Bishop Duncan at Mere Anglicanism: It’s time for a New Settlement (very important address)

Thanks Matt…..No wonder Bishop Duncan is the Moderator of the Network…..He always gets it and gets it spot on!

Wow.  Thanks Matt for posting these notes.  Very helpful.

Thanks so much for this, Matt.  Bp. Duncan has two incredible strengths that are not always in view publicly—I speak as someone who has never seen him.  He is a great strategic thinker and a leader of infinite patience and the humility to deal with the disparate factions among orthodox Anglicans and CCP.  I could not do what he has done over the last couple of years if you gave me a million years to do it.  Note the humility of crediting Dr. Samuel with the insight about the new settlement.

Mille grazie for sharing this with us, Fr. Kennedy.

With the original settlement, there were national political forces that provided adequate centripedal force to overcome the various centrifrigal forces.  However, where would adequate centripedal force for a new settlement come from? God is, of course, sovereign; nevertheless, the question remains, I think.

I see this in my own diocese where a two year old congregation that meets in a Presbyterian building on the boarder of our diocese and the Diocese of Northwest Texas.

I do think Matt misheard something - Northwest Texas does not border Pittsburgh! Unless something happened while we all slept!

I think he meant that there is a congregation that meets in NWT, not part of TEC, but part of the CCP, that he visited, but I was confused at that point.

Or NW Pennsylvania.

He probably meant to type Northwest Pennsylvania.  But he must have Texas on his mind ...

I have a tendency to type “beerages” instead of “beverages” when I’m typing fast ...   Oh well.

Great work, Matt - this is awesome.  What an incredible gift you’ve given in live blogging Bishop Duncan’s remarks.  Thank you.

bb

Matt is doing an awesome job.  And he typed correctly.  Bishop
Duncan DID say NW Texas, where he almost certainly meant NW PA.  He was speaking of the Grove City and Slippery Rock region.

#7, 8, & 9: I’m sure he’s talking about Grace Anglican Fellowship, in Slippery Rock, PA, which is right on the border between Pgh and NWPA.

When I was a kid growing up in Austin (which is not NW Texas, BTW) I went to almost every home football game of the Longhorns.  (Admission was 50 cents for “Knothole” kids in the early Darrell Royal days.)  At every game the public address announcer, with great drama, would announce the final score of Slippery Rock’s game that day.  To those of us in Texas in those days, Slippery Rock, wherever it was, whatever it was, was about as far away from Austin as it was possible to be.  Not anymore.

Is Duncan saying that “Mere Anglicanism” is an idea(Platonic) that dwells in different bodies serially.  So, the historical husk(Elizabethan Settlement) must die and be ripped off in order for the spirit of “Mere Anglicanism” to wander in the wasteland until it can attach itself to a new as yet unknown body?

That post-colonial settlement begins with the work of returning to the roots of our Faith in Jerusalem. 

Right-believing Anglicans have a great future, if they will learn to follow only trustworty leaders.  Who are those leaders?  Men like bishops Duncan, Iker, and Schofield and Primates like Archbishops Akinola, Orombi, Kolini and Venables.

Great work, Matt+!  Wonderful food here for thought and prayer!  Bp. Duncan explained some things I have been wondering about—larger than denomination and beyond full human ken.

And those are the facts and they are undeniable.  No smoke, no mirrors, just the facts.  Now, how many Bishops in this part of the Church have a backbone?  We will see.  A godly Bishop speaking the truth in love.  God bless Bishop Duncan for his courage.

Thank you Matt for this great report.  Once again Bishop Duncan has a remarkable overview of what is actually happening.
I am so very thankful for this soldier for Christ, who is first and foremost a man of God—humble, yet resolute, gentle in spirit, but possessing the strength of a lion in his heart of faith, along with his keen intellect.  If twelve priests in Pittsburgh or a a handful of bishops who once stood beside him, have abandoned him, it will not in the slightest damage his leadership or witness for his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  In times such as these, with TEC’s threats of litigation and persecution; as it becomes crystal clear that real sacrifices (careers, property, endowments) will have to be made in order to stand firm in the faith, fewer and fewer who have voiced their orthodoxy will actually be standing to be counted along with Bishops Duncan, Iker, and Schofield and others.  We are aware, now more than ever, as more fall away, that we are among real giants of the faith in having these men among us—though they would shrug off any such comparisons.  Pray without ceasing for God’s strength and protection to be with them.

General Comment - +Duncan is correct in his outline of the “Elizabethan Settlement”.  But, remember, it was held together against Puritan and Latitudinarian opposition by the Crown acting thru Bishops who were, principally, order keepers.  Subsequently, Anglicanism has held due to 1) Canons, 2) The Government Synodical Measure, and 3) the fact that many CofE decisions must be ratified by Commons.  Remember, this is an “established” church.

In the good old USA we have Canons but no other external corrective mechanisms.  This might lead to disaster.

“Bishops Duncan, Iker, and Schofield and others. We are aware, now more than ever, as more fall away, that we are among real giants of the faith in having these men among us . . . .” 

Yes.  It is to the great and lasting disgrace of the Archbishop of Canterbury (whom I have always upheld) that he does not recognize this.  These men have stood by the Anglican doctrines as their opponents have not; there really is no contest at all about that.  ++Williams was capable of recognizing such spiritual greatness, but instead he turned to the tritest possible criterion (just “pollity” instead of true discernment and holy inspiration).

He gets it.

When I listen to conservatives who critisize his strategy I get none of this clarity, this vision.

That’s because they lack clarity and vision.  Seeing, they do not see.  Hearing, they do not hear.

Let me tell you a story.  I have a friend who was formerly a TEC priest, but under an unfriendly bishop.  She was discerning God’s will for her life over about 18 months.  She appealed to Bishop Duncan to come under his jurisdiction and he admitted her to the Diocese of Pittsburgh.  Once she was safe, God continued to lead her until she set aside her orders and eventually joined the Orthodox Church.  Even then, Bishop Duncan continued to care.  He wrote her a personal note expressing his continued prayers for her. May God preserve Bishop Duncan!

These are signs, manifestations of Mere Anglicanism: Truly Catholic, truly Evangelical, and truly Pentecostal and truly reasonable.

Mere Anglicanism is truly evangelical, truly catholic, truly Pentecostal and is reasonable

also known as the 3 streams / 1 river description…

catholic = what the Church has taught at all times and in all places.
evangelical = proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Messiah.
pentecostal = mortals indwelt by the Spirit of God to do God’s work.
reasonable = having in us the God given ability to know the Truth.

These are the marks of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.  Congratulations, right believing Anglicans! You are members of the Church, the one and undivided Body of Christ.

A few brief comments.

#21, Alice, I assume you are really speaking about yourself, right?

I heartily endores what everyone above has said in tribute to +Bob Duncan “the Lion-Hearted.”  A true successor of the apostles.

And I too add my thanks to Matt+ for providing the virtual transcript of what is indeed a very important address by this great visionary leader.

As a proud graduate of Wheaton College, I could add some further anecdotal evidence in support of what +Duncan reported about the amazing things happening at my dear old alma mater.  Suffice to say that I am in the Wheaton area at the moment visiting my two children (and two grandsons) and worshipping at a large AMiA parish in Wheaton known as Church of the Resurrection (popularly known as “Rez”).  This year, Rez became the local church that draws more Wheaton students than any other evangelical congregation (and there are lots of good ones at the great conservative Mecca).  That is astounding when most Wheaton students don’t have any prior experience with liturgical worship. 

Rez has an ASA of about 700 or so, and they are launching a capital fund drive to raise $3 million+ to buy a 21 acre plot on which they will build their first building (they’ve been renting a local high school for about 15 years).  It’s an amazingly vital, thriving place, overflowing with young people on fire for Christ.

Along the same lines, one of the most encouraging signs of hope for what I call “the New Anglicanism” is that both Fuller and Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminaries have added an Anglican track in the last few years because so many evangelical students at those two outstanding schools are interested in exploring entering parish ministry as Anglicans.  That is incredible, given the murky, uncertain future of Anglicanism in North America.  To me, it’s the work of the Spirit of God, raising up laborers for the harvest.

Finally, I think I’ll add a separate post soon responding to what +Duncan says here about the significance of GAFCon and Lambeth, particularly his confidence that Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, and Rwanda will CERTAINLY not attend Lambeth.  He knows the primates of all four countries; I do not.  I have to accept his report as almost certainly accurate.  If so, that would, of course, amount to dooming my idealistic hopes for “taking over” Lambeth 2008 and pulling off a great coup there (such as I’ve described more than once on different threads at SF in recent weeks).  I wish it weren’t so; but I accept that it probably is.

Every time I hear or read a major address by +Duncan, I feel more sure than ever that the New Reformation is indeed already underway.

David Handy+
Wheaton alum, class of 1977

Congratulations, Deacon David!  Well done!!

Just to add to the anecdotal evidence of the future of Anglicanism…I am a priest at an AMiA church in Denver (and also a graduate of Wheaton College in ‘94), and our church of 190 ASA has over 20 graduates or current students of Denver Seminary (a historically Baptist seminary) and around 80% of our attendees come to us without any Anglican background.

God bless Bp. Duncan! I love him. I trust him. I would follow him through a hailstorm of lead.

Signals the formation of a Reformed Anglican Communion, one not bound to Canterbury or any other corrupt Northern European or North American Province. Affirms Anglicanism as a system of belief, not some Socio-religio franchise with territorial definitions issued by old white men in Southern England.

Deadly, deadly, deadly to Pete Lee’s land grab lawsuit. Gafcon, San Joaquin, and now Pittsburgh and Sydney bury his “there is no division” conceit. After the big win in Virginia, how about Truro as National Cathedral? I fear the other one is too contaminated to use.

We are in the spiritual presence of great men. Pray that their continued principled stands will further the New Anglican Reformation.

When I lived in Wheaton in the early 1980s, where my husband was a graduate student, Dr. Merril C. Tenney, then Dean of the Graduate school of Theology, graciously offered his time to teach graduate students’ spouses.  I was privleged to study Acts with Dr. Tenney, the most humble and godly Bible expositor I’ve ever met.  May his memory be eternal!

In those days the popular Episcopal church was St. Barnabas in Downer’s Grove.  A number of Wheaton students attended there and some Wheaton faculty who were on the Canterbury Trail.  I doubt that those same faculty members would be walking that “trail” today. They’d probably be walking the GAFCON trail.

A follow-up to my earlier #24,

I freely admit that this outstanding speech by the inimitable +Bob Duncan does raise very sharp and difficult questions for my proposal that as part of the New Reformation all orthodox bishops should go to Lambeth and stage a take over there.  Many commenters in recent weeks have told me I was hopelessly naive and unrealistic about the prospects of any such thing happening, but none of them can speak with the same authority as the Lion-Hearted Bishop of Pittsburgh (and the fearless Moderator of the ACN and CCP).  If he says that there is absolutely no way that ++Akinola, ++Orombi, ++Azimbi, and ++Kolini are coming to Lambeth (which is what he certainly implies here), then I have to concede that he knows those men well and he’s probably right (although I’m still waiting for ++Venables and ++Gomez to declare their stand on all this and hoping that a miracle may yet occur if they can persuade their peers to come after all). 

And so I must give serious thought to plan B.  And +Duncan’s address helped me by suggesting a valuable historical perspective. 

I have long believed that we are in a fateful, momentous time when drastic changes would occur, comparable only to the original Reformation itself.  The Moderator’s call for (or prediction of) a New Settlement to replace the obsolete Elizabethan one dovetails nicely with my sense that one of the driving forces of this church revolution will be the demise of Christendom-style Christianity, even in England itself. 

If you’ll recall your church history for a moment, Edward VI ruled (or actually others effectively did in his name since he was so young) for a mere six years before he tragically died, i.e., before his radical reforms had a chance to take deep root.  Then Catherine’s daughter Mary came to throne and Roman Catholicism was once again the religion of the land, again for a mere six years or so.  Then Anne Boleyn’s daughter Elizabeth came to power and ruled with a very strong and firm hand for over 40 years, allowing her relatively moderate Settlement to stablize the country and set the pattern for the next 400 years. 

But the point is this: the wild decade of the 1550’s saw violent lurching fom side to side that must have been incredibly confusing and discouraging to almost everyone.  That is the kind of time we are in today. 

Yes, Anglicanism as we have known it (what I call “the Old Anglicanism”) is indeed sadly “disintegrating” slowly but surely before our bewildered and dismayed eyes.  And yes, the future is not ours to see, as yet.  Only God knows what form “the New Anglicanism(s)” will take. 

The only certainty is that there will be more than one major group claiming to represent the true Anglican heritage, broadly speaking the liberals and the theological conservatives.  The real question, of course, if how united even the new orthodox entity (or probably entities) will be. 

Like Luther, many of us see ourselves as fighting on more than one front.  On the one hand, we are battling outright heresy (as Luther believed the Catholic Church of his day to have utterly betrayed the authentic gospel).  On the other hand, some of us (even strong advocates of a radical Reformation) are accused by others of not going far enough.  Remember that there were three early leaders of the emerging reform moivement in Wittenberg: Luther, his older and more radical colleague Karlstadt and the younger, even more radical yet Thomas Munster.  The latter two accused Luther of being a compromiser who wasn’t willing to follow his own ideas to their logical conclusion (Karlstadt urged the destruction of all images that adorned the local churches and Munster urged support of the Peasants’ War that so alarmed Luther).  Luther was disgusted with both of them and so the Protestant front fractured in Wittemberg within a few years. 

Similarly, in Zurich, Conrad Grebel, the leader of the early Anabaptist group there, was tied up and drowned in the local river, with Zwingli’s support, and thus the Swiss Reformation also fractured in just a few years (both splits happened between 1520 and 1525). 

This is obviously the same danger that we face as well, that our various factions will cause our movement to diversify to the point of rupture.

Therefore, let me make it clear that I wholeheartedly support +Duncan and the CCP, even though I still hope to retain a tie with Canterbury (though he has allowed himself to be clipsed and for all practical purposes demoted to truly being just one among many, and by no means the equal of Abuja, Kampala, Nairobi, Buenos Aires, or Singapore).  I can’t claim to speak for the whole NRAFC (that small but lively fellowship of highly independent thinkers), but my eyes are primarily focused on GAFCon, not on Lambeth.

Potent new wine often does require new wineskins (Mark 2:22), lest both the new wine and the old wineskins be lost.

Here’s the way I like to summarize it.  “If it comes down to a choice between uncouth life and sophisticated death, I for one choose uncouth life.”  It’s a no-brainer.  I’m going with +Duncan, wherever this new movement goes.

David Handy+
Passionate Advocate of High Commitment, POST-CHRISTENDOM style Anglicanism.  And yes, that means a New Settlement too.

Hebrews 11:10 says that Christians, like Father Abraham, “seek the city that has foundations whose builder is God.”  This is the perfect verse of Scripture with which to begin his speech!  May we all keep our eyes on that promise!

#30 Dave Handy

I have for some time asked the Orthodox Anglican Brain Trust (Chris Johnston, Matt, Greg, Sarah, Brad) if there is any hope of the majority siezing control of Lambeth. It is apparently not possible, and we would be subjected to yet another exquisitely crafted stall by Mr. Dithers (++ABC). Is there, finally, any way Lambeth might be bent to the will of the majority, might table the pointless agenda of Cardinal Kearon/++Rowan?

Teddy mak, The likelihood of there being an orthodox majority at Lambeth is not great, since more than half of the right-believing bishops won’t be there.  You may want to read this:
http://www.challengeonline.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=149

I thought Dr. Michael Green expressed it best when he said immediately following the address, “Never have I heard Bishop Duncan give a speech with greater humility, peace, conviction and clarity.” (Plano ’03 anyone?) Strong words from a man who is not one to overstate a compliment. What was also amazing about Bishop Duncan’s remarks was that the whole kaleidoscope was in attendance - Amia leadership, CANA leadership, South Carolina (TEC) leadership, Forward in Faith leadership, APA leadership, those of the ACI stripe, as well as a few from TEC who totally disagree with him. And what could he say that would appeal to all present? To my mind he made no excuses, pandered to no one, pointed no fingers, took full responsibility for his convictions, and gave what I thought (for what that’s worth) was an honest and compelling overview of the current Anglican situation here and abroad. 

Retired Bishop Dixon’s analogy to Dunkirk in the panel response following Bishop Duncan’s address was insightful for me. (Especially as I continue to wonder how, not unlike Washington in the dark days of the summer and fall of 1776, Bishop Duncan presses on despite opposition from all sides.) My paraphrase with some added comments are as follows: Dixon quipped, “during the evacuation of Dunkirk there were those who had to take the hits, hold back the brunt of the enemy so that others might flee to safety” and I would add - while others back ‘home’ plan and strategize for another day.

In my mind Bishop Duncan keeps taking the hits, from friend and foe alike, with incredible dignity, resolve, and conviction while so many of us have been rescued or are able to strategize from the reasonable comfort of ‘home’. Dixon concluded his comments with something to the effect of . . . what is so amazing about folks like Bishop Duncan is that, like those who defended Dunkirk during the evacuation, they press on “without knowledge of whether they will make it to the boats or be killed in the battle,” all for the sake of defending the lives and freedom of others.

Whether you agree or not with the Bishop of Pittsburgh’s strategy or convictions, he is a man who has courage, very strong courage. He showed it again on Friday in Charleston. And lest we forget, “courage always breeds courage.” At least for this parish priest it has.
David Drake

Alice, you put it well.

#33 Alice:
My question is: “If conservative orthodox bishops did in fact all go to Lambeth, is there any mechanism available for them to sieze control of the conference?” They would represent over 60% of the world’s Anglicans, and as such should be able to table the Agenda and go to work on the real issue facing the communion, the quarantineing of the virulent TEC and the rescue of the Christian remnant trapped in it.

How about it? Is there any way the orthodox majority can displace the entrenched revisionist minority now in control of Lambeth? If not,  there is no reason at all why any orthodox Bishop should squander God’s money on such a foolish journey.

There is no way that conservatives could take control.  All real conversation and legitimate questions would be silenced in breakout groups.  Lambeth is not a council of the Church, it is a handled media event.

And even if there was a strong Resolution (think 1:10) or two passed, who is going to enforce it?  The problem is not that a majority might be orthodox leaning, the problem is that our system has no discipline short of the Invite and that will not be seen again for 10 more years).  In the menatime there is no way the ABC, the ACC and TEC leadership are going to allow a bunch of ‘fundamentalists’ to strip them of their power base(s).

Lambeth spoke in 1998 and was found wanting!

I am so proud and fortunate to be able to call +Duncan my bishop! :o)

Well, since the efforts to water down the covenant - or, lest we forget, to turn it into a club against the orthodox by delaying on TEC’s actions but making border-crossing an immediate violation, per the CoE proposal - are proceeding, perhaps the only way the orthodox could ensure that orthodoxy would survive the Lambeth conference would be to make its first order of business the stripping of the vote from VGRs consecrators.  That would at least enforce paragraph 134 of the Windsor Report, something which the Archbishop apparently views as voluntary on his part.

But I confess I do not expect it to happen.  Not only does the Archbishop appear to have no interest in disciplining TEC, he appears willing to lose any part of the global south or the communion that is willing to stand up to TEC, and undisturbed by TEC’s scorched earth stategy and treament of dissident congregations and diocese.  Indeed, based on the past, I expect him to make further decisions between now and the summer which will make it harder, not easier, for the orthodox to attend Lambeth.

Just my opinion.  I would be delighted to be wrong about the Archbishop.

Teddymak, pendennis88, and others above,

I would agree that there is very little point in playng the games the ABoC is wanting to play.  Alice Lindsey is quite right that there is no CURRENT mechanism in place for Lambeth to exercise much in the way of discipline on TEC or other wayward provinces.  And the proposed Covenant is much too weak to do the job either (contra +Tom Wright etc).  But I continue to believe that if the great majority of orthodox bishops showed up, they could in fact, if they had the guts and determination, simply REWRITE THE RULES regarding the powers of the assembled bishops and initiate a long process of totally overhauling the international structures of the Communion.  The West would balk, of course, but then we could just ram the deal down their throats.  That is, IF and only IF, the orthodox were willing to drop any pretense of trying to build a consensus and engage in naked, power politics, and bluntly tell the liberals, “it’s our way or the highway.”  Unfortunately, it seems that some bishops who are on our side theologically aren’t willing to go so far.  Moreover, my original plan depended on the willingness of the conservatives to publicly SHUN the liberals, refuse to exchange the peace with them or share communion with them etc.  That could have been really a big deal in terms of publicly shaming our foes with so much media coverage of the event.

But if the ABoC has his way and a sizeable Lambeth Conference is held and yet refuses to deal honestly with the issues (with say just one day devoted to the Covenant etc.), well then GAFCon will end up becoming all the more important in comparison.  And we aren’t just talking about conserving precious time and money on the part of orthodox bishops (wehter in the Global South or elsewhere).  Actually, I’d argue that it’s even more important to conserve the limited emotional energy of the orthodox bishops and allow them to heed the old adage: “the main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.”  GAFCon is clearly future-oriented, as the whole thrust of the event shows.  Lambeth 2008 on the other hand is shaping up to be just “business as usual,” rearranging deck-chairs and listening to the band play on as the Titanic continues to sink.

It increasingly looks as if we’ll never know whether my bold, audacious, idealistic plan to stage a coup at Lameth would have owrked or not.  +Duncan’s marvelous speech leads me to think that it was just a case of daydreaming, since he gives no hint that Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda or Sydney might reconsider and come after all.

That’s OK.  God is in control.  The New Reformation is clearly underway.  And though it may be slow in picking up speed, like a heavy-laden train just starting to pull away from the railroad station, once it really gets going, its momentum will be virtually unstoppable.

David Handy+
Encouraged, not discouraged

Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya (one other I could not hear) also made it very clear that their bishops would not be at Lambeth.

Is this true?  I have only heard Sydney say they were not attending.  The others have all made qualified statements unless I am missing something.

David+ (#41) I’ve enjoyed reading your posts and dreaming that your proposal would become reality.  The reason it won’t become reality, and perhaps this is what you are saying, is that even if they all came together the Orthodox Primates are not of one mind.  Say that, perhaps, Nigeria, Uganda etc… all attend Lambeth, there are too many other moderate to moderate-reasserting Bishops who will follow the ABC’s program and therefore not organize a voting block to accomplish anything of great import.  Relying on a consensus among these Bishops would be as effective as the so called ‘Windsor’ bishops were in New Orleans.

We saw Rwanda change its name going back to the word “Anglican”. After the slaughter in Rwanda in the 90’s they found the name “Anglican” reprehensible and dropped it. After what the Episcopal church has done, they’ve found the name “Episcopal” reprehensible and changed back to Anglican.

This will go down as one of the dumbest statements made in the 21st Century.  Equating the 2 is an insult to all of the Rwandans who were slaughtered.  What a horrible statement.

Brian and JAC+,

No, Brian, you haven’t missed a memo from Abuja or Kampala.  It is still theoretically possible that ++Akinola and ++Orombi could be convinced to come, IF certain conditions were met.  It’s just that I’ve come to recognize that the IF in this case is very big indeed.  As I understand it, the CAPA statement from the 12 African provinces declares that they will come only IF there is some discipline of TEC (which clearly hasn’t happened).  Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, and Rwanda have declared that unless ALL their bishops are invited, NONE of their bishops will come. 

Now essentially, I was proposing a way for these key, big African provnices to come AFTER Lambeth started, when the assembled bishops simply took over the agenda and invited the CANA and AMiA bishops etc. and simultaneously publicly SHUNNED the TEC liberal ones.

But what I think JAC+ and many other commenters have been saying over the last three weeks or so since I first floated such a radical proposal was that my estimate that it had “little chance” of success (apart from a divine intervention and conspicuous miracle of course) should be corrected to “no chance at all.” 

For example, the recent urgent appeal of the highly influential evangelical leader +Tom Wright of Durham for support of the ongoing Windsor and Covenant Process illustrates all too well what JAC+ just said.  Namely, we on the conservative side are not of one mind sufficiently to pull off such a coup. 

Now granted, a lot can happen in just five months (i.e., before Lambeth 2008 starts at the end of July).  But many orthodox leaders have vested interests to consider or protect, such as ++Gomez as the leader of the Covenant Design Group, or ++Venables as the leader of the international study group dealing with the thorny problems of improving theological education throughout the Communion.  They have major roles to play at Lambeth, and so I suspect they will almost certainly be there, although I certainly expect them also to come to GAFCon.  Other notable figures are keeping their cards close to their chests and have yet to declare themselves (e.g., ++Chew of Singapore).

We’ll see how things develop in the next few months.  My point was simply to acknowledge openly that +Duncan’s fine speech does seem to pour some cold water on the glowing embers of my hopes to preserve some semblence of the old Anglican order in the new coming Anglicanism (especially the Canterbury connection, as unworthy and inadequate as the current incumbent is).  And that is because the great-hearted Bp. of Pittsburgh knows those key African primates so well.  I don’t know them personally, of course, like he does.

In a very real sense, this is a replay of the “inside” vs. the “outside” strategy debates, transferred to the international level.  That is, since not even all the Network bishops have joined in publicly supporting the CCP (e.g., notably Central Florida and SC abstaining, and others, like my dear old home Dioc. of Albany, only participating as “observers” at this point), it’s hardly surprising if many orthodox bishops (both in the Global South and in the north, e.g., in England) can’t agree on which strategy to pursue and are having to take into account their own local situation and how jumping on the New Reformation bandwagon at this early stage could jeopardize things at home in various ways. 

Likewise, consider the recent letter from the 12 orthodox dissenting priests in the Diocese of Pittsburgh.  They are among the good guys (and gals), but even they are unwilling to follow +Duncan’s lead at this point.  This is exactly what I’d expect at the worldwide level too.

But to any other admirers of mine who may still indulge hopes that my idealist dreams of a coup at Lambeth may still take place (since we DO believe in a God of miracles after all), I say:  keep on praying (as good ++Venables urged us to do so earnestly).  Who knows what God has in store? 

Chances are, if we knew, it would blow our minds (and perhaps cause our weak hearts to fail).  It was good that Frodo and Sam had no idea what dark times and desperate struggles lay ahead when they volunteered to go into Mordor, or they mostly likely wouldn’t have dared to go in the first place.  Perhaps the Lord is mercifully concealing from us what dire straits we yet have to pass through along the way to arriving at the New Anglicanism of the future.

That’s part of the benefit of this great speech by the Moderator of the Netowrk and the CCP.  Our spiritual forebears passed through great rumults and exceedingly dark and confusing times before the stability of the Elizabethan Settlement was finally reached in the latter 1500s.  I suspect the same kind of ordeal lies before us all.  But if they managed to endure those dark and desperate days, so can we.

“Let goods and kindred go…”  On with the New Reformation!

David Handy+
Undaunted Advocate of that New Reformation

The Editor at the Global South Website has posted this announcement: “The Anglican Future Conference is not designed to take the place of Lambeth. Some people may well choose to go to both. Its aim is to draw Biblical Anglican Christians together for urgent consultation. It is not a consultation which can take place at Lambeth, because Lambeth has a different agenda and far wider guest list.  Unlike Lambeth, the Future Conference is not for Bishops alone - the invitations will go to clergy and lay people also.  It seeks to plan for a future in which Anglican Christians world-wide will increasingly be pressured to depart from the biblical norms of behaviour and belief. It gives an opportunity for many to draw together to strengthen each other over the issue of biblical authority and interpretation and gospel mission.”

This conference will not be so much about a new “settlement” as about preparing for what is coming.  It is time to prepare, folks.