BREAKING:  Anis, Orombi And Now Ernest (Indian Ocean) Write To The Archbishop of Canterbury

Good.  We need more letters like this from previously silent provinces.  We also need a united statement along these lines from the Global South.  Aren’t they having a meeting this month?

This is a strong letter.  Will it be enough to make the slumbering ABC awake?

Well done, though a bit restrained. Still, manifestation of a proper testosterone level. My favorite bits:
“[TEC] is to my mind hell bent on a course that is in radical disobedience to the counsels of God in Holy Scripture.”

“You have yourself been amazingly patient with TEC…”

“I also will only attend this meeting on condition that we as Primates be consulted first before the agenda is finalised, and on condition that the Primates of TEC and the ACC are not present.”

It’s my understanding that Communion Partners membership is restricted to bishops and rectors. What about other priests, deacons and laity who (for whatever reason) have stayed with TEC?

We need to institute a day of prayers of thanksgiving for our brothers and sisters in the Global South, and their bishops and primates.  We would have been lost long ago, but for them.  This letter will be terribly difficult to nuance to mean something other than what it says:

...It [TEC] is to my mind hell bent [emphasis mine] on a course that is in radical disobedience to the counsels of God in Holy Scripture. ...forthwith suspend all communication both verbal and sacramental with both the TEC and the ACC – their Primates, bishops and clergy until such time as they reverse their theological innovations, and show a commitment to abide by the decisions of the Lambeth Conference. This suspension of communion would not include those bishops and clergy who have distanced themselves from the direction of the TEC (such as the Communion Partners group)

When was the last time a primate referred to another church in the Communion as “hell bent”?  I know, just a figure of speech, but I’ll wager a carefully chosen figure of speech.
I am also inclined to predict that the motion to accept the Williams-Cameron-Schori draft of the Covenant as is (that is to say, the one released to the provinces by the so-called Standing Committee) will fail at the Global South to South Encounter in a couple weeks. Assuming, by then, that there is one church left in the conference willing to make such a motion. It will be interesting to see what they come up with to replace it.

By the way… If you also wondered, like I did, what “GOSK” is, see here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Star_and_Key_of_the_Indian_Ocean#Grand_Officers_of_the_Order_of_the_Star_and_Key_of_the_Indian_Ocean_.28GOSK.29

Ralph-
Note that ++Earnest says “such as the Communion Partners group”- that is to say, not exclusively the Communion Partners, but using them as an example.  Note also that he reserves the ex-communication to “their Primates, bishops and clergy” so one assumes that while he would not con-celebrate with a TEC bishop (other than a select few), he is not going to turn an American visitor away from the Communion rail of his church. And I am sure he acknowledges several of the retired bishops of TEC, probably some of the former Windsor bishops who are not part of the Communion Partners group, and any rector or other priest outside the CP structure who has maintained the faith and order of the church.  I am equally sure that, if you voted for D025 or C056 or Glasspool or VGR, or allow gay marriage in your diocese, you are now seeing one of the consequences of doing that, and will not be preaching in Mauritania anytime soon.

Praise God for ++Earnest.  May more stand up and stand firm for the Faith.

This is quite an amazing letter coming from ++Ernest.  The declaration of total break of sacramental and verbal communication with TEC and ACoC are what most struck me.  It’s perhaps been tempting for some to think that all those statements of broken/impaired communion were a thing of the past, statements by hot-headed Primates who’ve now retired.  But +Ernest makes it clear broken Communion is a reality.  I imagine this letter will give courage to a lot of the other “quiet conservative” Primates to also speak out.

Thanks be to God for another clear trumpet.

TJ, re: your #4 and the idea for a day of prayer & thanksgiving, Amen, I agree!  I’ll see what I can do re: organizing and posting something at Lent & Beyond later this week.

The inference, however, that I am beginning to draw from these public letters is that all these Primates (the 7 Gafcon, Anis, and now Earnest, but I am sure there are more who have not yet “gone public”) approached ++Rowan privately about steps he needed to take in the wake of the Glasspool consents- indeed steps many believed he should have taken after GC09, and concerns over the Standing Committee, and he has balked at carrying through.

E-X-C-O-M-M-U-N-I-C-A-T-I-O-N

Need more of these.

Excellent letter, although I am not sure RW has been “amazingly quite” as much as amazingly silent.

Uh.

Wow!!!

WOWZER!!!!

What an incredible letter—mostly because I don’t remember many letters from Archbishop Ernest.  Where has he been all this time?

Good grief. 

I particularly like “Both Archbishops Mouneer Anis and Henry Orombi are to be admired for the way in which they have taken a stand and I am proud to associate myself fully with the sentiments they express.”

And “Consequently, I feel constrained by my conscience to uphold my duty as shepherd of the flock and to forthwith suspend all communication both verbal and sacramental with both the TEC and the ACC – their Primates, bishops and clergy until such time as they reverse their theological innovations, and show a commitment to abide by the decisions of the Lambeth Conference.”

And “I also will only attend this meeting on condition that we as Primates be consulted first before the agenda is finalised, and on condition that the Primates of TEC and the ACC are not present.”

And ” urge you to consider seriously our request. The failure to take prompt and decisive action at this time will only see the Communion falling into deeper chaos and disintegration.”

And “I believe that I have been patient and hopeful that our co-operation and listening, our reasoning and brotherly concern would have brought transformation. However it is now abundantly clear to me and to my people that the Episcopal Church has no intention of honouring any of the commitments it has made whether that be in terms of ‘moratoriums’ or ‘gracious restraint’. It is to my mind hell bent on a course that is in radical disobedience to the counsels of God in Holy Scripture.”

In fact—the whole entire letter, I like.

Oh boy—this has made my day!

Momentum against Abp. Rowan’s inertia is mounting.  I think we have a growing avalanche, friends.  On the other hand, why haven’t CP bishops even uttered a squeak yet?  Major pity!

The Episcopal Church - “hell bent on a course that is in radical disobedience to the counsels of God in Holy Scripture”. 

Suggestion:  make a card (business or other) and hand it to your rector this Sunday, and ask him/her for time to discuss their position with you in detail.

I’ll stick my neck out and prognosticate that at some point in the near future, orthodox primates are going to demand action, in no uncertain terms, to with force censure TEC and ACoC and place them on a probationary status somewhere outside the AC.  Failing that, which failure would bear Abp. Rowan’s mark, the orthodox primates would demand Rowan’s ouster.  Methinks he ought to be sweating by now…

I’m with you, Sarah!  And I spell it out this way:  E X C O M M U N I C A T I O N

+Ernest:

it is now abundantly clear to me and to my people that the Episcopal Church has no intention of honouring any of the commitments it has made whether that be in terms of ‘moratoriums’ or ‘gracious restraint’. It is to my mind hell bent on a course that is in radical disobedience to the counsels of God in Holy Scripture.

+Rowan:

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

tjmcmahon #4

I am also inclined to predict that the motion to accept the Williams-Cameron-Schori draft of the Covenant as is (that is to say, the one released to the provinces by the so-called Standing Committee) will fail at the Global South to South Encounter in a couple weeks. Assuming, by then, that there is one church left in the conference willing to make such a motion. It will be interesting to see what they come up with to replace it.

It now appears very hopeful that the GS Primates will avoid being sidelined by the authority in the draft covenant going to the Standing Committee as influenced by TEC?

Praise God for the GS Primates.  And yes, let us pray for them in thanksgiving and for discernment at the Global South to South Encounter meeting.

In 2005, Archbishop Ian Ernest studied for a semester as a Procter scholar at Episcopal Divinity School.  He has served as Convener of the Target Group for Bishops Training within the Task Force of Theological Education for the Anglican Communion.  He took part in the African consecration of “missionary bishops” for the United States. He signed a letter asking for a postponement of the Lambeth Conference and then served on the Lambeth Conference Design team. 
After the House of Bishops deposed Bishop Duncan in September, the Most Rev. Ian Ernest, Archbishop of the Indian Ocean and president of the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa, wrote to Bishop Duncan, noting in part: “we continue to recognize you as a bishop in good standing in the Anglican Communion. Your commitment to orthodox Christian doctrine grounded in the Holy Scriptures is after all the mark of your identity as a true believer in the Anglican tradition. Your grace, patience and forbearance in the face of opposition to your holy calling is an example to us all.”

A good excommunication gets my blood flowing in the morning.

I, too, wonder if the Global South meeting in Singapore will lay down the law to His Dithering Grace.

Its a great letter, but ++Rowan has demonstrated he would rather risk losing ties with the Global South leaders than with TEC.  He will thus continue to use the resources to subvert any action that would change TEC’s status, or for that matter to enhance the status of the ACNA.  He is perfectly happy to allow a continuation of the status quo, where TEC is “out of communion” with other members of the AC.  Any replacement chosen by the COE/British govt is not going to be more conservative. 

So, what can be done?

I agree that “hell bent” was carefully chosen. The Bishop of Rome’s chief exorcist has been quoted as stating that the devil is in the Vatican, and I think it’s nice that they would be willing to share the devil with 815.

I don’t suppose I would be receiving Holy Communion or preaching in Mauritania anytime soon. But it’s becoming clearer that those of us who choose to stay in TEC might want to affiliate, as individuals, with an organization committed both to orthodoxy and to unity.

A fellow Stand-Firmer sent me a private message saying that individuals can affiliate with CP. I may well check into that.

#19-

Might I suggest re-reading Father Levenson’s “plea” if you intend to affiliate with the communion partners.  Go in with eyes wide open…just sayin’

BigTex AC

So, what can be done?

1) The first and most critical thing to do to support the GS Primates and Bishops is for those in the US and Canada to recognize the breaking of Communion.  Literally.  The revisionist bishops are no longer recognized by these Primates.  Stop recognizing them, yourself.  Do not receive sacraments from those bishops and priests who are ex-communicate.  This will not be easy, sitting calmly in your pew while everyone else receives is not easy.  But it is a silent, very powerful public statement.  It may mean you only receive when you can afford the time and expense of travel to some far away church.  So be it.  You may be shunned by your friends and neighbors.  Make your personal decision on what is more important- your social acceptance in your parish, or the Word.  You cannot say you support this letter, or the others from the GS, if you ignore what it is saying- the bishops and priests who carry out TEC’s revisions are no longer worthy to administer the Sacraments of the Church.  Find those bishops and priests (CP or otherwise) who maintain the faith and order of the Church.

2) Thank God that He has put upon this earth bishops and archbishops to defend His Word and Sacraments.
3) Pray that our Lord forgives us for our own transgressions, and especially for allowing His Church to fall into this state of disrepair, and for turning its administration over to those who would destroy it.
4) Prepare for very difficult times ahead- if the Communion moves, TEC’s response will be against the CP bishops and new lawsuits against parishes and individuals in ACNA.  Overseas, they will attempt to establish a rival communion, and take as many of the current Anglican Communion provinces as they can.  They will try to bring schism to the CoE.  Pray and prepare.
5) Be ready to take a personal, public stand in your own parish, to defend the Word of God, to worship in school houses and living rooms, to rebuild the Church in the US from whatever ashes TEC leaves it in over the 10-20 years.
6) Leave the details of the Covenant to the GS bishops, they appear ready and able to take up that debate, and reshape it into a viable instrument of true communion.
7) Write them, personally, in support.  Let them know that there still are people in the US who are paying attention, and willing to stand up for the Gospel.

Enough to get started on?

AMEN, tj!

For several years, I have been saying that TEC intends to re-style itself as The Episcopal Communion, and that’s becoming more apparent every week.  Will they try to take other provinces with them?  Sure they will!  Several come to mind, and they are the ones who have been most supportive of Mrs Schori and her attempts to seize control.

Excellent letter.  However, I would want to recommend that the Primates themselves (i.e., Orombi, Anis, Ernest, etc) bring the agenda for the emergency Primates meeting.  They should come with a ready made statement prepared for Canterbury to sign.  Perhaps it is out of protocol but then again the Anglican Communion is imploding.
God bless Archbishops Orombi, Anis and Ernest.

These letters seem to be drawing particular attention to the subversion of the structures of the communion in a more pointed way than before.  I wonder if what we are seeing, as a result of the ABC’s purported back-channel promise to TEC not to take any punitive action against them, is the orthodox part of the communion taking the initial steps of “de-recognizing” the Anglican Consultative Council, the Joint Standing Committee and the Primates Meeting so long as TEC and Canadian representatives are on them.  They may not be able to change them - only Williams holds that string right now - but they can certainly declare they don’t recognize them or any authority they claim and will ignore them, or in the case of the Primates Meeting, simply not attend.  That would leave the ABC/Lambeth and the as the sole remaining of the so-called Instruments of Communion, and they can ignore him as the mere non-authoritative figurehead he pretends to be.  This would assume, though, that the orthodox would then create parallel structures, not for the sake of a self-serving bureacracy, but to enable communication and actual communion among themselves.  Knowing the global south’s technological savvy with things like Skype and smartphones, I don’t think they need a great deal of money except when they meet in person.  And they’ve already demonstrated the ability to meet in person when they need to, pace GAFCON.

In this event, there would be two de facto communions, and no one has actually declared they have left.

And this is not necessarily inconsistent with the covenant.  They can simply adopt it when they are certain of its effect, with the changes they make, or subject to the conditions they impose (one of which could be to let the communion partners sign on).  It can certainly be a separate track, and there is then no rush to judgement on it.

This letter is huge coming from Abp. Ernest.  Over at Covenant, Neil Michell made the following comment in response to Orombi’s letter:

...I am amazed, stunned, actually, that a group of the primates have not publicly complained about being sidelined on this issue before now. It is an indication of the deference they give to +Rowan as Archbishop of Canterbury—I say that positively—and it is an indication of what they expected from him and how disappointed they are in him now—or at least we know that +Orombi and +Anis are. This letter may, in fact, be a call to arms to the other Global South primates.

I think that this goes with what tjmcmahon said in post #8.  It would appear that the moderate GS primates are beginning to lose patience with Rowan and his antics and are moving towards the FCA group.

In another Covenant post, Michell also wrote the following:

This really is +Rowan’s hour. He has now run out of rope in trying to placate both sides. As the FBI agent said to the Nicholas Cage character in “National Treasure,” “somebody has to go to jail.” Somebody has to become marginalized in this. Will it be TEC and to a lesser extent Canada; or will it be the majority of the Global South?

I suspect we have seen the last Primates Meeting with all the primates present. The question is now, “Who will be absent from this next Primates Meeting?” Somebody is going to stay away.

Rowan now needs to make the decision he had hoped he could avoid.  But I suspect it won’t come before he tries yet one more kick at manipulating the political scene.

The question the Global South needs to put to Mr. I’m-So-Academic-I-Can-Just-Cheat-You-All-Out-Of-Your-Shorts is this, and it mandates a YES or NO answer, no need for nuance, spin, obfuscation, or waffling—

ARE YOU GOING TO UPHOLD THE TRADITIONAL FAITH, OR NOT?!!

How much longer ... the silence from Lambeth Palace?

I also agree with most of the content of #26…I don’t disagree that those who have too much confidence in their intellect live to manipulate political scenes, but the time for that always eventually runs out.  I believe that trying that now would be a fool’s game, but fools always have a bad habit of arrogance, running rampant, and not knowing their limits. 

The question is, would the Global South buy any more manipulations? Aren’t they tired of those yet? 

I said to my spouse ~ three months ago—“Why on Earth are the primates being so quiet”?!  He had no answer for me. Maybe I’ll have more of an answer soon.  I hope so.

I really don’t think we’ll hear anything from Lambeth Palace.  +Rowan has made his course clear by his actions which these archbishops are politely pointing out.  +Rowan has shown he can crank out a press release directly when it suits him.

Just as some Communion Partner bishops will stand tall, there are some who cower in fear - a fine line between saying what’s wrong and doing what’s necessary to correct it.  We need to pray for all - that they will stand tall and do what’s necessary, not just what’s convenient - or stalls things until they can retire.

What we need is clear, decisive leadership - by leaders who are willing and able to take the risks to be effective.  These letters are great, and we hope they are laying the groundwork for real action. 

But no matter what is done in the future, at Sinapore and beyond - those in TEC are essentially in a prison if we so choose to remain tied to the facilities.  TEC is clutching them with a death grasp and they are of far more value than any soul.

We need new vision.  Pray that our leaders hear from God and obey.

I love these letters!  Back in the early 1960s, I read a science fiction book (title long forgotten) that had the government, advertising folk, etc. speaking in “word wooze”.  That’s what comes into my mind when TEC leaders and the ABC talk about ANYTHING.  Letters like these are written in PLAIN ENGLISH.  Nuance is small, if there.  No “word wooze”.  Might we inspire a few more?  Several per day up till the GS meeting in May?  As I said, I love these letters!!!

A-N-A-T-H-E-M-A-T-I-Z-A-T-I-O-N

With “bell, book and candle,” as Shakespeare would say.

If the ABC won’t do it, maybe the Southern Primates will.

Hmm….how about a formal procession and pronouncement by the archbishop who officiates at the altar at the Global South gathering?  “We excommunicate you.  Be gone from us.”

I have met ++Ernest on a number of occasions, and am very encouraged by this letter.  To date my read of him was one of solid commitment to the faith once delivered, but I had long been troubled by his public silence.

ALLELUIA!

(Better than merely typing “SUBSCRIBE,” don’t you agree?!)

<blockquote>”...those of us who choose to stay in TEC might want to affiliate, as individuals, with an organization committed both to orthodoxy and to unity.”<blockquote>
I would quote that bit from scripture about serving two masters, but I’m pretty sure you already know it.

Excellent.  I hope more Primates write such letters and allow them to become public.  The Primates can only be shut out to the degree that they are silent.  Now that TEC has clearly broken with all the Instruments of Unity, it is time for the Primates to speak.  If the ABC will not call a meeting for this, the Primates can have their meeting in the press, on the blogs, etc.

Praise God!  This is an admirable letter in every way.  And yes, it does represent a very hopeful sign of some new momentum growing behind taking a harder stance toward the “hellbent” North American adovcates of a new religion that has only superficial resemblances to Christianity.

So let’s recap:  ++Mouneer Anis has given up playing ++RW’s games, and now ++Ian Ernest has done the same.  Given the very prominent role of ++Ernest at Lambeth 2008, this is highly significant in terms of global politics in the AC.

As ++Duncan the Lion-Hearted has said so often, “courage breeds courage.”  And this kind of exemplary courage shown by the bishop of little Mauritius (and chair of CAPA) should inspire other GS leaders to be bolder too.

Now if ++John Chew were to join the swelling chorus, that would be an even bigger coup, but I suspect we won’t hear anything from Singapore until the GS leaders gather there next week.

David Handy+

Along with the other fine parts of this letter already noted by others above, I want to call attention to a potentially very challenging (and hopeful) line in it.  There is considerable explosive potential in ++Earnest’s complaint about how woefully underrepresented the GS is in AC structures at the international level.

“I want to agree with them (Anis and Orombi) and with their call for an OVERHAUL of the structures of the Communion to bring them into line with the changed demographics of our church today.”

I just love that strong word overhaul.  It’s what I’ve been saying for ages, that the AC structures don’t need fine tuning or revision, they need nothing less than a major overhaul.

And ++Ernest then drives his point home forcefully:

“If over 80% of Anglicans live in the global south, why is this not reflected in communion structures?”

Hmmm, a rhetorical question, perhaps.  But it’s a serious question, and the time to address it seriously may be here at long last.  I’d love for the South-to-South Encounter next week to demand more adequate representation in the ACC and the ACO, and an end to the obnoxious colonialism that’s been so glaringly obvious in recent years.

The time for mere renewal is past.  Nothing less than a full fledged Reformation will do.

David Handy+

You have yourself been amazingly patient with TEC…

Just like Tony LaRussa is patient with Albert Pujols as the latter pounds baseballs over fences.  The patience of Job, he has.

A very fine letter.  The AC is coming apart, as predicted by anyone with any grasp on reality knew it would.  Will Rowan act?  Will he notice?

21—Most of your points are good ones. However…

Should we really advocate that Christians stay in a parish where they cannot in good conscience take communion?  It seems to me to be one thing to engage in a long-term struggle against the tide in your denomination, but to be estranged on a long-term basis within your own church community seems to go against what church is all about, and dangerous to one’s own spiritual life. I personally can’t imagine facing the world without my own church family, and I can’t imagine many parishioners staying involved in a church on a long-term basis under the circumstances you describe. 

Nor do the rest of your points really address how to counter the ABC’s ability, both formally and informally, to effective veto of any effort to suspend TEC and recognize the ACNA and, perhaps, CP Dioceses.  The revisionists are perfectly content to allow orthodox Primates and US dissenters to moan and groan, as long as they are assured of maintaining their ties to Canterbury-led Communion for as long as it serves their purposes.

I have been in a lot of negotiations, and in my experience you are always at a disadvantage if you enter such a process unwilling to say “no” and walk away.  I believe the negotiations over the future of the Anglican Communion have been hampered from day one by the lack of a credible threat of a large number of Primates, representing a majority of Anglicans, doing just that, leaving a Canterbury-led Communion immediately and forming another organization. Every move by the other side (each of the “processes”) has been calculated to prevent sizable plurality of Primates from making such an immediate threat to leave. That is surely ++Rowan’s primary goal in going to Singapore. 

Regretfully, I don’t see a majority of Primates voting this way.  But I still wonder what would happen if Southeast Asia, India, Middle East, Uganda, Nigeria, Southern Cone, Kenya, Burundi, Rwanda, Central Africa, West Africa, Tanzania, Sudan and Congo, supported by the ACNA, gave an unequivocal ultimatum, with a hard deadline, to meet Orombi’s call for an unscripted Primates meeting, not involving the TEC and Canadian reps, followed by some contingency moves to make the threat more credible.  While I consider it unlikely, perhaps this would cause ++Rowan to compromise by providing some type of parallel recognition to the ACNA, with accommodations to the CP parishes.  If so, it would give the orthodox within the US and elsewhere in the Communion needed leverage through which they can begin the process of booting out the heretics (or more likely, causing them to leave).  Again, I doubt ++Rowan will come around.  But at least that strategy has a chance, and if unsuccessful would let everyone devote resources on developing a new international Anglican entity (or moving to another denomination).

Should we really advocate that Christians stay in a parish where they cannot in good conscience take communion?

Two things.  First, how in good conscience can a Christian call upon the Archbishop of Canterbury to discipline his local bishop when said Christian continues to recognize the legitimacy of the ministry of the bishop by accepting the sacraments from said bishop? 
Second, I am not advocating that Christians stay in such parishes (indeed, I would advocate immediately leaving such a parish, and finding an orthodox one, in or out of TEC, even if it means considerable travel).  What I am advocating was that if you have decided to stay in a revisionist TEC parish, you have a choice to follow the instructions of the real bishops of the Church and break communion with said revisionist, or stop calling on the real bishops to come and rescue you. If instead, you choose to go to ACNA or another denomination, then may God bless you.  But many seem to forget that IF the GS does take the lead, and TEC is disciplined, the choice remains the same.  Do not expect the Communion to somehow take over TEC and replace your revisionist rector with a newly minted orthodox Nashotah or Trinity priest- that ain’t gonna happen.  “Discipline” of TEC, at this juncture, means TEC is no longer in communion with the Communion- ie: either you find an orthodox parish/priest/bishop, or you ARE excommunicated.  Read what ++Earnest wrote- he is no longer in communion with the bishops and priests of TEC.  IF discipline for TEC goes forward, the Anglican Communion will no longer be in communion with the bishops and priests of TEC.
  It is utterly hypocritical to cheer GS bishops who refuse to take communion with the PB (or the many more who would not take communion FROM the PB) and then assume it is OK for a layman to take communion from whatever heretic priest your heretic bishop sends down the pike- after the orthodox bishops have made it plain that they are heretics. 
  Believe me, it is not a simple or an easy decision to take.  One of the local TEC priests is a pretty good friend of mine.  But I have to drive 2 hours to get to the closest church where the sacraments are properly administered.  More than 4 1/2 to the one I most frequently visit (my second house)- and where I from time to time lead morning prayer and on rare occasions (although in the future it will be more frequent) a visiting priest celebrates the Eucharist.  But that is where we are now.  It will not be quick, or simple, or painless.  We will take a long time, we will be shunned and quite possibly sued.
  TEC, and the local rector, will not be any more heretical the day after the Communion takes action than it was the day before.  People who are shouting to the Primates that it is now obvious that TEC has gone too far must be willing, first, to accept that TEC has gone too far on a personal and parish level.
  While not yet a majority, a sizable number of Primates of the Communion have publicly stated that TEC bishops and priests may not administer the sacraments within their borders- why would we then let those same bishops and priests administer sacraments to ourselves or our families?

<blockquote>Nor do the rest of your points really address how to counter the ABC’s ability, both formally and informally, to effective veto of any effort to suspend TEC and recognize the ACNA and, perhaps, CP Dioceses. <blockquote>Well, no, they don’t address these points. Not because I don’t have an opinion on them, but simply because there really is nothing I can do to take action at that level.  And unless you are a GS Primate, I don’t think you can take such action, either.
  I am not an advocate of “line in the sand” ultimatums- you do A or else I will do B.  From a strategic point of view, it is like telling your chess opponent, “if you move pawn to king 4, I will respond by taking your knight.”  Much better in such a situation to keep your strategy to yourself.  In essence, this is what makes us so uncomfortable about the current situation in the Communion- we have no real idea what ++Rowan will do.  If he would just come out and say- “I’m backing TEC”, then we could all make our plans accordingly.  Or he could say “TEC is no longer in communion with my see.”  Or he could say “Here are the 5 things I require of all Churches in communion with Canterbury” and some would accept it and some would not.  It is the ambiguity- the uncertainty, that makes us uncomfortable.
  By now, it must be clear, from the series of letters and communiques, that many of the GS Primates have conferred with one another, and after assuring themselves that +Rowan was not going to take the steps they saw as necessary, have begun to implement their own strategy.  Now it is +Rowan’s turn to be uncomfortable, because I really don’t think he knows what they are going to do- because rather than issue a “the ABoC must do A by April 19 or else we will do B”, they have left ++Rowan, for once, being the one wondering what will happen.  Which alternative will he have to face?  A 35 million member Anglican Communion on May 15?  A Covenant with a section 4 that puts the Primates back in charge?  20 churches- representing a vast majority of the ACC votes- declaring they are completely out of Communion with TEC, and in communion with ACNA?  10 Churches declaring themselves out of communion with the Standing Committee?  20 Primates calling a Primates meeting?  Some combination of the above and any of several others? 
And he doesn’t know what the trigger is.  Perhaps the various Primates have based their future responses not on what he says, but on what he does not say, or does not do.  Or how many Provinces have already made up their mind what to do. Let +Rowan be the one to be uncertain about what people will do, for a change.

Thank you tcmcmahon for Post #42.  I prepared this response to #41 before I read your latest post.  I believe my comments build on your comments in #42

Re Going Home Post #41

Nor do the rest of your points really address how to counter the ABC’s ability, both formally and informally, to effective veto of any effort to suspend TEC and recognize the ACNA and, perhaps, CP Dioceses.

As described above by many commentators – especially NRA in #38 and #39 and by tjmcmahon in #4 – the Primates Anis, Orombi and now Ernest are reclaiming authority as Primates.  The ABC has been able to maneuver around them with the Windsor Process and Lambeth 2008 with Indaba groups.  But it appears that we are at showdown time in Singapore next week.  Some very significant Primates are no longer willing to continue in the process and are calling the hand of the ABC when he again indicated that TEC moving forward with the Glasspool consecration will have serious consequences.  It would seem that there will now be an AC without TEC or an AC without Canterbury.  May the GS Primates stand firm in the faith once delivered.

Ho hum.  There isn’t anything in this letter that almost certainly hasn’t been said to ++Shaggy Druid in private, for over a decade.  The fact that they feel compelled to say things in public means that they’re hoping for public pressure to get rowan to do things that he has heretofore refused to do.  That they’re hoping for public pressure is an admission that he thinks their private pressure is not compelling.  They’re still “urging” him to do something, and still asking him to establish the agenda. 

In my experience you are always at a disadvantage if you enter such a process unwilling to say “no” and walk away.  I believe the negotiations over the future of the Anglican Communion have been hampered from day one by the lack of a credible threat of a large number of Primates, representing a majority of Anglicans, doing just that, leaving a Canterbury-led Communion immediately and forming another organization.

+1

Any agenda that ++RDW comes up with is not likely to get their automatic approval….not this time.

#44,

...and by tjmcmahon in #4 – the Primates Anis, Orombi and now Ernest are reclaiming authority as Primates.

Hereistand,
Thank you, that is indeed precisely one of my points, but you have stated it much more succinctly than I did.  I’ve been in something of a “train of thought” style today, and the edit is in this case much appreciated, although I might add all the Gafcon Primates to the list.

I agree with #45.  There is nothing in this letter that hasn’t already been said; it’s just now been said by a bishop that many people have probably never heard of before today and, tomorrow, will not remember his name.

What is the average Episcopalian going to care if yet another province says that they are out of communion with us?  It’s like one family member refusing to speak to another family member and refusing to come to a reunion if crazy Aunt Katherine is invited.  Although there may be a wisp of sadness that the family can’t be all there (and it’s certainly apparent that the family “is not all there” in quite the other sense of the phrase), most of the other family members aren’t going to care.  In short, we’re connected via Rowan.  Until he says that TEC is gone, TEC is not gone.

As to the other parts of the letter, I don’t agree that the primates have any special power unto themselves.  And I especially don’t agree with restructuring any groups based on the number of Anglicans in any particular province.  If they want to go it alone, they can go with God.  And if TEC wants to go it alone, they can too.

#48, Pressing On, I would welcome a proportionate restructuring. 
King David’s mighty men killed four giants.  If you are led by and hang around with a giant-killer, you become more adept at giant-killing, whether it be through education or a spiritual impartation.
I would like to be a more effective evangelist.  Therefore, I wish to be led by and hang around with those Anglicans walking in that spiritual anointing.

TEC is already gone; maybe not formally, but gone just the same.  By their words and actions, they have managed to alienate themselves from the huge majority of the Anglican Communion.  It is they and they alone who are to blame for the situation in the Communion. 

They call us ‘schismatics,’ yet when when they are presented with the truth of the error of their ways which have led to the schism, they deny everything.  When they renege on every promise they’ve made, they’ve left the Communion, claiming their ‘polity’ dictates the course they’re following. 

OUR collective polity dictates that we follow the teachings of the Church and the Word of God; THEIRS dictates that they follow the ways of the world.  Oh, yes….they’ve left, alright!

From the GSE4 site
“The Steering Committee emphasised that provincial and invited participants should be unequivocally committed to uphold the spirit and intent of the 1998 Lambeth Resolution 1.10 and the proposed Anglican Covenant (full Ridley Draft).”

So they aren’t even looking at the Jamaica version. Thanks be to God.

#48 and #49, on proportionate restructuring, following Archbishop Ernest’s interesting question “If over 80% of Anglicans live in the global south, why is this not reflected in communion structures?”

It is fair to say that any structures based on numbers would not leave Archbishop Ernest with the voice his province has now.  At present, he is one of 38 primates with equal voice in the Primates Meeting.  He was a member of the select Design Group which planned the agenda for the 2008 Lambeth Conference.  His province has twice as many representatives on the Anglican Consultative Council as, for example, Brazil, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Mexico and Scotland.  Yet his province numbers only 120,000 Anglicans (out of 7 million Christians in its territory) and 114 clergy.

#48 badman
Tee hee, Indian Ocean is still almost three times the size of Wales, and they have two of their people on the Joint Standing Committee, one of whom is an Instrument of Communion!  Not to mention all the boyos loafing about in Lambeth Palace gumming things up.

His province has twice as many representatives on the Anglican Consultative Council as, for example, Brazil, Jerusalem and the Middle East, Mexico and Scotland.  Yet his province numbers only 120,000 Anglicans (out of 7 million Christians in its territory) and 114 clergy.

Brazil: 8,000 members in 2006
Jerusalem and the Middle East: 35,000 members [est.]
Scotland: 38,000 [per information from WCC]

No wonder Indian Ocean gets two representatives on the ACC.

Best information I can find is that Mexico had 21,000 members in 2005 [I don’t read Spanish] so at a tenth of the size of Indian Ocean, it seems a bit unfair to begrudge IO their two ACC members.

Man, this guy is looking to harsh the ABC’s mellow.

Gee badman, perhaps you should write to the ACC and get them to straighten out the fact that TEC has as many ACC reps as Nigeria, even though Nigeria is 10 times the size, based on baptized membership, and more like 20 times the size, based on ASA.  The average Nigerian DIOCESE has more people than Brazil, Mexico and Scotland put together.
  There is a “self correction” mechanism built into the ACC- and eventually, the growing provinces do get rewarded with additional members- I believe provinces with more than 100,000 get 2 reps, and those with over 1 million get 3, which is the cap, so Uganda and Nigeria are limited to the same representation as TEC.  And last I knew, Sudan still had 2, although substantially larger than TEC.
  The so-called regional voting, where regions like the Americas get to elect a member of the Primates Standing Committee when the whole region is smaller in membership than 4 of the provinces of Africa, is a further abuse.  60% of the Communion (Africa) is represented by 1 Primate, and the remaining 40% of the Communion has 4 (N America, N Africa and Near East, Far East/Australia/Pacific, UK and Europe), is a further abuse.  Not sure if this was extended to selection of ACC members for the standing committee, but it would explain how Douglas was elected when a simple count by province would indicate that he was not in communion with a majority of the ACC members present.  Or perhaps they used cumulative voting (which allows you, if you are electing 9 people, to cast all your 9 votes for one person, which would allow for a few revisionists to elect one of their own by concentrating their votes).  At any rate, I for one, would like it explained how TEC can have ANY members on the Standing Committee when they are not in communion with the MAJORITY of the churches they are ruling over. Then, of course, since the Standing Committee’s rule has never been approved by anyone other than the ABoC, it is difficult to see why the overthrow of governance has been tolerated.

Three morning thoughts:

#46, I don’t believe Rowan is going to kowtow to this bishop’s demands to let the primates agree to the agenda.  I suspect it’s going to be more like, “Come if you want, I don’t care one way or the other.”  (Didn’t he say, “God bless them.  I don’t.” about those who went to the RC?)

#49, I don’t believe in killing or in using killing imagery but I understand (but don’t agree with) your point.

#50, I don’t think TEC has left and I use the term in a formal sense.  You’d also have to define what you mean by “huge majority”.  Last I heard, there were more provinces (primates) that supported TEC than there were not.  So I presume you are basing your huge majority on the number of people in those provinces.

As to how we end up with what we end up with in various Communion offices, here is ++Rowan’s own explanation from the last time he visited a Global South meeting in 2007:

Q8. We have heard inspired, deep and articulate presentations during this conference and that very effective leaders throughout the Global South. How is it that you have not been able to find any qualified people from the Global South to appoint to positions of senior leadership and authority in the Anglican communion office in London?

A8. I think you have to ask others involved in the appointments as well as myself for an answer to this, and I fully accept that this is a major cause of, I might as well be honest, a level of mistrust of our needs, felt by many people towards the Communion Office in London. I don’t conceal that or deny it. The process of appointment to the job of the Secretary General was one in which we attempted, with what success you may judge, to cast the net as widely as we could. You may very well disagree with the decision that’s finally arrived at but we were seeking somebody who would serve the whole communion as effectively as possible. So, without going into details of appointment processes, I do think that those involved in this task genuinely sought the interest of the communion and did not seek to promote the interest of one group within it. I think that behind this, and I touch on a delicate matter here, behind this is a question which the last Lambeth Conference brought to light which often recurs and that is, it’s a point which some have made to me, is it the case that the processes and the structures of our communion privilege native English speakers, there it is again, or Northerners or Westerners, simply because of the complexity of procedural matters and others things that have to be gone through. Is it therefore the case of the procedures where the last Lambeth Conference or the ACC or whatever else disadvantage those coming from outside the North Atlantic world? The answer to that may well be yes, that they do, and we have a challenge there, to put it mildly. So, I can only say in response to the question I truly believe that no one has tried to further a sectional interest here. I also believe that we are a meshed in procedures that do not do full justice to majority of the communion people and that we are faced with a lot of work on that front not least with the Lambeth people. Which is why I said earlier I think it’s crucial that the views and priorities of those of you here should be involved in the shaping of the Conference program.

http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/article/questions_to_the_archbishop_of_canterbury_q_a_transcribed/
OK, I don’t know what he said either, and I’ve read it 3 times.  Good to know, though, that Kearon is completely impartial, and does not represent any particular interest in the Communion.  Errrrr, yeah, right, that’s the ticket.

At any rate, I for one, would like it explained how TEC can have ANY members on the Standing Committee when they are not in communion with the MAJORITY of the churches they are ruling over. Then, of course, since the Standing Committee’s rule has never been approved by anyone other than the ABoC, it is difficult to see why the overthrow of governance has been tolerated.

TEO’s declination to lawlessness has allowed it to influence and purchase - lock, stock, and barrel - control of the overall leadership of what is passing itself off as the Anglican Communion. The AbC may be the titular head of the Communion, but Rowan Williams is a lawless leader.

IMHO the overthrow of governance is apparently reaching its end by evidence of these letters and other stirrings SFIF has made note of.  Singapore’s going to be V E R Y interesting!

Trying to have unity with TEC is like trying to reason with a drunk who has a thornbush in his hand.

50.  Pressing On, I don’t think you understood the meaning of my post, did you?  When I said that TEC has “left,” I meant it figuratively.  Your “Church” (evidently you’re an Episcopalian, are you not?) has managed to alienate itself from the rest of us, and that’s a fact, so when I said “huge majority,” I was referring to the millions more people in provinces other than TEC.

It seems to me that the most forthright and effective measures to take at the upcoming meeting would be to:

(1) As a Group announce full breaking of Communion with TEC and ACC, then

(2) As a Group announce the full recognition of the ACNA as the authentic representative of faithful Anglicanism in North America.

This would basically declare the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Consultative Council, and the Joint Standing Committee (aka the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion) to have forfeited any further role in the future of faithful Anglicanism, based on repeated deliberate delays, obfuscation, undermining of any effective discipline,collusion, collaboration, and general fecklessness in the performance or non-performance of their duties.

In effect, this would tell them:  YOU’RE FIRED !

RE:  #57.
As far as the number of Primates, aren’t the larger number of them out of communion with TEC than in communion?

Prayers, scriptures, and other resources for the South to South meeting can be found here.

#63, Tami,
The commonly quoted number is 21 Anglican Churches in broken or impaired communion with TEC.  The seven Gafcon provinces alone are 50% of the Anglican Communion membership- and they have all completely severed relations with TEC, other than the CP bishops and a few others.  SE Asia Synod passed a resolution in 2003 specifically recognizing that the majority of TEC bishops broke communion with them, and named them by name, including the then Bishop of Nevada.  The stance of the Province of the Indian Ocean can be seen above.  Many other provinces no longer accept transfers of TEC clergy into their provinces, or would not allow most TEC bishops to perform sacramentally, or preach.
  The most silly and egregious situation of impaired communion occurred when KJS deposed (via “renunciation of orders”) Bishop Henry Scriven of the Church of England.  By definition, since TEC is thereby not in communion with all the bishops of the CoE, impaired communion exists between TEC and Canterbury.  Although, since to date, Canterbury has not recognized VGR, impaired communion already existed.
  In essence, there is some degree of impaired communion between TEC and any Church that does not accept the episcopal ministry of all TEC bishops- so any church that would not allow VGR to preach in its churches during a Eucharist is in impaired communion with TEC.  And that is just about everybody except Scotland, Wales, Brazil, Mexico, (maybe) Central America, NZ, and (maybe) Australia (maybe David Ould could say for sure one way or the other).  There is also impaired communion between TEC and any church committed to upholding Lambeth 1.10 of 1998, since TEC is now committed, through its action in consenting to Glasspool and the resolutions of the last GC, to openly violating 1.10.

oops, forgot Canada in that last list.

tjmcmahon - Thank you for the synopsis.

I do sincerely hope that everyone knows the referent that is the given name of the present Archbishop of Canterbury, although the past few years history suggest that such a hope is most likely very wide of the mark.

Were it not, our expectations might have been substantially more modest from the outset. The following is a link to an image of a rowan, Sorbus aucuparia, and this to an image of its principal output.

Perhaps we have expected far, far too much of the current incumbent.

Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer

#58 - He said that global south clergy don’t speak English well enough to participate in communion offices.  Whether he meant to say that (which is, with exceptions, untrue) or not, I don’t know, as the Archbishop does not speak English well enough to tell.

Oh, and he also said that no one in the Anglican Communion Office has any ulterior motives.  So buzz off.

68.  Which is why so many have said that he is a man far, far out of his element.  He belongs back in academia.

According to Heather Anderson in yesterday’s proceedings before the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Anglican Communion has no structure.  Rowan should listen to the primates carefully and act prudently - for marginalizing them brings credence to Anderson’s assertion.

bb

For more about yesterday (yes, a bit off-topic), see:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/14/former-episcopal-churches-spar-with-diocese/

72.  Umm, Ralph….there was no division as a result of Robinson’s election and consecration?  It’s news to me!  Yes, it’s a bit off topic, so now let’s get back ON topic.

43-I wish I could agree with you on the strategy, but I just don’t think you are going to get the maximum concessions from ++Rowan until he is faced with the certainty of losing the entire Global South to a new ecclesastical entity that is aligned with the orthdox US parishes, and which threatens to pull away the COE’s orthodox clergy down the road.  Uncertainty works in ++Rowan’s favor, because he knows if the Global South ever gets close to the point of no return he can compromise at that point.  Until then, his entire game will be to confuse, divide and delay; to do just enough at the right moments to prevent the most vocal conservative leaders from gaining critical mass.

If a hard ultimatum was issued, with a definate deadline, I bet ++Rowan would call for a summit.  In the end, I frankly don’t believe that he is willing to do anything that substantially diminishes TEC’s role or enhances the ACNAs. (Even if he was, I wonder if he has the political latitude to do so in his own country.) But there would at least be a chance to hammer some type of compromise structure that would allow further progress.

If no deal is possible, its time for everyone to move on. Some orthodox Anglicans have no interest in an Anglican type movement that is not tied to Canterbury, for those in the US, it may be a question of timing before they eventually move on to another denomination. Others, like me, are willing to give it a go without Canterbury. But I just think everyone would be better served by a honest recognition of where we are, and where we are headed.

The only thing that will make Rowan Williams do something is when his own pre-eminence is at risk, when his office is at risk of having its wings clipped.  In any other situation he will listen carefully, persuade you that he has agreed, perhaps even agree to and sign a communique [Dar for example] and then carry on manipulating and doing precisely what he wants, ignoring what he has said or signed.  Understand that and you understand all. 
For:
And this is law, I will maintain
Unto my Dying Day, Sir.
That whatsoever King may reign,
I will be the Vicar of Bray, Sir!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYlgT3yuAdQ
Thus it has ever been the case.

That, is his only concern, although others presumably think better and reckon that he can be leant on.  The only way the Global South meeting will be a success is if they work together starting before the meeting and refuse to be divided.
Thus it has always been.  But people don’t learn I expect and if this happens, Rowan will just carry on: Covenant, Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion, Indaba, manipulation, swinging the Communion leftwards with the manipulated ‘listening process’, and so on.

Wow!  Is that the sound of dust being shaken from sandals in the vast Indian Ocean Basin?

I think it is.  God Bless Bishop Earnest. 

Wake up ArchBishop Rowan.  Time to lay the rest of your cards on the table.

KTF!...mrb

Like others, I find this letter very encouraging. It is a shining example of how bishops should act. I am sure ++Ernest has plenty to do within his own province, but he still takes the time to contribute to the leadership of the Anglican Communion

I concur with tjmcmahon’s post at #21, re practical things to do. I would add one more thing: spread this letter as far as possible, by email or by handing on hard copies. It doesn’t matter whether its to clergy or laity – the more we spread it, the more likely everyone will start discussing it:

* Fence-sitters should be made aware of this letter, so they know that compromise is not without cost - they *will* share in public censure by other provinces.

* Orthodox should be made aware of it, so they are encouraged in their faithfulness.

* Liberals should be made aware of it, so that they are properly warned that they are under disapproval of the wider church (and therefore ultimately under judgment).

I didn’t know much about this Province (which is ironic since it is right next to Australia). It seems that it covers essentially the old French colonial empire in the Indian Ocean: Madagascar, Seychelles, Mauritius and Réunion. Anglicans are a minority there, but perhaps not that minor: WCC site says Madagascar alone has almost 500,000 Anglicans!

The Province was established in 1973, but Anglican missionaries have been working on Mauritius since 1810. As with many Global South provinces, it includes areas of significant poverty and low education.

Pageantmaster has offered some very important thoughts in post #75.  Look for Rowan to make some strong sounding statements of disapproval of TEC, with promises for follow-up, but keeping all the levers firmly in his own control.

IMHO, there is nothing that the GS primates can do to force Rowan’s hand.  I think that what they need to do is tell Rowan that he needs to act, and that UNTIL HE DOES SOMETHING, they will immediately cease participation in and further action on all Lambeth sponsored commissions, Instruments of Unity (including primates’ meetings and the ACC), and the Covenant.  The “something” Rowan will need to do is to make it clear that TEC and ACoC representatives are no longer welcome to seat, voice and vote in Communion commissions and the IU’s, and that the primates (without the TEC and ACoC primates) are to be given back the implementation power over the Covenant.

So don’t give deadlines, or require specific actions for Rowan to do “or else”.  Rather make it clear to Rowan the general requirements they have, and that UNTIL HE ACTS they are no longer going to play his “All is Well” games.

In other words, don’t say “do X or face Y sanctions”.  If you do that, Rowan will string you along.  Rather immediately implement Y sanctions, and tell Rowan Williams he needs to act in order for the sanctions to be lifted.  This puts the onus on Rowan Williams to act and to offer solutions that work.

Going Home,
I think you are placing much too much importance on ACNA.  While it is rapidly growing, the whole of it is still not the size of some Nigerian or Ugandan dioceses. 
  Now, I see no point in ultimatums.  Either things ARE bad enough that you leave, or they are not.  As I said earlier, if you make an ultimatum, the problem is, that tells ++Rowan how far he can go without consequences.  If he does not know what might cause you to leave, that takes a whole lot of weapons out of his arsenal.
  From my own point of view, the time certain is May 15.  If the leadership of the Anglican Communion (ie, the Standing Committee and Rowan) allow the consecration of Glasspool by members of the Standing Committee (by which I mean, if KJS and Douglas, are still members of the Standing Committee), I think it is already TOO LATE.  Full stop.
  I don’t think the GS or Gafcon or anyone needs to give ++Rowan a date certain, I think TEC has already done that.  He already knows that he has, time and again, already committed to take action in the current situation.  If he doesn’t get the fact that inaction will bring down the Communion, then no ultimatum is going to make any difference.  If KJS is a member of the Standing Committee when she lays hands on Glasspool, she is so with the full backing of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and there is, no longer, any Anglican Communion in the sense we mean that now- because it might as well be ++Rowan consecrating Glasspool himself. If Glasspool’s consecration goes forward before he has taken decisive action, then he is every bit as culpable as anyone in TEC and the GS knows this.  Even the Fulcrum guys seem to get this.  Maybe even ++Rowan gets it.  Maybe his “worst case scenario” is that he keeps TEC at all costs, even the cost of the GS.  IF that is his worst case scenario (and right now, since he has done absolutely nothing since the Glasspool consent, it appears to be his plan), then an ultimatum makes no difference, actually, it makes it easier for him.
  His other choice is to take immediate action, but since he has already delayed so long (he no longer even has a 30 day minimum to call an emergency meeting) it may already be too late.  In order to do what had to be done, he needed to have acted already.  That is to say, the deadline is already past- because the last opportunity to call a pre-consecration emergency meeting may be gone.  If that is the case, no need for an ultimatum, just take action on May 14 or before, so as not to be part of a worldwide communion which accepts gay marriage and gay bishops as the official policy of the ABoC and the Standing Committee that represents the other instruments.
  The GS Primates don’t need to say that.  It is part and parcel of Windsor, and every meeting of any of the instruments since 2003.

#80 jamesw - I expect what he wants is for the GS to commit to sign up to the Covenant, without clarifying what he and the ACO are up to on the new governance arrangements for the ACO and ‘Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion’.  If they do so he won’t care, and once they have adjourned, he will consider the problem over and carry on as usual.  He will collect responses from the Communion over Glasspool, issue ‘reflections’ on what they say, without telling people who said what, and on no account allow anyone to vote on it, be they the Primates’ Meeting or anyone else.

To get that he will promise whatever it takes.

No - the answer is to agree to look at the Covenant and signing up seriously, once a Primates meeting has been called by him, and if he doesn’t just call one themselves and cut him and Kearon out of the loop.  He is very stubborn and determined and nothing else will be effective. 

The GS might also consider not adjourning but just recessing perhaps with a committee to keep an eye on things.  Not so difficult in the days of internet communication and conference calls. 

The Primates’ meeting should deal with the matter of the response to Dar as they were empowered to do under the Windsor Report and subsequent meeting and particularly the TEC actions in relation to Glasspool, and governance arrangements for the ‘standing committee’/the constitution of the ACC.  If they are wise they will also set the date of the next meeting of the Primates in stone rather than waiting for Rowan, and have proper procedures for setting the agenda, resolutions etc, just like any proper body does….outside the Anglican Communion that is.

81—I agree with that May is a logical date. ! I would be happy with JamesW suggestion, as well.

However, I am skeptical that more than a handful of Provinces are willing, even at this point, to declare the Communion dissolved as a result of the Glasspool consecration, or to alternatively withdraw from active participation in Communion while remaining a member in name only. 

I am afraid that Pageantmaster is right and we will have statements, and a few individual actions, but nothing that will change the status quo.  I will pray otherwise.

When the Global South primates decide on what to do, I am quite certain that the ACNA will be a part of it….and if that means that ++RDW will be out of the picture, then so be it.

And the ACNA’s importance will grow in the years ahead.  Count on it.

Cennydd,
I am not saying that ACNA is unimportant, certainly to those of us in the US, it is very important.
However, in the greater scheme of things, the difficulties in the Anglican Communion are to a great extent caused by the fact that all of us in the US see our own importance vastly out of proportion to our numbers. Church of Nigeria should be (and I am sure is) much more concerned with the welfare of the 20 million Anglicans in that country, where they face death by war, terror and famine, than 100,000 reasonably well off, reasonably safe Americans.  The future decisions should be made for the Global South, rather than for us.  I think they will benefit us as well, but that should be a byproduct, not the main agenda.
  Furthermore, the lot of us should stop telling the GS what to do.  It is about time we stop giving this and that recommendation and instead follow the lead of the orthodox bishops of the Communion.  I will reiterate- if you want the GS bishops to have an impact, do what they are saying to do.  If your bishop is no longer in communion with the greater Church because TEC’s actions have broken that communion- then treat your bishop as not in communion with you, either. Make the stand these primates are taking count.  Follow the orthodox bishops.
  Communion for ACNA will take care of itself.  I would suspect that ACNA will find itself in full communion with virtually every church that upholds Lambeth 1.10 by the end of next week (in reality, we are already, it just hasn’t been formalized).  For all intents and purposes, we are in full communion with a number of bishops in the CoE, regardless of +Rowan’s machinations at the last Synod.
  On the Covenant, I see no reason to think that +Rowan still wants one.  He certainly has not taken any action to get the CoE to sign on, and seems to have re-written it specifically to make it unacceptable to the 20 Churches that will meet next week.

#74: I just don’t think you are going to get the maximum concessions from ++Rowan until he is faced with the certainty of losing the entire Global South to a new ecclesastical entity that is aligned with the orthdox US parishes, and which threatens to pull away the COE’s orthodox clergy down the road.

I agree. Rowan doesn’t mind strongly-worded letters - they act as a kind of katharsis for the conservatives and thus buy time for the liberals. (I really like the letter, by the way).  If there is any chance of grabbing the attention of the ABC, it will be by starting to put a new Global Anglican structure in place.  The cheated-on wife can weep and rant all she wants and nothing will change, but when she rents an apartment, opens a new bank account, and creates an inventory of joint assets, the cheaten’ husband realizes he may lose her.  None of those actions are irrevocable, but they send a clear message of “we’re not just talking anymore.”

In all humility, I suggest that faithful Anglicans start putting the new structures in place, and do so very visibly.  It might (though I doubt it) get the ABC to start taking action.

I am in the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, and our bishop’s views are quite well known.

I can only heartily endorse tjmcmahon’s post at #86.

An awful lot of typing has gone out bemoaning why the Primates aren’t doing the things necessary to achieves goals, which they never had in the first place!

As for ACNA, this is certainly not harmful to them, and it doesn’t change the immediate task in front of them, which is to build up their congregations by discipling and evangelism (i.e. fulfil the Great Commission). ++Ernest’s communiqué simply confirms what we already knew, that ACNA is in step with the orthodox majority in the Anglican Communion.

As for the faithful in TEC, their task is one sense the same as ACNA’s, but in practice is harder because there are so many wolves among their higher leaders. Many of them can’t trust their ordinaries, and none of them can trust their PB or her staff. But they at least can take comfort from the fact that all the recent statements by ++Ernest, ++Orombi, ++Jensen et al, are consistent with the orthodox Primates intending to continue public rebuke of the liberals in TEC and endorsing the faithful. Their task is to remain faithful and lay the foundation for an eventual retaking of TEC by the orthodox.

To return to tjmcmahon’s point, the orthodox primates are giving leadership. It is up to us to act accordingly.

Cennydd, tjmcmahon

As I see it, ACNA already has its status: It is de-facto recognised by the orthodox primates as a new province-in-the-making, and clearly will be formally recognised in due course - not bad for a group that has existed for barely a year and many of whose constituent dioceses were not even in the AC before this! So be patient and soldier on - if your church-planting and discipling is strong, the whole province will be firmly founded.

Oh, I have no doubt that it will be firmly founded….on solid rock!  Unfortunately, I have little hope that the people who have decided to stay within TEC in order to reform it from within will be able to do that.  If that’s their goal, then they’re going to have to start from scratch, and that process will take many years to accomplish.  They will have to toss out their leaders and reform the curriculae in their seminaries….and then re-indoctrinate their parishioners, beginning at the Sunday School level.  It will certainly not be done within the lifetime of most of us on this blog, but I do wish them well, and I give them an ‘A+’ for trying.  My prayers are with them.

In my view in no circumstances should the orthodox start withdrawing from the Communion.  Why should they?  They are the majority.

However there is a problem with the Instruments, and the negative influence of Rowan Williams and the ACC/ACO: an assumption of power and process in a vacuum, as some have said.  That is what needs fixing.  Proper procedures for calling meetings and setting the agenda need to be put in place equivalent to those of any democratic organisation.  The whim of just one man and a compromised ACO office are not good enough.  But of course that means the rest of the Communion and the GS in particular getting involved, including financially in the central structures of the Communion.

It is a great pity.  The Communion could do so much more than just pushing the liberal view and protecting TEC from its own actions.  It could do things on a large scale in aid of the mission objectives the Global South has set itself in this upcoming meeting.  And with a mouthpiece who does not spend his time upsetting people in the UK, doing things which he is not really there to do and manipulating, the Communion could be an effective tool in mission, advocating for persecuted Christians across the world, including it has to be said the UK.  A wholescale reform would be in everyones’ interest.  But that won’t be achieved by just going along with what will be quite considerable pressure to go along with Rowan’s wishes and hope for the best.  It requires, perhaps some quite difficult decisions, calling meetings, perhaps cutting Rowan out of the loop for he will not willingly go along with reform and do everything he can to block.  It requires the Primates to come together and do what they are there to do, be the voice of their provinces meeting together, with Rowan as “first among equals” as his office is, stripped of its recent pretensions.  The Communion needs to return to the control of its constituent provinces, all of them, if people are to engage in and with it, which currently over half are not.

Just thinking out loud…oooh…look out…I know…

We have, in these letters to Abp. Williams, what amounts to three warning shots of something bigger to come.  With GSE 4 Singapore only 4 days away, we might anticipate a larger, more concentrated, more concerted, more definitive censure of revisionism and revisionists, including Dr. Williams, TEC as a province, ACoC as a province, and primates who adhere to a revisionist stance.  I feel it in my bones…oh that’s middle age aches.

On a positive and charitable note, we also hear from Abp. Than of Myanmar:

During his trip to the United States, Archbishop Than will visit churches around the country hosting Burmese refugee populations. Than also said he had developed working relationships with Anglican Church in North America (AC-NA) Archbishop Bob Duncan, the Rev. Canon Edward A. den Blaauwen of the Diocese of Quincy, Illinois, and the Rev. Canon Daryl Fenton of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Archbishop Than made news earlier this year when it was announced that he would join fellow Global South primates in recognizing the fledgling AC-NA province.

“Remember your brothers and sisters in Myanmar, who are the light in the darkness,” Than said. “You are our silver lining when you pray for us.”

http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/29472/

Very true TJ, and also remember the Church in Sudan, where elections are going on.

Slightly off topic,

It just occurred to me that perhaps one reason, if not the reason, Abp Williams has not called a Primates Meeting is that he would then be forced to face the issue of who to invite.  GC2009 made it very difficult for him to invite the Presiding Bishop.  As the letters above note, many Primates will not attend if she is invited. Not inviting the Presiding Bishop would be a defacto removal of TEC from the “main track” of the Anglican Communion.  This is the sort of decision that our ABC would be unwilling to make by himself.

I agree, Pageantmaster.  Rowan Cantuar clearly needs to be reminded of his status as ‘first among equals,’ that he is merely honored as an archbishop among other archbishops, and who just happens to occupy the See of Canterbury…..and is nothing more than the man who leads the Church of England.

So, what we have here, Fr Ed, is a classic case of “he’s damned if he does, and he’s damned if he doesn’t.”  A conundrum, to say the least.

Isn’t a bigger problem the fact that the AC and CoE are one and the same?  The AC can’t really do anything without the approval of the Parliament.

Pax

No, the AC and the CofE are not one and the same.  The Anglican Communion (assuming that’s what you’re refering to, and not the so-called ‘Anglican Church’, which is really not a denomination, but a group of provincial Churches) is not controlled or governed by Parliament.

The Church of England, however, IS controlled by Parliament….and therein lies part of the problem, in my opinion.

“The cheated-on wife can weep and rant all she wants and nothing will change, but when she rents an apartment, opens a new bank account, and creates an inventory of joint assets, the cheaten’ husband realizes he may lose her.  None of those actions are irrevocable, but they send a clear message of “we’re not just talking anymore.””

Amen.

92- Granted, the faithful GS Primates have a majority of worldwide Anglican’s in their province, but if you look at the list, I dont believe you have a majority of Primates who are willing to vote to do the things necessary to enforce orthodox standards within the Communion and take meaningful steps to disinfranchise the TEC leadership and non-orthodox Diocese.  Frankly, I don’t see a great prospect of obtaining majority. I would be interested in your count.

99—++Rowan did not require approval from Parlament in regard to his decision regarding the Lambeth invitations, nor did he need it with any of the other political moves he played to block discipline against TEC.  However, the COE is certainly influenced by the leftward, secular drift of British culture and politics. For this reason, ++Rowan’s successor is not likely to be any more conservative.  The bottom line is that Canterbury is not going to be an ally in returning the Anglican Communion to health.

100 & 101

Thanks, but I’m a bit confused (I know what’s new?), and yes I am referring to the Anglican Communion.  Aren’t all the bishops in the AC including the ABC appointed (if that is the correct word) by Parliament, and serve at the pleasure of the Monarch?
Pax

tj, and others,

My good wife and I are doing just that…we have removed our names from the lector list, and I will no longer preach in TEo.  Those Sundays I am not ministering, we will attend the LCMS in town, where the pastor has graciously extended Communion privileges.

In His Name,

Fr. Chip

102
What exactly can they do to “enforce” Orthodox standards?
Isn’t this the crux of the problem?
There is no Pope for example to say “Ok, follow the rules or you are out of here”.
Seems as this has been a problem from the days of the early church.
Pax

Uhhh, no r3ussell, they’re not all appointed.  They are appointed in some provinces, but in the Anglican Church in North America and others, we elect them….subject to final approval according to our canons, of course.

103- The Anglican Communion is composed of almost 40 separate provinces, each of which has its own method of selecting bishops.  A few, like the Church of England, are tied to the government, but the British Parliament has no authority over any bishop in other provinces (except maybe Wales or Scotland?).  TEC bishops (who are, unfortunately, all “Anglican Communion bishops”) are chosen by TEC, Church of Nigeria bishops are chosen by Church of Nigeria, Church of Myanmar bishops are chosen by the Church of Myanmar.  But all are Anglican Communion bishops so long as they maintain communion with the see of Canterbury, and their province has members on the ACC.
  Perhaps you should head over to anglicancommunion.org and read up a little on Anglican Communion structures.

Not in Wales, since the Church in Wales was disestablished in 1920.

Thanks 106 & 107 you all are so very helpful!!  I will visit that site and try to become better informed.

Would you gentlemen please address this conundrum?
102
What exactly can they do to “enforce” Orthodox standards?
Isn’t this the crux of the problem?
There is no Pope for example to say “Ok, follow the rules or you are out of here”.
Seems as this has been a problem from the days of the early church.
Pax

#109 f3russell
“Would you gentlemen please address this conundrum?”
If you don’t mind, respectfully, that is just off topic and distracting on an interesting thread about +Ian Ernest’s letter, although there is space for such discussions from time to time. 

Back on topic, it is pretty clear that there are some pretty strong statements coming out from some of the Global South Primates, and notably from ones who traditionally have been more moderate and less vocal such as +Ian Ernest and +Anis.

#110,
They have been interesting statements indeed.  The other 2 provinces often grouped with Egypt/Middle East and Indian Ocean are West Indies and SE Asia.  With ++Gomez having retired, and a relatively new Primate (++Holder, correct?), not sure whether we will hear directly from West Indies, but look forward to Abp. Chew’s address to the GS Encounter next week.

#111 TJ I always enjoy listening to Archbishop Chew.  I particularly was struck by the sermon he gave to The Falls Church in November 2007:
http://thefallschurch.podomatic.com/entry/eg/2007-11-19T09_09_50-08_00
He is a blessing to us all.

r3ussell,
The Bishop of Rome didn’t presume to have the power to issue ‘to the line’ commands to the Church as a Whole until about 1000 AD.  The actions being taken (enforcement by the Bishops in concert) is the ‘original pattern’.  I hope to see it effectively used.  That way (hopefully) we’ll see orthodoxy defended, without the addition of strange doctrines on the authority of a single bishop, as has befallen Rome.

In my opinion, if (not when) push comes to shove, RW would rather lose the Global South than the US and other allies.  Also in my opinion (and experience), there are more Episcopalians concerned with ties with Canterbury as opposed to ties with African countries and bishops from third world or underdeveloped countries.  In short, it’s been no great loss to be viewed as “out of communion” by Orombi & Co.; it’s been no great loss to be viewed as “out of communion” with Duncan & Co.; in essence, all of this “out of communion” talk has not been a great loss at all.  That being said, I think if RW told TEO that they were out, there would be more worried today than not. But since no one REALLY believes that’s going to happen, and because we all know where Rowan theologically feels (not falls) on the issues, then we’re quite hokey-dokey.

I think we’ll have some answers to our questions in about a week or ten days.

114 Pressing On-I am not sure what you mean by “hokey-dockey” (it sounds like you are happy with the status quo) but I definately agree with your observation that ties to Centerbury are valued much more by the average Episcopaleon than ties to the cited GS Provinces, and that the loss of communion with the Global South churches is of little consequence to the Episcopal leadership.  I think everyone also agrees with your observation about the ABC.

I just wish the GS would make “push come to shove” so everyone could move on.

Pressing on at #114,

That’s excellent.

So, you won’t have any problem with ACNA being endorsed by the Primates of the communion, nor with endorsement and support being given to any parish or diocese in TEC that disagrees with the leadership of TEC on the issue of orthodoxy, am I right?

In particular, you won’t have a problem with those both in and out of TEC who refuse to recognise the Glasspool consecration?

r3ussell at #103

Thanks, but I’m a bit confused (I know what’s new?), and yes I am referring to the Anglican Communion.  Aren’t all the bishops in the AC including the ABC appointed (if that is the correct word) by Parliament, and serve at the pleasure of the Monarch?

Not even close, mate. I am not having a go at you personally, but this is an example of the utter ignorance that some people have of Anglicanism.

No bishop anywhere in the world serves at the pleasure of the monarch. No bishop is appointed by any parliament, anywhere.

The Anglican Communion consists of 38 autonomous provinces. Each is entirely independent from the others. Each province chooses its own bishops. The provinces voluntarily join in a communion, very similar to the way that the orthodox churches join in communion.

The Archbishop of Canterbury (at least until recently) has been recognised as a “primus inter pares” in terms of respect and honour. He is also the primate of the Church of England, and hence chosen by the CofE.

The actual mechanism by which the CofE chooses the ABC is that he is chosen by a Crown Appointments Commission (I think that is what its called - I am not a member of the CofE) consisting of representatives from the bishops, other clergy and laity. They put forward two names to the Prime Minister who chooses one. However, the current government of the UK has been considering removal of this last step, so that the Prime Minister just accepts the choice of the commission.

I hope that helps to shed some light.

Cennydd at #101

The Church of England, however, IS controlled by Parliament….and therein lies part of the problem, in my opinion.

Where did you get that idea?

It is true that certain resolutions of General Synod cannot become law until ratified by Parliament. They are essentially those resolutions which may affect secular rights, particularly property or statute law. 

Women bishops are a good example - at present they are illegal in the Church of England. To change this requires: (a) a member of General Synod puts a resolution to General Synod; (b) General Synod approves the resolution in all three houses (bishops, clergy and laity); and (c) Parliament then ratifies the resolution.

But most resolutions aren’t like that. Parliament cannot put resolutions to General Synod, or make recommendations etc. The only power it has is to veto *some* resolutions. So I don’t think it can be said that Parliament controls CofE.

Which also means that CofE has no excuse for flirting with apostasy!

Going Home at #102

Granted, the faithful GS Primates have a majority of worldwide Anglican’s in their province, but if you look at the list, I dont believe you have a majority of Primates who are willing to vote to do the things necessary to enforce orthodox standards within the Communion and take meaningful steps to disinfranchise the TEC leadership and non-orthodox Diocese. 

I still don’t understand you: What could a majority of Primates do to “take meaningful steps to disenfranchise the TEC leadership and non-orthodox Diocese”? Your posts have an air of unreality about them.

A majority of primates could do no more than what individual primates are doing right now: declare themselves either in impaired communion with recalcitrants, or out of communion. That is what scripture tells us that churches are supposed to do. That, and give support to the orthodox believers.

Nothing more is necessary.

#119 “Which also means that CofE has no excuse for flirting with apostasy!”

Glad to hear that Reg the gardener and Doris who does the flowers will not be consecrating the Communion wine, at least in the diocese of Sydney.

Just joshing!

That’s excellent.

Glad that you think so.

So, you won’t have any problem with ACNA being endorsed by the Primates of the communion,...

You didn’t read what I wrote.  I don’t believe that the average Episcopal bear gives a flying hoot about whether an African primate or even a majority of the Global South primates recognizes TEC or sees themselves in commmunion with the TEC.  I believe that what would get the attention of more (not most) Episcopalians would be whether Rowan said that TEC was no longer the official Anglican province in the USA.  It isn’t the primates’ call, in their eyes (and in mine).  It’s Rowan’s call.  So in answer to your question there, no, I wouldn’t mind what the primates say because what they say, think, or believe makes no tangible difference.  Further, the chances of ACNA being recognized by the MAJORITY of the primates as being the official Anglican province in America is, I believe, very, very small. 

.

..nor with endorsement and support being given to any parish or diocese in TEC that disagrees with the leadership of TEC on the issue of orthodoxy, am I right?

Yes, you are right. For what it’s worth, I think South Carolina has given TEC the right model to follow when it comes to dealing with dissenting parishes.

In particular, you won’t have a problem with those both in and out of TEC who refuse to recognise the Glasspool consecration?

No problem at all.  And I don’t think she would, either.  And why would she?  Atheists would refuse to recognize her consecration, too.  As would Roman Catholics…who don’t recognize ANY of our ordained orders, male, female, or otherwise deemed.  So no, no problem here!

The point is that, as strongly worded as this letter from Ernest is, it’s basically whistling in the wind.  Based on what we’ve seen, it’s not going to change Rowan’s mind; and further, I believe that if given a choice, Rowan would readily take TEC and its money over the Global South and its numbers…even if it means the breakup of the Anglican Communion…and even if you have two groups claiming to be the TRUE Anglican Communion (like the Lutherans haven’t fought that battle ten million times). 

So perhaps all this letter writing from foreign archbishops and what-have-you is simply a sign of the formal break up that is coming and that everyone seems to be gleefully anticipating.  But 1) if anyone thinks that these letters and stances of “I’m not coming if you’re inviting HER!” are going to change Rowan’s mind, well…really….that’s just wishful thinking; and 2) if anyone thinks that the complaining about / criticizing of TEC is going to stop even if/when the Global South goes their own way, that’s wishful thinking too.  It’s simply too addictive for some, too joyful for others.

MichaelA, I consider that if Parliament has anything to say about the Church of England….especially with respect to appointments within the Church….then they do have control over it.  There is no separation of Church and State, and that’s why it is called the Established Church.

I’ve reached the point where it matters little to me what Rowan Cantuar says.  He has been a huge disappointment to me, and if he were to be replaced tomorrow, I wouldn’t shed any tears.  As for my Church….the ACNA….being recognized, I personally would not care to be even remotely associated in the same communion with heretical revisionists, and therefore I would be satisfied if all of the provinces which so far have recognized us were to do so formally and publicly….even at the cost of independence from the Anglican Communion.  The next few days in Singapore are going to be interesting….and hopefully fruitful.

#123 Cennydd - take it from me, MichaelA is right on this one.  Although you are of course entitled to beleive anything you like, in that very TEC sort of way

#125 I certainly hope that ACNA is recognised at Singapore.  Most of the attending provinces have done so anyway.

Pageantmaster, you mistake me for an Episcopalian….which I am most assuredly am NOT.

Food for thought from the ACC Constitution (at least the one that is online)(emphasis mine)

Proceedings of the Standing Committee

  1. The Chairman of the Council may and on the request of five members of the Standing Committee shall summon a special meeting of the Standing Committee.
  2. The Standing Committee may regulate their meetings as they think fit and determine the quorum necessary for the transaction of business. Unless otherwise determined, five shall be a quorum.
  3. Questions arising at any meeting shall be decided by a majority of votes. In the case of an equality of votes, the Chairman shall have a second or casting vote.
  4. The Standing Committee may delegate any of its powers to committees as it thinks fit and any committee so formed shall, in the execution of the powers so delegated, conform to any requirements imposed on it by the Standing Committee. Any such committee may call advisers.
  5. In electing members of the Standing Committee the Council shall have regard to the desirability of achieving (so far as practicable) appropriate regional diversity and a balance of representation between clergy and laity and between the genders.
  6. Elected members of the Standing Committee shall hold office from the end of the Council meeting at which they are appointed until the end of the last ordinary Council meeting which they would be entitled to attend but subject to earlier termination in the event that such elected member shall for any reason cease to be a member of the Council.

The Standing Committee took unto itself the power to remove an ACC representative from Uganda for “border crossing” and therefore has the power to remove members for violation of the other 2 moratoria, including those members who sit on the Standing Committee.  Precedent set by the PB of TEC herself.
  I bet that ++Orombi could find 4 other members willing to call that meeting.  Or the chair from C Africa could do it on his own.  And since a quorum would be 5 Standing Committee members from ACC plus 3 primates, you could hold the meeting at the Global South Encounter if you could get a couple more people to show up.  Unless, of course, the Western Primates boycotted the Standing Committee meeting….
Now, that would be interesting, wouldn’t it?.....

And the average Episcopal pew-warmer doesn’t give a hoot about what goes on outside the front door of his church as long as he feels comfy with the heretical revisionist regurgitation going on inside that church.

Cennydd,
No criticism intended. Your witness (and your church’s witness inspires us all).

Pressing On,

I did read what you wrote, but it appears that, in your attempt to defend the liberal position of TEC, you haven’t read most of the posts on this thread. You also don’t appear to be very familiar with the background to ++Ernest’s letter either.

“I believe that what would get the attention of more (not most) Episcopalians would be whether Rowan said that TEC was no longer the official Anglican province in the USA.”

You may believe that. You may or may not be right. There is no way of knowing, so what is the point of discussing it?

More to the point, what is the relevance of it? ++Ernest’s letter is not about those people. Nor is most of the discussion on this thread about those people.

We are directing our attention to the orthodox, both within and without TEC. They are the people who matter. They are, after all, the ones that make the church and build its future.

Those who tolerate liberalism have no future – I don’t mean that in a nasty way, just the plain fact that they do not evangelise, they do not grow the church even for the next generation, and they can only spend money, not make it. They can’t produce viable congregations (i.e. that pay their own way). Now, of course such people don’t care what the Primates do, and many of them may not care what the ABC might do (as you assert), but so what?

“It isn’t the primates’ call, in their eyes (and in mine).  It’s Rowan’s call.”

The liberals in TEC may well believe that, but again, so what? We the orthodox certainly don’t care. It would be nice to have an orthodox ABC, but if he insists on tolerating liberalism, well, we can get by without him.

“The point is that, as strongly worded as this letter from Ernest is, it’s basically whistling in the wind.  Based on what we’ve seen, it’s not going to change Rowan’s mind;”

You don’t seem to have any understanding of why this letter was written. In particular, if you think that its only purpose was to change ABC’s mind, you have missed the point. That certainly was one object – when church leaders witness to a recalcitrant church member (in this case Rowan Cantuar), one aim is always a genuine attempt to obtain that member’s repentance. But he may well not repent, and if he doesn’t, that is not our problem.

“I believe that if given a choice, Rowan would readily take TEC and its money over the Global South and its numbers…even if it means the breakup of the Anglican Communion…and even if you have two groups claiming to be the TRUE Anglican Communion”

So what? That scenario is hardly a problem to the orthodox. Far better to have ABC in open dispute with the orthodox communion, than white-anting it from within.

And as for “TEC and its money” – are you serious? TEC is spending its money like water in a desperate attempt to keep its property. It has virtually no financial capacity to do anything else but that. It can’t support mission work or social aid. “TEC’s money” is an illusion.

When it comes to growing churches, it is the orthodox who have the money and the teaching. Liberals can’t grow anything. They can only spend money that others have built up.

“if anyone thinks that the complaining about / criticizing of TEC is going to stop even if/when the Global South goes their own way, that’s wishful thinking too.  It’s simply too addictive for some, too joyful for others.”

I don’t think anyone cares about this one way or another. So long as orthodox Christians, parishes and dioceses in TEC are hassled by a liberal leadership, yes, criticism will continue. As it should.

“Further, the chances of ACNA being recognized by the MAJORITY of the primates as being the official Anglican province in America is, I believe, very, very small.”

Believe what you like. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, not in someone’s “belief”. In the meantime there is more important work for ACNA in growing its congregations and dioceses, something that the Lord seems to be doing through ACNA very successfully.

Let’s suppose that ++Rowan does call a Primates Meeting and invites TEC and ACoC, saying that they are “constituent members of the Anglican Community” and he has no authority to exclude them [or some other excuse…]

How many of the 38 provinces would actually stay away?
Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda,Tanzania, Southern Cone, Kenya, West Africa, Indian Ocean, Jerusalem & the Middle East, Myanmar, Southeast Asia??? 
That’s 11 provinces out of 38.  My count may be off, so please add any others who can be counted on to stay away.

If the remaining 27 provinces showed up, ++Rowan and the ACO could easily mastermind the agenda.  The chances are very good that TEC and ACoC will escape any discipline, the Glasspool consecration will be defined as exercising the will of an autonomous province, and ++Rowan will wring his hands and ‘regret’ that the 11 provinces stayed away. 

The 11 provinces above either have or are likely to recognize the ACNA - maybe all 21 of the GS provinces will do so, and that’s very nice, but it does not make the ACNA a member of the AC.  ACC 10 passed Resolution 12 http://www.anglicancommunion.org/communion/acc/meetings/acc10/resolutions.cfm that describes the process for the formation of a new province and that requires approval by the ACC and by two-thirds of the Primates.  The ACNA may not care whether it is a constituent member of the AC, but it does care whether it is Anglican.  Is it enough to be recognized by x number of provinces and not be a member of the AC?

Moving Forward,
You seem to be ignoring a whole lot of things.  As I recall, when asked how many churches would support TEC if it moved to consecrate another gay bishop, it was +Shannon Johnson who responded, in a whisper, “8”.
And I don’t think you read the Dar Communique- the consensus opinion of the Primates when they last took up the issues of TEC’s violations of Communion doctrine- are you for some reason thinking ANY primate, even the liberal ones, is happier with TEC now than 3 years ago?  Just exactly where has TEC gained this new favor?
And have you read the opinion of the Evangelical moderates of the CoE on the Fulcrum website?  I’m sure you would like to think that +Graham Kings is a right wing neo-Donatist, but I think you would find otherwise if you studied most of what he has written.  Whatever ++Rowan does or doesn’t do, he has to go back to face his own Synod in 3 months- and if he does nothing, there will be quite a number of his own bishops who will be none too happy with him.  And deposing one of their bishops did nothing to leave a positive impression.
  ++Rowan has bigger worries than whether KJS likes him.

Moving Forward, since when is it a requirement that a province be a member of the Anglican Communion in order to be considered Anglican?  As a member of the ACNA, am I not an Anglican?  If I’m not, it sure is news to ME!

tj, I’m sorry if my frustration with ++Rowan came across as supporting TEC - heck, I left TEC!  Of course, I read Dar, but nothing has happened.  I have read all the courageous and forceful letters and communiques from our formidable allies, but TEC continues its wayward path without consequences.  Glasspool will be consecrated and a man who “married” his partner is now nominated for bishop of Utah.  TEC bishops, with one notable exception went to Lambeth.  TEC went to the ACC in 2009, and GC 2009 passed awful legislation - again, no consequences.  KJS continues on the primates standing committee while Anis resigns.  I was very encouraged by the Fulcrum piece, and, of course, I don’t think “Graham Kings is a right wing neo-Donatist!  I suppose i am discouraged because every statement that encourages me, is ultimately ignored, and yields no results.

Patience is a virtue, and that’s what’s called for now, I guess.  I was impatient….until my diocese split from TEC.  I was impatient….until the Anglican Church in North America “came together” in 2009.  And I am trying to be patient while the Global South primates meet next week, but it’s a hard thing to do.  But, I’ll get through it….just like I did before.

Cennyd, I posed this as a question:  The ACNA may not care whether it is a constituent member of the AC, but it does care whether it is Anglican.  Is it enough to be recognized by x number of provinces and not be a member of the AC?

It is a question that plagues me as a member of the ACNA.  Most Anglicans are members of the AC.  Most Anglicans are in communion with the See of Canterbury.  We can say that we are Anglicans because we believe what Anglicans have traditionally believed, and because we use a version of the 1662 Prayer Book, and because we subscribe to the 39 Articles, but the Anglican Communion does not recognize us as Anglicans.  Unfortunately, the 34 million Anglicans represented by the Primates of the GS Steering Committee do not have the authority to declare us Anglicans.  I would like to believe that we are Anglicans.  Please convince me.

Moving forward, we in the ACNA are kind of like Heath Barkley in the old Western series, The Big Valley.

Thank you, Going Home.  I guess I’d like to be a LEGITIMATE son, and be accepted by the whole family!!!

Well, I guess legitmate IS as legitimate DOES….or something like that.  Anyway, I feel pretty good about us.  Next week ought to be interesting.

Moving Forward,

I appreciate your position is a genuine one, but it appears to be contrary to the traditions of the church. Take St Athansius for example. In his time, many bishops were Arian heretics. Many more tolerated Arianism even if they did not openly espouse it. Did Athanasius complain “I can’t stay in the church anymore because I am ‘in communion’ with heretics” or “I am worried I am not accepted by everyone” or even “I won’t feel I’m legitimate until they all accept me”?

Of course he didn’t! He said: “*I* am following the faith once delivered and therefore *I* am legitimate”.

Look at it another way: The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that they are “christian”. So do many other modern heretical groups. Do you therefore decide that you can’t be “christian” any more?

Tell me, have AC-NA churches broken connection with their Bishops in South America and Africa that are Anglican in every respect?

Jehovah Witnesses and TEC may claim to be Christian but does that make them Christian?

Moving Forward,
I also acknowledge your sincerity, and will apologize for taking your frustration as support for TEC (you fooled me).  I certainly have gone over the top more than a few times myself.
I am rather positive about next week’s meeting. I think it is a meeting of good bishops. These bishops will provide leadership in worldwide evangelism, and give us lessons and instruction in the worship of our Lord and the conduct of ourselves as Christians.
And they MAY come up with a constructive way to approach the Covenant.  And that will include changes in the structure of the Anglican Communion that will repair some of the damage done.  This could well include structural changes that will limit or exclude TEC’s influence, and balance the power in the Communion more fairly.
Let’s also remember that a lot of things have happened in the last couple years, and not every Primate issues a public statement every time TEC oversteps.  I can tell you that when TEC deposed +Henry Scriven, they lost a great deal of support in the CoE.  When they deposed +Keith Ackerman, well, they lost the vote and support of every Anglo Catholic on the planet (not that many were still even remotely sympathetic to TEC, but I think it was the last straw for a few who might have “gone along” with +Rowan and the ACO, but if you think there is a “neutral” primate or bishop of Anglo Catholic heritage in the GS or anywhere else, I think you are wrong).
TEC’s consent of Glasspool was anticipated by many of us who follow the day to day of TEC happenings, but truth is, many of the Primates don’t do that.  They have war and famine and typhoons and gangs of thugs threatening their congregations, and just don’t care much what funny vestment KJS is wearing today, or about the latest heretical collect from the would-be bishop of a diocese the size of one of their bible study groups.
So, when they received a letter telling them that TEC had just done something that the 3 TEC bishops in their Indaba group at Lambeth PROMISED them personally they would not do, it hit some people pretty hard. They have spent their lives upholding Christ and His Church, and now they understand that these Americans are not just Liberal Anglicans (in the CoE sense of Liberal), but revisionists who are re-writing scripture.
The GS Primates have been, in a sense, going through a similar process as all of us.  Their were people who left TEC when VGR was nominated, more after GC 2003, more after the actual consecration…..down to people like me, I left when the depositions came down on Quincy’s clergy, not because I was in Quincy, but because given the choice between being in communion with the heretics and being in communion with priests I had known literally my whole life, well, it wasn’t a hard choice, was it?
Each of the Primates and others meeting next week is unequivocally committed to Lambeth 1.10.  They represent a majority of the Primates, a majority of the ACC votes, and a huge majority of the total membership of the Communion.  The South to South encounter, on a total numbers of members basis, represents (I think) more of the Communion than the last Lambeth conference.
Whatever they say, even though +Rowan will not be ignoring them.  He may not act (almost certainly will not, might be closer), but don’t think for a moment he will ignore them.  He will plead with them not to take precipitate action on their own, but they may remind him that their action is not precipitate, but seven long years in the making.

MichaelA, it is quite possible to be liberal, conservative, or otherwise moderate and still not give a rat’s patootie about what primates outside of TEC think about TEC.  (Some Americans’ position about participate in the U.N. comes to mind.)  So be careful about jumping to conclusions about what or who I am.

You may or may not be right, too.  So what’s the point of you discussing anything about this letter?  It’s because we’re thinking out loud and sharing our thoughts.

Or did I miss the point?  The last word is yours as I am travelling across the country today.

Thanks, tj, for your analysis.  It’s refreshing, and does offer hope.  As I said earlier, it ought to be an interesting week in Singapore.

142.  Dear Follower:  Nope to both questions!

tj, thank you for your thoughtful response.  Your points are well-taken and I will reflect upon them.  In the last few weeks I have been very optimistic about the GS4 Encounter, but over the years, I/we have pinned our hopes on particular meetings, reports, and communiques, and we have usually been disappointed - not in the words spoken or the content of the documents, but in the resulting lack of actions/consequences.  I suppose that my comment reflected an attempt to ward off yet another disappointment.  If past action or non-action is a predictor of future behavior, then I have little reason to be optimistic, and as you say ++Rowan will almost certainly not take action.  I suppose the question is what action will the GS Primates take at this point.

Cennydd and MichaelA, in my comment # 139, I was responding to the particular analogy posed by Going Home in reference to Heath Barkley in the old TV series, The Big Valley.  it was not meant as a serious theological statement.

MichaelA, I haven’t decided anything.  I was posting questions for discussion.  In any case, it’s not about me.  I am an insignificant cog in the Anglican wheel, so I do want to be part of something bigger than myself.

FollowerOfTheWay #142, asks: “Tell me, have AC-NA churches broken connection with their Bishops in South America and Africa that are Anglican in every respect?  Jehovah Witnesses and TEC may claim to be Christian but does that make them Christian?”

The Bishops in South America and Africa have begun to release their congregations to dioceses in the AC-NA, so the connections are being severed.  Here is the question for discussion.  We can declare ourselves to be Anglican, but does that make us Anglican?

Sorry, I know this is off-topic.

In our Prayers for the People, we include both of our archbishops….++Duncan AND ++Venables, so I guess that means we have yet to be formally released by ++Venables.  The connection is temporary in any case. 

As for calling ourselves “Anglican,” does it really make that much difference to those who maintain that if we’re not formally connected to Canterbury we’re not?  We share Anglican beliefs….except for the blatantly deviant variety as practiced by TEC and their friends….so as far as we are concerned, they can think and say whatever they please.  We are not listening to them, and their opinions are meaningless, I think, to the majority of us.

I don’t think I’d be remiss in saying that we don’t care what they think or say.

I meant to say “Prayers OF the People.”

Moving Forward—it is a legitimate question.

When many of the now ACNA churches left TEC to come under the supervision of a foreign Primate, they claimed publicly to be in the Anglican Communion by virtue of that connection. While this claim was supported by the sponsoring GS Primates, I always thought it was a little misleading to visitors given the Archbishop of Canterbury’s stance. Now that the Primates have released most US parishes, I see no basis for “Anglican Communion” advertising.  Its misleading.

That is different, though from saying you are “Anglican”.  Historically,  Anglican was defined as including the COE and the churches related to the COE it in origin and communion.  Here, the ACNA churches are certainly related to the COE in origin, if not communion (with the drift toward “open communion” I am not sure what this means, anyway, among liberal churches).

I also believe the common definition of the term is shifting, at least in the US. For example, if someone says they attend an “Anglican” church in the US, they are more likely talking about a non-TEC church than a TEC church. “Anglican” is increasingly used as a sign of differntiation, not identification, with TEC.

What is most important to the ACNA and its parishes is that they present a clear identity and message to the public, which could care less what happens in Singapore. A complicated or confused message is a killer.

Actually it does matter whether ACNA is part of the Anglican Communion.  It has been part of the litigation strategy of Mrs Schori to claim that it is not.

Of course it is, firstly by virtue of its connections through the Global South Primates; and secondly by acclamation from the vast majority of the members of the Communion, which is likely to become larger next week I imagine.

As for Rowan Williams, I am not sure why people rate what he individually says so highly; in our church [CofE] the hierachy goes:
1. God - Head of His church
2. The Supreme Governor of the Church of England - HM the Queen who promised to protect #1’s Church at her coronation; and
3. The Archbishops of the two provinces of Canterbury and York, both of whom swear obedience to #2 at their consecrations.

I do have a particular issue with Rowan Williams, among others.  The Global South told him to:
“We urge the Archbishop of Canterbury to work in close collegial consultation with fellow Primates in the Communion, act decisively on already agreed measures in the Primates’ Meetings, and exercise effective leadership in nourishing the flock under our charge, so that none would be left wandering and bereft of spiritual oversight.

He has wretchedly failed to do any of this and one of his biggest failures is to properly protect and speak up for Anglicans in the US.

He is in my view a large part of the problem, and seeking for him to sort things out is an act of desperation, and doomed to failure.  He is manipulative, deceptive and untrustworthy, and quite remarkably stubborn, but he covers that well.  The GS and the Primates have to take over the reigns from the ABC and his miserable lackeys in the ACO.  Otherwise the whole lot will go for a chop, which would be a pity, because the Communion is something of value, which has something to offer the world.  IMHO.

Here is the link to the Global South exhortation:
http://www.globalsouthanglican.org/index.php/blog/comments/pastoral_exhortation

We are, actually, in a de facto relationship with the Communion by virtue of the recognition of our bishops by no less a personage than Rowan Cantuar himself….his having stated that they are “bishops in good standing in the Anglican Communion” via their recognition as such by the Primate of the Southern Cone, ++Gregory J. Venables.  KJS has made it clear that she doesn’t like that.

“We can declare ourselves to be Anglican, but does that make us Anglican?”

Interesting question, Moving.  Can you abrogate the tenets of Anglicanism and still be Anglican?  Certainly, because TEC has the credentials to prove it.  But being the bad boy on the Anglican block places into question the legitimacy of kinship.  Pretty is as pretty does.

This is a sad situation that has been singularly fostered by a seemingly out-of-control TEC.  Most likely TEC will continue to tear the fabric of communion until there will be real division resulting in two groups, one holding to secular agenda and the other holding to Christ.  Will division make any difference to TEC, that is already a law unto themselves, except for the fact that the bad boy will lose his audience?  It appears that criticism of TEC only prompts her to greater misbehavior in search of greater attention.  As her decline deepens her rebellion becomes more frantic.  She masquerades under a white flag while dispatching forays in every unholy direction. 

The Most Revd Ian Ernest clearly, along with many supporters, sees the efficacy of disassociation from rebellious components, while maintaining communion with traditional Anglican provinces. 

What does light have to do with darkness, wheat with tares, salt water with fresh water or sheep from goats?

Surely this rises to a higher level than church politics.  God is refining His church and separating dross from pure gold.  The results will not be to the total liking of either group but God’s purposes will never fail.  We all feel the heat as He refines the Church.

I think it would be a huge mistake on Rowan Cantuar’s part if he were to say that there is no connection between the ACNA and the Communion in light of our connection via the Southern Cone and his statement regarding our bishops and their relationship with the Communion.  It would backfire on him.

152—But they GS and others have not yet taken over the reigns of the Anglican Communion. Until they do, the most defining marker of Communion membership is the Lambeth invitations, which historically has been in the ABC’s hands. Thats why the last invitations were so significant, and why it was a huge tactical mistake—huge—for the orthodox membership of the Communion, with one voice, not to throw down the guantlet when the ABC delayed the invitations, and then invited everyone at TEC except the Bishop of NH, as part of an effort to avoid an organized Primate upheaval prior to the convention.  I recall well the debates with the ACI and others over this strategy—remember the suggestions that the ABC might “withdraw” some invitations? It was all hogwash and delay.

The fact is that a majority of the Primates have not taken formal action to change the constituent membership of the Anglican Communion, or how those members are recognized.  Until that occurs, an ACNA church has relationships with some members of the Communion, and are “in communion” with them, but is not part of the Anglican Communion per se.

145- Cennydd, thank you for the kind words.  Would that I had done a better job editing- I botched my grammar in a couple key places, but apparently the gist of what I intended came through.

To many of the rest of the folks here- No matter what the GS bishops or +Rowan do or do not do, none of them can “fix” the situation in the US.  TEC can crow all it wants about its position as a “member in good standing” of the Anglican Communion, but to any neutral observer, when 1/4 of the provinces of the church have excommunicated you, and another 1/3 don’t recognize many of your bishops, you are not in good standing.  And that is what the GS has already done.  Anything that happens next week is in addition.

Next week, pray with and for the GS.  And LISTEN to them. Take what they have to say, and reflect that in your own conduct and your relationship to your parish and the broader church.  As I have said before, if the GS churches have broken communion with your bishop, and you think they are right, why are you in communion with that bishop?  Nothing that any Communion structure does will remove that bishop from office, so don’t wait for it to happen.  Remember that the bishop’s authority emanates from Christ, a bishop who denies the Word has no authority, just a title and fancy clothes and a house your parish is paying for.

To an observer of trends, one would recognize that while TEC is increasingly being excoriated AC-NA is increasingly being embraced.  While self-denial abounds, we all know, with a great deal of certainty, how this will play out.

Likewise current postings and commentary evidences an increasing level of peace and joy in AC-NA and dissipation in TEC.

“Not in communion?”  Perhaps, but connected just the same.  Full communion at this point?  Not with heretics!  Associate membership in the Global South (which is not in communion with heretics)?  Could be!

And you’re right, Follower!

#160 Cennydd
As you say the invitation to the ACNA to participate in the GS meeting speaks very clearly indeed, louder than words.

And THAT is something for Schori and Company and their friends to be concerned about.

For those concerned with the political connection of ACNA bishops to the Anglican Communion:  All of them are connected to archbishops somewhere in the recognized Anglican Communion.  For example, the CANA bishops are part of the Anglican Church of Nigeria.  Their House of Bishops declared them “joint” members of both ACNA and the Anglican Church of Nigeria for as long as they want to be.  The ABC recognizes all the bishops in the Anglican Church of Nigeria, hence the CANA bishops in ACNA.  I imagine the same is true of ++Bob Duncan and his relationship with Southern Cone, etc.  Those archbishops who support (and in some cases, helped FOUND) ACNA are in no way ready to let them go to a future uncertain of recognition!  And have said so, time and time again.  We in ACNA give thanks for their faithfulness and support!

In terms of who is in Communion and who is out, it is interesting that Archbishop Duncan is invited to attend South to South (he is en-route today) while the Presiding Bishop is most certainly not.  It is certainly the case that the “situation on the ground is fluid” at least in terms of who is in or out of Communion.

One of the very interesting things about the coming meeting is its history of producing “Trumpets from the South”.  These statements have had considerable influence on the direction of the Anglican Communion as a whole.  One such trumpet shaped Lambeth ‘98 and resulted in 1.10.  Make no mistake, what happens this next week is potentially very important.  It is no secret that the Southern Primates are having major heart burn over the sidelining of the Primates Meeting.  It is very possible given TEC’s rejection of the moratoria and the sidelining of the Primates Meeting in the Covenant that the Covenant will dead in the water.  As I recall, I believe the ABC recently speculated on the utility of the Covenant himself.

It has been said by some, truthfully or otherwise, that Rowan Cantuar’s statement about the efficacy and utility of the proposed Anglican Covenant last week was an “April Fool’s” joke.  I didn’t see it that way.  I think he has come to the realization that it may in fact be dead in the water.

I think, Ed, that the Covenant will be whatever 21 provinces decide it will be….
++Rowan is no doubt going to try to throw a spanner in the works- he would much rather, I think, have a federation than a communion relationship with actual discipline, as he demonstrated at Jamaica.
Could be that +Rowan will get his worst nightmare- ++Chew and ++Anis sitting down with ++Okoh and ++Orombi (the group aided, no doubt, by +Lawrence, Poon+ and Noll+) and hammering out a Covenant that a majority of the Communion’s churches can sign on to.
Which will probably look just like the Ridley draft, except it will substitute the words “Primates Meeting” for “Standing Committee,” or just save time, and define the term “Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion” as something entirely different than “board of trustees of an English charitable corporation.”

Cennydd,
There was, indeed, an April Fool’s joke- published by one of the English liberals.  However, that does not mean that +Rowan any longer favors an actual Covenant- he could have had the Ridley draft in hand at Jamaica, and rejected it.
  Silly mistake on his part- he could have had his Covenant, and his Standing Committee- but he and KJS over-reached, and now, like as not, the Covenant that is passed will have a section 4 much more like what ++Drexel Gomez and Co. suggested in the first place, 3 or 4 drafts ago.

Yeah, I guessed as much.  And now, we shall see….......

Going back to the Big Valley metaphor, if Duncan is Heath—fighting for recognition within the family, I can see Orombi as Nick. I wonder who is playing the role of Audra Barkley and Victoria Barkley.

Thank you all for this excellent discussion!  Unfortunately, I was called away unexpectedly and have not been able to participate. 
A point of clarification:  #164 Goughdonna
*The Ugandan congregations have already been released and they are now only affiliated with the ACNA as part of the Diocese of the Holy Spirit under +John Guernsey.
*The Bolivian congregations in Georgia have been released by +Frank Lyons.
*In the ACNA Diocese of the Gulf Atlantic (N.FL and south GA) under Bp. Neil Lebhar,  only congregations who have cut their ties to overseas primates can be full members.  There is a partnership status available to those who wish to remain in AMiA, CANA, etc, but “membership has its privileges.”  For example only members can serve on the Standing Committee or vote on who is elected to the Standing Com.
*There is a new ACNA diocese forming in GA, AL, TN, NC, SC and full members will also be required to sever their current affiliations.  Again, a partner status option will be available, but partners will have limited rights and duties.

As I understand it, the current strategy is to form geographic ACNA dioceses who will be under Archbishop Bob Duncan, and not under existing overseas Anglican Primates.

In the meantime, I have heard nothing about the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin’s disaffiliation from the Southern Cone, and I don’t think that will happen until the current court cases are resolved….and that could take years.  As you know, we are one of the founding dioceses of the ACNA.

I have not heard anything about the 4 entire dioceses that left TEC disaffilating, but I have heard much talk about forming geographical dioceses.
This is what +John Guernsey says about his current Diocese of the Holy Spirit.  http://www.diohs.org/
Our Diocese is a non-geographic, transitional diocese. We offer a home within the Anglican Church in North America for churches—particularly those that have been under the Church of Uganda—located where a regional diocese has not yet been organized.

We encourage and support the participation of our congregations in the formation of regional dioceses, and we expect that our congregations will transfer to those regional dioceses as soon as it is feasible to do so. We therefore anticipate that the membership in the Diocese of the Holy Spirit will decrease significantly over the next year or two.

Years ago, in the beginning of the current unpleasentness, many of us expressed admiration for the intellectual capacity of ++Rowan, especially in the Byzantine back stairs of the CoE. I remember postulating that he took the long view, years in fact, for the controversy to work itself out. Paramount in his goals was to NOT be a part of the ultimate censure of TEO, setting the stage for others to do the excommunicating, actual covenant authorship etc.

That has happened. The Primates are doing the job, AND CORRECTLY SO, and he will emerge as having done his best to protect TEO, but was overcome by the acts of excommunication by his fellow Archbishops. I still maintain this is the most plausible scenario.

This kind of subversive dishonesty grates on the sensibilities of North Americans, but is generally the only way Western Europeans function. I have tried to do business in England, and it is a nightmare due to this process.

The process of self hanging by TEO has taken some time, but it seems to be approaching conclusion. Don’t blame Rowan, but make sure his authority is broken so the weight shift to the South is dominant.

It would seem then that our way of expecting instant action to equal instant results doesn’t work, and we need to accept that.  God is “working His purpose out as year succeeds to year,” and His Will be done.

AHH
  The holy Father extended an olive branch . It is there . Heretics in the TEC can have their celebrations of wicca .There Gay unions . Their long march towards being relevant and to oblivion proceeds .Other blogs talk about the youth losing their faith .DUHHH. How can they keep their faith when it is corrupted by these heretics .They are walking with their feet .OHHH the new agers /new reformation are but shown to be nothing but followers of the Devil.They go about doing their work saying they are doing it for the greater good of God . All should know by now that is not who they promote .
Excomunicate ????  they did that too their souls long ago .
You either believe or you do not .  you do not put yourself on an equal footing with god and say I think he meant this or that . The Apastolic tradition gives guidance . Anything else separates one from God.
Eric A. Whalley

I am very glad to read this.  But I don’t think Rowen Williams will act nor does he really care.