that’s open for further discussion?  Answer:  it’s time to start over with the 1662 BCP and Ordinal,  the 39 Articles… and nothing else.  Strip the altar bare.

[52] Posted by Aaytch on 10-5-2010 at 02:01 PM · [top]

RE: “If this is the timeline of the dissolution of the Anglican Communion . . . “

No.  It is “A Timeline of the Dissolution of the Instruments of Unity of the Anglican Communion” which is rather a different thing.

; > )

[53] Posted by Sarah on 10-5-2010 at 03:17 PM · [top]

St Nikao,

I assume that was a joke! If you go back to the right era, you will find plenty of Orthodox who fraternised with Stalin (including priests, bishops and even archbishops). Head over to Germany and you will find plenty of Lutherans and Roman Catholics who fraternised with Hitler. And I have no doubt that you will find plenty of Anglicans who at one time or another approved of Hitler, Stalin or both.

In other words, lets not start throwing stones at entire churches on the basis of what one or more individuals might have done. Some of those individuals were deluded. Others were in delicate situations where they felt that they had to compromise in order to prevent death or torture to many.

Its a huge topic, and throwing out some one-sided comments isn’t going to solve anything.

[54] Posted by MichaelA on 10-5-2010 at 09:29 PM · [top]

No, MichaelA - It was not a joke at all, but a failure on my part to check the dates of the publication of this foolishness.  However, I do maintain that the tolerance of such evil and false teaching is the reason for the failure of both the Communion and its Instruments.

Pertinent to this thread, Dr. Ephriam Radner has just published a paper,
“Can the Instruments of Unity Be Repaired.?”

[55] Posted by St. Nikao on 10-6-2010 at 09:15 AM · [top]

Further, MichaelA, only spiritually blind people would hold favorable views of despots and tyrants in church or state.  The ordination and consecration (and lay leadership) of unregenerate people with unbiblical agendas is another reason for the shameful failure of Communion and its various ‘Instruments.’  Allowing the church to be run by political process and popular vote is another.

[56] Posted by St. Nikao on 10-6-2010 at 09:22 AM · [top]

St Nikao,

You have missed my point. There have been people who held views like those of Dean Johnson in EVERY church - Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, whatever. And none of those churches are collapsing. 

Further, your view that the Anglican Communion has dissolved represents what you want to believe, not what is actually happening. It is clear that there are sufficient Anglicans in the world who beleive in the Anglican Communion, that it is going to continue. Its just not going to continue the way that the apostate leaders wish, and it may not even continue with Canterbury, but its not going to disappear and (god willing) it will emerge from this far stronger than it was before.

[57] Posted by MichaelA on 10-6-2010 at 07:50 PM · [top]

“... it’s not going to disappear and (god willing) it will emerge from this far stronger than it was before.”

I certainly hope so too.

[58] Posted by St. Nikao on 10-6-2010 at 08:24 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.