Stand Firm

A Brief Analysis of Rowan Williams’ Response to the Jerusalem Declaration

I am not surprised by the points of critique that Rowan Williams offers. Nor do I find them—or him—disturbing, as I would expect nothing less than what he has said. I like him [from what I know from a great great distance], and I usually enjoy reading his sermons and talks.

In his critique, Rowan Williams states “A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion” . . . and this is of course true.

But why would the authors of the Jerusalem Declaration imagine or wish to “pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion” when they have just spent a week meeting about the fact that they do not believe that certain other leaders in the Communion actually share the same gospel?

Of course this will not “pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion”—just as the actions of TEC do not “pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion”. I would put it to the Archbishop of Canterbury that this matter of the Primates Council not “passing the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion” is a feature, not a flaw.

Rowan Williams goes on to ask “By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council?”

But that’s an easy answer. By what authority does the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club determine the seedings of the tennis players who enter The Championships?

The answer is rather clear. By the authority of the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club which manages The Championships.

Any organization—and the Jerusalem Declaration establishes the rudiments of an organization—has the authority to manage its affairs and establish a coherent order and discipline. Of course . . . so does the Anglican Communion, another organization that has the authority to manage its affairs and establish a coherent order and discipline. It will be interesting to see if either succeeds.

Finally, Rowan Williams asks “how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?”

But then . . . that won’t be a change. It is clear that there is no ability to maintain “effective discipline” in this “situation” in the Anglican Communion. Nor is there anything on the horizon that is likely to maintain “effective discipline” in the future.

Since a group of Primates and bishops has recognized and acknowledged that inability for the Anglican Communion, they appear to be determined to carve out a place of sanity—a small green isle of order—within the Anglican Communion in which such discipline actually can be maintained.

What the Jerusalem Declaration appears to be establishing is an organization that will keep “effective discipline” for itself, since the umbrella Anglican Communion is unable to. As has been thoroughly proven over the past five years, those who authored the Jerusalem Declaration have no authority to maintain “effective discipline” for the Anglican Communion as a whole and as such, cannot pretend as if they do.

I just read the ABC’s response to the Jerusalem Declaration. “Ivory Tower Intellectual” is the NICEST thing I can think to say about the ABC!

IF they are not working effectively????????? And what does he think the rest of us have been HOWLING about and trying to do for the last YI-MANY years before we said sauve qui peu??????? And how does he think the “nicey-nicey” proposed format of the upcoming Lambeth WITHOUT ALL THE PARTICIPANTS EVEN BEING INVITED is going to “restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity”? He’s trying to hold with one hand on the liberals, pulling left, and the other on the orthodox pulling right. If he doesn’t let go of one, HE will be torn in pieces! Maybe that last statement should have been made in the past tense! I didn’t expect him to welcome the Declaration with open arms, but I also didn’t expect the Alice-in-Wonderland “unreality”.

I am now tending to look at the GAFCON gathering and their statement as the basis for forcing the rest of the Anglican Communion to recognize the proportion and power of what - if using only C of E terms - would be the evangelical wing of the Communion.
In that regard, Sarah, I like what you have pointed out.
I also think Windsor Covenant is the main entree on the Archbishop of Canterbury’s plate, and he has taken the time here to say that GAFCON and Windsor cannot be competing entities. What Rowan could have more strongly affirmed, if we take seriously the end of GAFCON comments from leadership (and I’m sure he has had access to those releases and comments and addresses from GAFCON and after), is that, indeed, they are not.

I don’t think he has any doubt that this will be on the talking tables of Lambeth, no matter who is there, and that something will come of it.
One Englishman’s “affirmation”, is another American’s “resolution.”

Sarah, I believe your point is well taken that the GAFCON pilgrims would not want their declaration to pass the test of legitimacy by the 815 establishment and their fellow travelers, among others. But simply making that observation begs the question. It is not a binary polarity. Presumably there are Anglicans who were not at GAFCOM, or who may not even have been aware of it or cared about it otherwise had a “dog in the hunt,” who are not revisionist, liberal, apostate, reappraiser, or anything of the sort, but who, by the terms of the Jerusalem Declaration, would be frozen out of the mechanisms relating to the primatial council, and for whom, therefore, it would not pass the test of legitimacy. The archbishop’s point that I would like to see someone from the GAFCON community address is that the movement is self-defining and self-selecting, and therefore inherently, apart from any concrete context, has issues with “legitimacy.” We would all be in happy families if we got to pick our own relatives. I hope critical questions of this sort are not considered “unfriendly.” There is much about what was accomplished in Jerusalem last week in which I rejoice, and I consider y’all friends, even as I believe myself called to continue to work and pray for a more organic and communion-based resolution to this crisis.

<blockquote>But then . . . that won’t be a change. It is clear that there is no ability to maintain “effective discipline” in this “situation” in the Anglican Communion. Nor is there anything on the horizon that is likely to maintain “effective discipline” in the future.<blockquote>
Yeah, it doesn’t make any sence for Rowan to question “effective discipline” when he has not maintained any discipline at all.

All good comments—-the ABC’s stance calls to mind that of the knight in the Monty Python film, who loses limb after limb to King Arthur’s sword but says “‘Tis but a scratch,” and continues to fight on as though nothing had happened.

One minor point: When the ABC asks, “how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?” I think he is referring to the kind of pastoral discipline problems across large distances that Bishop Pierre Whalon talks about in this essay. We who so want the ABC to discipline TEC as a whole read his words, of course, to apply to the larger problem as well, but I don’t think he meant to raise any objections beyond the pragmatic ones that Bishop Whalon cites.

Right, Dan.
But for me, seeing GAFCON in the way I described above, I don’t think Rowan’s concerns as you have raised should be anything but secondary. I won’t need to wait for +Iker, +Ackerman, or other (pure) self-identified Anglo-Catholics to try to justify the various issues raised by the 39 Articles or even BCP points. Legitimacy right now is simply that GAFCON is the reasserter flow of the moment that was necessary, and we can all ride the current for the time being.
Of course, down the road, the concerns for Anglo-Catholics (who are willing to claim all as adherents) will be in requiring more teaching and more intensive theological discipleship.
Traditionalists (who barely are willing to endure all as adherents) will have their own need to delineate exclusive authorities.
Charismatics (who can claim adherents from all parties) just have to get more people baptized in the Spirit!
: )

The archbishop has been able to ride out all the other moments—Primates, Reports, and so on—with little difficulty, but this one, he may not be able to brush off. This is not according to his Plan.

Father Dan, I enjoy your comments here—and heaven knows you put up with mine at your blog occasionally! ; > )

RE: “Presumably there are Anglicans who were not at GAFCOM, or who may not even have been aware of it or cared about it otherwise had a “dog in the hunt,” who are not revisionist, liberal, apostate, reappraiser, or anything of the sort, but who, by the terms of the Jerusalem Declaration, would be frozen out of the mechanisms relating to the primatial council, and for whom, therefore, it would not pass the test of legitimacy.”

I am sure that you are right. In fact, *I* might well be one of those people. But just because people whom we deem to be conservative or gospel-loving or Christians wouldn’t “pass the test” of membership in whatever this international group will be called doesn’t mean anything particularly bad. Lots of people can’t be members of particular organizations who are otherwise nice and interesting. If one has an organization then one has rules of membership and those rules may well exclude some folks who might be wonderful members otherwise.

RE: “The archbishop’s point that I would like to see someone from the GAFCON community address is that the movement is self-defining and self-selecting, and therefore inherently, apart from any concrete context, has issues with “legitimacy.””

I’m not certain how an organization that is “self-defining” and “self-selecting” has issues with legitimacy. Why would that be? All organizations are “self-defining” and “self-selecting” in a large sense.

Furthermore, this is actually Rowan Williams’s stated Grand Scheme—which is that he is pushing a covenant that allows provinces and dioceses to select themselves *out* of the organization of the Anglican Communion. The creation of the covenant in theory—so he has claimed—would create a Communion that is “self-selecting” by creating the very covenant that people MUST agree with in order to be in the Communion.

Very little difference—in theory—from the Jerusalem Declaration’s purpose.

Sarah, I think your analysis concerning membership and the concerns (or non-concerns) of the Jerusalem Document are spot on.

Care to speculate on why he makes this statement, and it inflames us so? Is he really unaware of what has been going on here? Is he taking the larger view in which TEC is a small part of the actual AC that he contemplates daily? Is he willing to ignore what happens here to keep TEC happy? Is he not connecting the actions of GC2003 to the “uniqueness” he mentions above?

I’m just dizzy on this, I simply have no perspective as to how he could say such a thing and be so 180 off us what we have experienced here? I know you’re not his therapist, I’m just wondering if you have an opinion on that statement and his perspective on it.

Yes, but Sarah, your tennis analogy is flawed. The church is not just an organization, it is a sacred communion. As you will recall, no Christian can say to another member, “I have no need of you.” This is all very messy, and ECUSA has done some lousy thing. None of this justifies grieving the Holy Spirit through schism, however. Needless to say, I think +Cantuar is spot on.
Pax,
Scott+

Dan: I don’t think that GAFCON made any claim to Communion-wide legitimacy. Rather, it saw that (1) there is no actual discipline in the Anglican Communion; and (2) Rowan Williams had no intention of using his office to support discipline, but rather would work to prevent any meaningful discipline. GAFCON then is a group of like-minded individuals within Anglicanism which has decided to band together to create a disciplined area within the Communion. They have gotten together, laid out their plan, and invited others to join them.

I don’t think GAFCON would claim to have Communion-wide legitmacy, nor was it their plan. Rather I think that GAFCON hopes to establish a disciplined area within the Communion, and that more and more Provinces will join this disciplined area.

GAFCON represents a new strategy. Working for Communion-wide discipline won’t work - and certainly not with Rowan Williams in the See of Canterbury. Williams might be brilliant, but he is a ditherer who seeks to avoid conflict at all costs. Leadership is not made of such stuff (Rowan Williams can’t even decide who is the legitimate Bishop of San Joaquin so he invited both). GAFCON recognizes that free-for-all that now exists within the Anglican Communion - the free-for-all which Rowan Williams is largely responsible for - and has decided to use that freedom to create the new structures.

Nobody and nothing has Communion “legitimacy” anymore. The See of Canterbury has lost its moral basis due to Williams’ dithering and questionable conduct. The Lambeth Conference has been neutered by Williams. The Primates’ Meeting has had its legs cut from under it by Williams. The ACC never was trusted by the Global South. TEC and the ACoC has engaged in unilateral theological decisions that undermine the Communion and so they have no legitimacy.

There is chaos in the Communion - pure and simple. GAFCON is an attempt to create a zone of calm and order within that chaos. Sure, it is “pluralistic” in that GAFCON is saying to other orthodox Anglicans “here, join us, we are trying to expand our zone of calm and order, won’t you join us?” I think the end goal is that GAFCON’s order will swallow the Communion - but that is not yet.

We shouldn’t be taken in by Rowan’s politeness and learned manner. The reality is that he is very willing to undermine other people and has castrated the decision making ability of Lambeth by transforming the agenda to prevent resolutions. At least Gafcon has said enough is enough. One way or another we will bring the crisis to a conclusion. I admire the primates who are refusing to attend Lambeth. However, I wish they would all go and “take charge’ of Lambeth as they had to do at Dar es Saloom when Rowan tried to whitewash TEC. Then there would be no question about legitimacy when Lambeth were to formally excommunicate TEO and the church in Canada.

I am with Mike and Sarah on this. Rowan’s prose is not obscure. It is easy to read and extract its meaning. The problem is it is so divorced from reality. Where in the world has he been since 2003? I am like Mike. Dizzy.

Mike—I expect he smiled when he wrote that, as it is such an easy statement to nuance.

Sure it’s not in dispute “in the common life of the Communion” if you’re counting as “common life” all the worship services in the Anglican Communion province-wide.

But you know . . . the Jerusalem Declaration is about those areas of the Communion in which these basics of the gospel are denied. It made no claim about those basics being “in dispute in the common life of the Communion.”

It’s a bit like you’re saying “That Sarah the Dolphin has very long dark hair” and my saying “I must protest Mr. Bertaut’s false aspersions on my hair—I certainly do not have ankle-length hair.” ; > )

So true, Scott Gunn. But “the church” does not = The Anglican Communion. “The church” is > The Anglican Communion and The Anglican Communion is < The Church. So your above statement is irrelevant to whether a group of members of the Anglican Communion may start a sub-group within the Anglican Communion.

RE: “As you will recall, no Christian can say to another member, “I have no need of you.””

Certainly true—that is why it is so very important to discern who proclaims the Gospel and who specifically proclaims something other than the gospel.

RE: “None of this justifies grieving the Holy Spirit through schism, however.”

I wholeheartedly agree—but then . . . you’d need to take that up with TEC, not Gafcon, as there has been no act of schism there.

I wonder if any vestry members who have been sued in their personal capacity have felt as though TEC was saying to them “I have no need of you.” Just curious, Scott.

I am sick and tired of the blather coming from 815 and Canterbury! No amount of clubbiness, socializing, group-talking, group-thinking, rationalizing, weaseling, arm-twisting or truth-bending on the part of Schori and Company and their friends in the Communion will ever undo the damage they’ve done.

They’ve been WARNED, and unless Lambeth results in some positive proactive actions are taken to reform the Communion, GAFCON will do it FOR them!

MP, The Primates Council will hold authority at the consent of only those who desire and opt into it. (...of the people, by the people, for the people)

TEC and the ACoC and the CoE rebels can have their own jurisdiction of the new composite religion and they can call it whatever they want, but they cannot kick the orthodox in the gut any more, nor make us play their games, nor give them money, nor most especially make us commune with them.

On another thread, I suggested that one of Rowan’s questions be changed as follow:

And how is effective discipline to be maintained
in a situation of <strike> overlapping and competing jurisdictions </strike> rampant heresy and total disregard of the mind of the Communion on the subject of human sexuality?

Why in the world would he even bring up the subject of discipline? I thought it had dropped out of his lexicon.

I would like to add that the basis for inclusion within GAFCON is simply the willingness to subscribe to the Jerusalem Declaration itself in word and deed. In this limited sense, the Jerusalem Declaration works somewhat like a covenant that binds its members together and forms the foundation for any discipline required for members.

This is one of the places +Rowan misleads…GAFCON does not see itself as the only expression of Orthodoxy within the Communion. Rather, in line with what Sarah has aptly said, in the face of a situation where clarity and discipline has been lacking (leading to systematic dysfunction), GAFCON has simply laid out a clear vision of the type of discipline it will be embracing as followers of Christ.

Certainly, this is not the way forward any of us would have chosen. It would have been much better to have the enactment of discipline come from the place it should have (+Canterbury in accordance with the direction of the Primates Council and Lambeth ‘98). But given the failure of the one appointed to such a position, the gathering of primates to do this work is the next best option, and I for one give thanks for their incredible courage and strength to take this step!

A better way to understand this document is as an invitation…an invitation to the orthodox to join in providing true discipline for the Communion and an invitation to repentance to the heterodox who have so far failed to heed the warnings that their actions were tearing fabric of the Communion.

Along these lines, I want to share a thought on the Evangelical-Anglo-Catholic tension. The simple fact is that the statement is a work of God. It prepares the ground for meaningful discipline, but does so by sticking to the foundational doctrine/morals/disciplines of Anglicanism (which no Anglican should be able to reject). I realize that Anglo-Catholics might want more (i.e., the other 3 Ecumenical Councils, and a more prominent place for Patristric Tradition, as I have read on other threads of this blog). At the same time, some evangelicals might more in the sense of narrowing the interpretation of the 39 Articles to exclude aspects of Anglo-Catholic belief and practice (I heard such concerns raised by others at the conference).

But if you read the document not as prescribing the fullness of Anglican expression, but the minimum, that which binds us all together, Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics, I believe you will begin to see the genius of the document.

You had to be there to sense the overwhelming presence of God as it was read. The place was electric with excitement because it was clear that the hard work of the conference had paid off with a document that brings the issues into clarifying focus. It is not a perfect document, but it is an amazing, grace-endowed document (after all, let’s give some credit to the team that put it together in less than a week with all the different groups advocating their ideas/concerns).

Of course, much work remains to be done. Everyone there knows this. Among the biggest hurdles ahead of us here in North America will be bringing the various jurisdictions into a meaningful provincial structure. No easy task!

But this statement truly has opened up a new horizon in the Anglican Communion. And, as I witnessed God move at the conference, I will be praying that he will continue to move in the months ahead to lead us into the fulfillment of this vision. May we all walk in humility and let his grace rule in us that his glory may be manifested through us.

Why my dear MP #26, Have you not heard and are you so slow of heart to believe that the Anglican Communion is no longer ‘Canterbury-based’ but is now globally-based?

The colonial and post-modern eras in Anglicanism are now officially ended and the glorious post-Canterbury restoration of traditional Anglican Faith once-delivered to the Apostles has just begun. Anglicanism has been wrenched free from the shackles of unbelief, heresy and apostasy.

The same Christ whom false builders rejected has been restored as the Chief Cornerstone. Christ, the Prince of Life, whom they thought they had crucified and buried, God has risen again from the dead, whereof we are witnesses.

May you also be blessed and restored in this resurrection and revival of Anglican Christianity.

Whomsoever will call upon and believe in the Name of the Lord shall be saved. Acts 2:31-36

Sarah: You’ve said it very well.
When I read RW’s statement “by what authority…” I bristled. This kind of statement is a red flag to me. But—I find—that the authority he is asking about is in MT 18:20. That, and the verses preceeding it are, in my study Bible, interpreted as having to to with the authority of the Church to DISCIPLINE errant members to lovingly bring them back to the Way of Christ. Where the power of discipline is not exercised, or is flouted, at length some authority will arise to fill the void. If the authority is self-constituted it matters not. The vacuum will be filled. For some reason I think of the events leading up to the American revolution as illustrating this. King George would not listen, so he lost his colonies. It may be a weak analogy, but I have a sense of the people taking action when the authorized leadership would not.
Again, my hat’s off to you, Sarah. You’ve said it and said it well.
Dumb Sheep.

Have they invited others to join them? The final statement does say “we shall seek to expand participation in this fellowship beyond those who have come to Jerusalem” and entreats the Primates to “organise and expand the fellowship of confessing Anglicans”. Does one have to wait to be invited to join the movement, or can one apply for membership?

Yep—that’s the point. That’s the way all organizations are set up—structures for order and authority over its members.

Ooh . . . let’s fix that. “At first it seemed [the hopeful revisionists desperately] wanted [their enemies to please leave and] to start a new church” . . .

Yeh . . . we can tell . . . by the very few comment from MP, just how totally non-news this all is . . . ; > )

Perhaps I missed this or a similar analogy in previous comments; if so, please forgive the repetition. Rowan Williams’ remarks concerning GAFCON and the resulting Declaration is like a man barely afloat in a stormy, chaotic sea observing that the men on a nearby island cannot make the sea calm or bring it to order. True, but they can establish calm and order on the island, and Rowan can row to that island if he truly desires its calm and order, that is, its “legitimacy.” Anyway, legitmacy is conferred NOT by men, but by the real presence and action of the Holy Spirit, whereupon it is given its expression through the Body of Christ, which is “the blessed company of all faithful people.”

Here’s a quote from our parish website about GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration:
““While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury”. This is not a rejection of the role of Canterbury but a qualified acceptance of it. Anglicans who find this difficult to accept need to ask themselves this question: How can we insist that communion with the Church’s two greatest sees, Rome and Constantinople, is not necessary but communion with Canterbury is?
The Final Statement also calls for the creation of a Primates Council which will begin the work of coordinating the emerging network of Confessing Anglicans. Part of the work of this Council will be to establish a new Anglican province in North America, one that will include American and Canadian Anglicans now under the jurisdiction of other provinces and Anglicans who are not now part of the Anglican Communion.
Much will be made of GAFCON and it will be taken as a herald of many things. Perhaps the most important thing that it heralds is that the center of gravity of the Anglican Communion has decisively shifted from Europe and North America to Africa. For many this shift may be foundation of hope for the renewal and vitality of the Anglican Communion.”

Mad Potter, I did not see the new definition of “Anglican.” Doesn’t the ABC state that most Anglicans DO believe in the tenets given in the Jerusalem Statement? (I thought he was wrong to make such a blanket statement, but he did not argue with the doctrine.) What WAS the new definition?

Wow, GA/FL! What a statement, what a parish!
You are sure to be the envy of many, as they read this….

Mad Potter, it is a statement that has just been used by a very large group of Anglicans. Get real, please. Or ... don’t be obtuse.

How do you see this as being fundamentally different from the proposal for a tiered covenant? I’m not talking about who engineered it but the idea itself?

As for the GS being the real Anglican Communion - they are true to the traditional beliefs of the Anglican Communion, and in that sense, they *are* the “real” Anglican Communion, just as orthodox churches everywhere are.

But the real estate? I don’t think TEC has enough to warrant the trouble. And remember, according to your lot, it’s only a “few” noisy churches.

It’s how we’ve made it, anyway. But again, I don’t think we’re talking north-south here. We’re talking orthodox/revisionist.

So where do we go from here? It looks like the Communion is being torn asunder when the relevance/role of the Abp of Canterbury comes into question. In the end will the adherents of GAFCON even keep “Anglican” in their name? Revolution takes on its own terrible logic, and it won’t just end with political reform. By the time this is done, there will be theological reform, liturgical reform, canonical reform…and more schisms to come as people use the same logic that prompted GAFCON to make their stands for their own truths. This is not to condemn the reformers, it is to condemn the hierarchy that allowed the church to become so corrupted in the first place that this terrible crisis had to occur. It reminds one of nothing so much as the 15th and early 16th c. roman catholic church.

Rowan’s been on TEC’s side. He’s been on the liberal side, but he’s been paralyzed because he understands the roots of his own legitimacy. This is what GAFCON has threatened, not his political legitimacy, but his theological legitimacy.

The Jerusalem Declaration is but a prelude. Much theological work needs to be done to resolve the ambiguities still latent in Reformed Anglicanism.

Meanwhile, we may well see a Counter-Reformation within the Anglican Communion as the adults still left in the pews begin to realize how desperate their situation has become.

MP- You persist in seeing the GS as upstarts who are stealing something from Northern churches. Why? They are full fledged members of the Anglican Communion, they have most of its members, and they are holding fast to the historic faith and identity of Anglicanism. The Church of England is their mother church every bit as much as it is TEC’s—more so, in fact, since they all adopted the 1662 BCP, and we did not. Canterbury is the most ancient see in the Anglican world. Why should faithful men and women turn their backs on their heritage, just because a few dying churches in the West have abandoned Anglican doctrine, but refuse to admit what they have done?

Numerous priests in my progressive diocese have openly rejected Cranmer’s theology. Now it is one thing to prefer modern language for prayer, but another to reject the whole substance of the book which has been the foundation of Anglican life for 450 years. Yet according to your reasoning, the priest who rejects the substance of his Anglican heritage, is somehow a better Anglican than those priests and bishops who are standing up for it.

“. . . who is real depends whose definition you are using.”
I feel you are twisting the statement in the propagandistic way that so much of the media has taken. For exactly what purposes, I am rather unsure. Apparently the powers in TEC and their friends are very disappointed that Gafcon did NOT just leave them to their revisionist devices. So they try to tear apart a very traditional statement and to misrepresent it. I personally did wish for a stronger affirmation of Canterbury, but in fact it IS recognized. The Creeds, the Articles, and the Prayer Book are recognized. It is classic Anglican belief. How “different” is that from what TEC (at its best) would claim? Whatever degree of difference there may be, I’m sure it’s not in TEC’s favor.

As if the Episcopal Church had NOT changed the definition, Mad Potter! I personally have always said that I wanted Canterbury in the definition (you have constantly claimed that I do not). But it is obvious, I believe, to a fair broker (if there are any) that the Jerusalem Statement is profoundly traditional. I don’t know who your real audience is intended to be.

Yes, that was fairly obvious to all of us.
For someone who thinks he knows the definition of “Angican” to be unfamiliar with Cramner and his theology is indeed amusing.

There is something so patronizing in the tone of many who write about GAFCON that I think PB Schori and others should read Canon Gregory Cameron, an advisor to the ABC and deputy Secretary General of the Anglican Communion.
Ruth Gledhill today:
“In a lecture about the crisis facing world Anglicanism, Canon Cameron said that senior clerics in the Western church were in danger of adopting a NATO-style attitude of ‘intellectual superiority’.

“He criticised the US church, which donates generously to the African and Asian evangelical provinces of the Global South, for placing ‘implicit obligations’ on the recipients of their largesse. . . .

“Alongside these ties of friendship - the so-called bonds of affection which have been described as holding the Anglican Communion together there has lurked an unconscious sense of superiority and dependency: a sense that all the really educated theologians find their homes in Oxbridge, and that all the really big money comes from the United States.”

And, for the further information of MP, I have not repudiated the Archbishop of Canterbury (I was one of his biggest supporters and a teacher of his books), but I hope he will enter the “listening process” with his advisor (as above).

<blockquote> Newark, you are way over my head with the Cranmer’s theology thing. </blcokquote>

MP, what you call the “Cranmer’s theology thing” is at the very heart of Anglicanism. His prayer book, as finally revised in 1662, is the BCP that the whole Angican communion prays from (except in the United States and Scotland, where our prayer books descend from the Scottish Prayer Book of 1737.) It has been the foundation of Anglican theology for 450 years.

However, the TEC prayer book of 1979, which most Episcopalians use today, did away with Cranmer’s theology. When I became an Episcopalian, I was told that it was just the old BCP in modern language, but over the years, clergy have become more candid, and have admitted that it was designed to do away with Cranmer.
This is why it is now possible to celebrate the Eucharist without a prayer of general confession, or the beautiful Prayer of Humble Access. Bishops no longer vow to “drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s word.”

The watered-down, Jesus-lite religion that progressive Episcopal priests call “Anglican” is nothing of the kind—it is instead the product of American clergy and seminaries of the last 40 years or so. It’s like the Brand X Toasted Oats that my local supermarket uses to compete with Cheerios—it comes in a bright yellow box, it looks the same—and is almost flavorless.

If my reference to Cranmer is above your head, then you clearly haven’t been given a solid introduction to Anglicanism. This isn’t your fault—progressive priests would rather teach you other things, and just call them Anglican. It does help to explain why you insist that Anglicanism is a progressive, Northern religion, and that the GS is setting up a new church. You’ve been taught wrongly, probably by someone who recieved a faulty education in one of our revisionist seminaries.

There is another slanted accusatory name-calling Times article here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article4258240.ece
Quote:
“Dr Williams .... asked the rebels by what authority the Gafcon primates are to be deemed acceptable and .....suggested that some clergy, especially in developing countries, were hiding behind theological arguments to conceal personal problems and disagreements that had nothing to do with the row over homosexuality and liberal practice….His riposte is as timely as it is pertinent. There is a narrowness, self-righteousness and arrogance about some of the rebels that is deeply unappealing.”

There is no author listed for this article.
The innuendos, name-calling, accusations, labeling as “narrowness” “self-righteousness” are the typical tactics we have come to expect.

Williams should be challenged to produce proof of the accusations and aspersions he has cast. Most likely, he cannot, nor will he honorably retract his statement.

When they cannot support their arguments or lifestyle with logical arguments or evidence in Scripture or science, the sexual agendites resort to accusation, vehemence, name-calling, labeling, innuendo, lying, betrayal, dismissal. These have been their tactics from top to bottom, from Williams on down to the activist on the street.

From a comment at MCJ: “They bat off and discard the preponderance of Scriptural evidence as mere ‘theological arguments’ that do not hold the weight and importance that their feelings and wishes do.

They cannot make homosexual acts and feelings, heterosexual promiscuity, syncretistic mosiac designer religions mixing wicca, hindi, islam and buddha healthy, holy or salvific.

They cannot ever find another substitute or solution for the problems of sin. They can only deny the fact of sin. There is only one solution for sin, the Solution that God the Father has chosen - His Only Son, Jesus Christ.

God has made a wondrous loving merciful offer we should not and dare not refuse. John 3:3-16, Hebrews 2:3-4 ”

This is the money quote no one has commented on - for a conference originally intended to have no resolutions….“I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations”. Paul

From Paula’s comments and cited quotations, it appears that the U.S. church reaches out with its wealth to Africa and Asia seeking their dependence (and allegiance? acquiescence?). I observe that, contrarily, the non-TEC orthodox jurisdictions (who stand firm in the faith), reach out in their need to Africa and Asia seeking help and pastoral oversight. Which of the two acts is better prelude to brotherhood?

In contrast to the Jerusalem Declaration, MP and other revisionists argue that recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury is the only determinant of being part of the Anglican Communion. Even if most of rest of the Anglican Communion (in numbers of lay people) won’t actually take communion with you. And no matter what you believe or do. No conciliarity for them. I find that strange. Why don’t they call it the “Archbishop of Canterbury Communion”, or just make him the Anglican pope or some such then?

The liberals of TEC really have no ground to stand upon. Few have any historical awareness at all. Few are conversant with Patristics. Few know the history of the Book of Common Prayer. How many now remember the Commission documents speaking to the 1979 BCP? Who remembers the origins of the various Prayers of the People or the intentions of the Commission? As far as I can gather, seminary training has been in the toilet for at least twenty years. And lay people have been encouraged to remain ignorant by equally ignorant but ideologically driven clergy who have made every attempt to make the priesthood of Christ into a bully pulpit for secular agendas. Christological heresy has become so blatant that our lowered expectations look mostly to see if a new clergy person is an active member of Wicca or Islam. Or whether they are part of the group sex phenomenon often common to gay Roman Catholic and Episcopalian clergy. Our seminaries have come to resemble brothels. Celebrated gay clergy are remembered by those who were there to have been in the practice of trading partners during their married seminary lives ... but of course that’s gossip and we must not speak of it. Frankly, it is revolting (against God’s sovereignty) and I dislike revisiting all this even in passing. Much needs to be done and I applaud the good intentions and perseverance of those who have remained and attempted to be faithful.

MP, No one objects to an Archbishop of Canterbury being part of a reformed and restored orthodox Anglican Christianity.
The objection is to current office-holder’s deceit and politically motivated subversion of the processes of governance and the instruments of unity.

Thankfully, there are scriptural ways and means of rectifying such insufficiencies and dysfunctions in the Church and they are being implemented.

I disagree, and humbly submit that the current squatter at Lambeth Palace objects, as evidenced by pretty much everything he has done for the past 5 years.

Chasaq, I meant a future orthodox Canterbury(if there ever were such) NOT the current ABC and AS AN EQUAL!

MP—By what authority do you assert your supposed “traditional definition of Anglicanism”? Your posts have made it very clear that you know next to nothing about Anglican tradition. I remember that when you used to post on Brad Drell’s site, you said that when you joined the Episcopal Church, you hadn’t heard of the Anglican Communion, and didn’t really care about it.

Your whole experience of Anglicanism seems to rest in your own revisionist parish, yet you keep insisting that WE can’t define what we mean.

MP, the Archbishop of Canterbury is NOT the Anglican Communion! The provinces and their people are! He is primus inter pares, just as Benedict XVI, the Bishop of Rome, is primus inter pares of the Roman Church.

The primary raison d’etre and cause of unity in Christianity is doctrinal, not geographical, historical, political, collegial, relational or sentimental. Without doctrinal congruity, Christian unity is non-existent. Such a relationship becomes limited and is better characterized as ecumenical or inter-religious.

...or perhaps, as with TEC, the ACoC, and the Western Provinces, the proper way to relate is as missionaries.

MP—Where did you look it up? Any old secular dictionary that happened to be lying around? If you’re going to insist on something as THE definition, it better have some serious authority behind it.

You might want to look back at this thread <a >standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/13485/</a>
from June 19. A number of us kept giving you definitions, which you rejected on idiosyncratic grounds. Now you’re back to insisting that we don’t have any definitions, and that even if we know much more about the substance of Anglicanism than you do, we don’t know what we’re talking about, because you don’t like our definitions.

The problem with what you propose in #67 is that “essential elements of the CofE” is a very vague phrase.
How do you propose to define it?

Sorry, MP, that is still not clear. You object to the Jerusalem Statement presumably because it says:

You say “I am glad you want Canterbury in the definition of Anglican, the GAFCON folks just removed it as part of their definition.” But they didn’t remove it, as anyone can read, they just said that, while recognizing the see, being Anglican is not necessarily determined by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recognition. If you are objecting to this, it must be because you say that such recognition is is an absolute necessity. You name no other requirements for being Anglican - if there are any in addition to such recognition, what are they? And where is the “traditional definition of Anglican” you cite in post #62? You say “I looked it up. I did not make it up.” Okay, where is it so the rest of us can read it? I want to know what you believe someone has to do in addition to being recognized by the ABC to be an Anglican.

I would not know from your post where you go on to say “I suggested one…Churches with historical ties to the Church of England that retain some or all of the essential elements of the Church of England.” That definition does not mention recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury at all. Just vague and minimal (“some”) style references. Even the REC meets that. I thought you said that was a bad thing.

If you say someone has changed a definition, you need to be able to tell people what the definition was before and how it has changed.

Y’all the Anglican Communion is defined as those bits of Christianity that are inoffensive to everyone. The official doctrine of the Anglican Communion is therefore confined to articles, although ‘the’ continues to be problematic.

Mad Potter, do you honestly not understand the idea that grace and truth and even legitimacy before God do not “necessarily” come through Canterbury? Do you really think they do? What if some APB turned out to have Spong’s theology? Or would you defend that, too, and cling to it?

Quote from NFL parish website might be helpful in regard to communion with the see of Canterbury:
“Perhaps the most radical provision of the Statement is this: “While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury”. This is not a rejection of the role of Canterbury but a qualified acceptance of it. Anglicans who find this difficult to accept need to ask themselves this question: How can we insist that communion with the Church’s two greatest sees, Rome and Constantinople, is not necessary but communion with Canterbury is?”

MP, I would like to recommend Stephen Noll’s paper on Communing with Christ, a workshop on ecclesiology presented at GAFCON to understand church matters should be handled as taught in Scripture.
http://www.stephenswitness.com/2008/06/communing-with-christ.html

Personal to Cantuar, Abp. Williams you are reaping what you have sown, n’est-ce pas? If the heat’s too hot, well, you know what to do.

Sarah’s point is well taken. GafCon is legitimate in its own eyes, as with any organization, and that’s all the matters to the signers. So the question facing GafCon is what meaningful way can they be faithful to Communion-wide structures (e.g., Instruments of Unity)? Clearly, GafCon as an organization has declared its intent to ignore or act in contradiction to any decision or process made by the Communion as a whole (jurisdictional crossings come immediately to mind). The strategy seems to be one that TEC has been using for a long time: “we only go along with the rest of the Communion when its suits our agenda.” So I ask, how is the GafCon solution ANY better than continuing with the status quo? Stated another way: how is the GafCon solution NOT worse than the status quo?

The GAFCON movement and the Jerusalem Document have essentially accomplished what was attempted at GC2003 and at the current CoE Synod, but has done so on a global level.

GAFCON drew a line in the sand, a request to make their position known by reaffirming the tenets of orthodox Christian faith and doctrine.

However, this time, the call to vote is either voluntary or involuntary and does not require the permission of anyone. This time the vote will be counted by how one aligns with the basic tenets of the Christian faith laid out in those documents - not by a signature or a number count.

“Now, today, in this moment, is our chance to choose the right side. God is holding back to give us that chance. It will not last forever; we must take it or leave it.”

Poor MP, You are telling on yourself…you’re not a potter, you write pulp fiction and moonlight for the British newspapers…let me guess, The Telegraph and The Independent?

Hee-hee. MP once again you have throw oil in the fire. Of course MP is only arguing for the sake of the argument. If one goes carefully through the myriad postings from MP you will find the core element of his desire - that TEC be a nice exclusively inclusive social club with just the right amount of respectability, a fine veneer of social consciousness and drinks served promptly at 6. The whole Anglican Communion thing is a throw-away. And like TEC MP really doesn’t care that much for the Anglican Communion - especially if it swings ‘round and “goes all ortho”. It’s nice to have the cachet of being tied to the see of Canterbury (those British accents are SO cute and sound so learned and all), but certainly not necessary. The TEC club will continue on its merry way, sending out its representatives like VGene, DLord and Co to beat the drum - because they love the attention and feel like they are doing something important. In fact MP has prefessed that he would prefer the ortho’s to go off and pester unbelievers elsewhere, call themselves Anglers, or Anglophiles, or what suits them, because in fact it doesn’t matter. At all.
Except the giggle to be had by stirring up the nest at SF! *grin*

MP is many things. Unfortunately most of those things are liberal. But he is not properly categorized as a troll. He engages with civility, and honest intent.

Complicating this definition is the immovable, adamantine refusal of the Anglican Communion to agree on any specific essential elements.

Mad Potter, you make sense. And two communions is just fine with me. Everybody wins, I would think. And boy oh boy, I know there are those who disagree with me. I think I am growing up a bit as I have been involved in this mess. Amazing as I enter my 7th decade. I used to want to see TED balasted out of the universe. Then I just didn’t care. And now I am remebering and acknowledging the centuries of sacred worship in those old buildings, and the folks on their knees there every week. I am attempting to cherish what is good there (and of course only the Lord can decide thaT). But as for me, I am very happy to have found an Anglican parish. It has been a real faith revival for me.

Have a wonderful Sunday, MP. BTW, I wonder if you really are a potter? I know my way around a wheel rather well myself.

I am worried about Archbishop Akinola. Do you think his motives may not be what we originally thoughts?

Well, I thought that his message was one of the Gospels and of love. I am beginning to see a power struggle with some of his references to Rowan Williams.

Oh ... you must be new to reading blogs ... those charges have been made for years by “Reappraisers’ Blogs,” in fact one was even call ‘Akinola Repent,’ but it didn’t really have anything interesting or informative, so I did visit much.

I must confess to being suspect of your worry, because ++Akinola has not said that much in public statements, even at GAFCON, other Primates were certainly more in the forefront to the point where your worry should be that he’s so silent, if you’re desiring to be in touch with the party line of that perspective ...

I was reading an article in the Telegraph, an English newspaper. In this article ++Akinola states: “He said it would also discuss whether the best way forward is the “realignment” of the church’s power base from Canterbury to the developing “Global South” countries of Africa, Asia and South America, and what structure this new movement might take.”

This is not the subject of this thread and we’re dragging it off topic, besides I have to head off to prepare the Altar for worship. Have a wonderful Lord’s Day!

I think this is a part of the subject because the heading is about Rowan Williams response to the Jerusalem declaration. ++Akinola made his statement before he was even at GAFCON. I find his statement confusing.

Precious1—you’ll need to wait for a thread on Archbishop Akinola to pursue what is, on this thread, a rabbit trail.

©2008 Stand Firm, LLC. All rights reserved. Permission to copy and distribute free of charge is granted, provided this notice, the logo, and the web site address are visible on all copies. For permission for use in for-profit publications, please email contact@standfirminfaith.com.