Stand Firm

Actually Rowan Williams has been giving the orthodox a gift all these years. He has forced us to stop hoping for help from overseas and look for help from within our own ranks. He has forced us to create relations with foreign bishops on our own, without his good offices. He has forced us to be creative. He has forced us to be self reliant in worldly terms, but also more reliant on God.

On the other hand dining out with him must be an absolute nightmare. “I’ll have the beef, no that creates greenhouse gases, I’ll have the fish, no they’re unsustainable, ok, maybe the hummus, no that’s greenhouse gases again…...”

The longer it takes to hear anything doesn’t aid in optimism that he’ll do anything. He’s had all weekend and you know he knows what happened at GC09. Would be nice to be wrong in this, but we doubt it.

I don’t think it matters to TEC what Dr. Williams does or does not say. What he does will have an impact on the Anglican Communion. He could do something to stop the slide into apostasy there, but it is unlikely, given his past behavior. Also, the fact that the Continuing Indaba Project has been approved for use in the Communion in future, does not bode well for the Communion.

I am afraid that Dr. Williams’ dithering has allowed the greater Communion to be infected with the US GLBT curse.

Perhaps he will call another entmoot - don’t want to appear to be too hasty, now…

tired - the entmoot comparison is priceless. JRRT was prescient about lots of things, but this seems to be a really good analogy. Not sure - maybe someone can enlighten - I think he was making commentary on the UN/League of Nations thing and how dithering diplomacy can represent a real desire to put heads in the sand when lines are clearly drawn.

And Allen Lewis - right on. TEC will go along, despite whatever +++RW says or does. What he says or does (or doesn’t say or doesn’t do) will more than likely be taken seriously by the GAFCON Primates. They are the real brokers of power in the Communion now. Their reaction to GC and what, if anything Williams says, is more interesting and important.

The timeline seems to be:
-On Thursday/Friday we were told that Dr Williams would not make comment on the passage of C056 by the HOB until the Deputies had added their vote. The vote result was posted late on Friday evening UK Time.
-Several CofE sources stated that Dr Williams would be working on a statement;
-On Sunday Dr Williams commented on British policy in Afghanistan after preaching in Kent:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6721005.ece
-Today Dr Williams was due to speak in the morning and answer questions in a panel session in the afternoon at an ‘Affirming Catholicism’ national day at Bristol Cathedral.
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2493
-There have been no reports from that yet so far as I am aware.

Contrast this with Mrs Schori, who whatever else you say, is very efficient at dealing with things and getting her oar in first. So who knows what Dr Williams is doing, he has had all weekend to work on it.

He’s writing a letter asking The HOB what they intended by D025. The HOB will set up a committee to respond and take 6 months to a year to reply. Their response will be ambiguous/contradictory….And so the beat goes on.

He will call TEC’s Ubuntu and raise them two Indabas after which a rousing chorus of Kumbaya will be hurled by Rowan at the PB of the Episcopal Church. When the smoke finally clears, he will appoint the Primus of Scotland or the AB Ireland to head a committee to study how, if at all, the actions of GC can be seen as adding to the slight tear in the fabric of the AC.

From God, peeps. That’s where it comes from. Don’t wait on the ABC for any help, that’s fo sho.

Rowan Williams has not been dithering at all. He’s been purposely slyly and effectively giving place to the devil…backing out of the way so the vituperative K.J.Shori can move right in with the sicko sexual agendites and their Continuing Indaba Project that will spew and smear the ugly stinking pro-homosex/pro-abortion sludge all over the globe using the Church and Name of Jesus Christ.

This is an excellent assessment. Regretfully, there will be some Priests and Bishops who will use Williams statement (whatever it is) as cover for not taking the difficult steps necessary to address the situation.

That actually sounds plausible. A letter for clarification. Brilliant. Should read something like this.

Seems you have jumped off of a cliff. As you plummet toward the earth, could you please verify that you have in fact jumped off a cliff? You are fading from view, and I just want to be clear. Be sure to yell loudly, as my hearing is about as good as my eyesight.

FWIW I would tend to disagree with Lakeland Two. If the ABC wants to treat this as a PR problem it would have been better for him to move quickly. The delay suggests he’s thinking through his options and might be contemplating some serious action.

That has to be interpreted in light of Rowan Williams’ own record though; he’s never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I think the needle’s swinging from “nothing” to “next to nothing”. Maybe it’ll go past that into the the range of “something”, but I’m not holding my breath.

Just a reminder. The Ents in their moot took their time in discussing what action they would take. However, once they decided, they took action. Here the comparison of the meetings over which Rowan Williams has presided and the Entmoot falls to the ground. The result of the Entmoot was decisive action and the fall of Isengard, Sauraman’s stronghold. If Rowan had presided over the Entmoot, Isengard would be still standing and the Dark Lord’s shadow would have spread even further across the land.

Well summarized, for those LOTR fans among us. Question is - will Rowan’s entmoot make a decision before 815 (Isengard) takes over Middle Earth (AC)?

The person to watch here for possible godly concrete action is Mark Lawrence. Rowan Williams matters not a whit.

You are absolutely wrong. At every step along the way over the past 6 years, Rowan has taken bold action to advance the cause of the Episcopalians. Case in point: his decisive actions after the meeting of the House of Buddhists (HOB) in New Orleans. With each passing milestone, Rowan takes action that effectively champions the Episcopalians’ cause throughout the Anglican church. I remain astounded that folks at Stand Firm persist in the notion that Rowan is ineffectual. He has proven to be a valuable high-impact ally of the Epscopalians in advancing their mutual cause. So far, nobody has been willing or able to stop him.

We dunno, Wolverine #13. Sounds like you wrote almost the same thing we did, just with more words.

Either way, we aren’t holding our breath either.

Walter A (mousestalker) and I have some serious latte’s on the line as to whether RDW will utter/write the “D” word. I say not, at least not before the next primates meeting, whenever that may be.

Should I stay or should I go. If I stay it will be trouble. If I go it will be double. So common and let me know… Should I stay or should I go.

I would love to be proven wrong, but ++Rowan will write a letter with the words “saddened” and “disappointed” and something about furthering “the rift in the communion.” And although he should not do this—because his focus should be on GenCon and nothing else—he will find a way to mildly blame conservatives for some supposed past failure so that the liberals—if there are any who care what he thinks—can point at the document and flout about something.

He will end the letter by discussing the body of Christ and exhortating us all to remain at the table until the communion is in agreement about these “difficult issues.”

After 2003, the TEClub was asked to voluntarily withdraw from voting privileges in the ACC. I have proposed that Rowan do three things:
1) Again ask the TEClub return to non-voting status.
2) Ask that Ms Shori resign from the Primates Standing Committee (where Rowan put her) and withdraw from the Primates council “for a season.”
3) Call a primates meeting.

Rowan Williams has the power to withhold invitations from the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference; from the Primates Meetings, and from the Anglican Consultative Council

It is also true that Dr Williams, together with the Archbishop of York, has the power (under current English law) to declare whether or not an overseas Church (such as TEC) is in communion with the Church of England (see the Overseas and other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967):

Whether Dr Williams has the will to make a decision which “shall be conclusive” is quite another question.

As you consider what Williams’ response really means, and how you should react, ignore all bleating and whining from the gay activist crowd. You know how they are.

#22 I can’t tell you how much it has cheered me up to see the Clash quoted on Stand Firm.

I just hope he doesn’t ever read #4, tired’s post. We’ve already had indaba. If his agile mind ever latches onto entmoots the Anglican Communion will die from exhaustion.

First he’d require all the bishops to learn Quenya. That would drag things out for a decade. Then he’d insist that everyone define their terms. Bam, another decade. Then he would honour every voice and allow everyone to speak a grand assembly for as long as they desired. The entmoot would end when the last remaining Anglican topples over of terminal ennui in 2034.

[29] Bregalad (or “Quickbeam”) was the name of one of the ents. Of course, the word quickbeam is another name for the rowan tree.

Well it gives us plenty to talk about. Ents, rowan trees, the Clash, and the blogger formerly known as Mousestalker’s idea of a dinner a deux.

[btw in English country folklore anyone accused of witchcraft would climb into a rowan tree to show their innocence.]

I think folk should focus on the more literal impacts: how are you going to respond in a church denomination where some call sin a blessing from God and others are left managing the repercussions. Paul had some examples to give. I’d look at those for expectations. And if they fall short, then YOU will have a personal decision to make. The Scriptures also have examples to guide you. One warning though: I’d not want to be one in the middle, nor lumped in with a group in the middle, nor remained tied to others holding a milestone.

One would be for Williams to accept Schori’s and Anderson’s letter as proof that the moratorium still holds. It is possible, but unlikely; even Williams is likely to see the laughingstock that would make him, not to mention that it seems likely to set off some serious chain reactions both in the CoE and elsewhere.

Another would be to put it out to be studied. Agreeing that past performance has been a good predictor of future behaviour in this area, I think this is the most likely. I think this will be quickly followed by the global south primates, possibly with some new additions, taking further actions to recognize the ACNA as the Anglican presence in North America, and develop some additional structures for working outside of Canterbury without formally creating a separate communion; a functioning communion within a nonfunctioning communion, if you will. Because of his past treatment of a number of the primates, I doubt that Williams will himself be able to call a primates’ meeting with much effect.

Setting aside what I would do, if Williams were trying to protect the communion as a whole and the CoE as well, he might put TEC into the to-be-studied position but recognise the ACNA and the CP as also authentically Anglican, i.e., part of the communion, and possibly make another call for TEC to stop litigating. TEC might not like that, but what would they do? Leave the communion? That would take a General Convention, which is not for another three years, right? Stop sending money? Possibly, but doubtful if they are still in limbo, as it is the only real leverage they have. Such a course might slow down the disintegration of the communion; even allowing it time to heal and reform its relationships. But it would be uncharacteristic of Williams’ to do this.

“The European rowan (S. aucuparia) has a long tradition in European mythology and folklore. It was thought to be a magical tree and protection against malevolent beings.[3] It was said in England that this was the tree on which the Devil hanged his mother.

“The density of the rowan wood makes it very usable for walking sticks and magician’s staves. This is why druid staffs, for example, have traditionally been made out of rowan wood, and its branches were often used in dowsing rods and magic wands[citation needed]. Rowan was carried on vessels to avoid storms, kept in houses to guard against lightning, and even planted on graves to keep the deceased from haunting. It was also used to protect one from witches.Often birds’ droppings contain rowan seeds, and if such droppings land in a fork or hole where old leaves have accumulated on a larger tree, such as an oak or a maple, they may result in a rowan growing as an epiphyte on the larger tree. Such a rowan is called a “flying rowan” and was thought of as especially potent against witches and their magic, and as a counter-charm against sorcery. Rowan’s alleged protection against enchantment made it perfect to be used in making rune staves (Murray, p. 26), for metal divining, and to protect cattle from harm by attaching sprigs to their sheds. Leaves and berries were added to divination incense for better scrying.

“In Newfoundland, popular folklore maintains that a heavy crop of berries means a hard or difficult winter. Similarly, in Finland and Sweden, the number of berries on the trees was used as a predictor of the snow cover during winter. This is now considered mere superstition (however one can hear old men talk of it), as fruit production is related to weather conditions the previous summer, with warm, dry summers increasing the amount of stored sugars available for flower and fruit production; it has no predictive relationship to the weather of the next winter. Contrary to the above, in Maalahti, Finland the opposite was thought. If there rowan flowers were plentiful then the rye harvest would also be plentiful. Similarly, if the rowan flowered twice in a year there would be many potatoes and many weddings that autumn. And in Sipoo people are noted as having said that winter began first when the waxwings (Bombycilla garrulus) had eaten the last of the rowan berries.

“In Sweden it was also thought that if the rowan trees grew pale and lost color, the fall and winter would bring much illness.”

“Many traditions have evolved from the belief common among many Celtic people that the Rowan tree could offer protection from evil spirits. On Beltane (the night before May Day, which in some places was called Rowan Tree Day), sprigs of Rowan were often tied with string dyed red from the Rowan berries to cows’ tails and horses’ halters to protect them, and sheep were made to jump through hoops made from Rowan. Crossed branches of Rowan were often placed in cowsheds and stables for the same purpose, and milking stools and pails were sometimes made of Rowan wood. Rowan trees were commonly planted near the doors of houses, or Rowan twigs placed over the door or under a bed, to ward off evil spirits. Necklaces of Rowan berries with red thread were often worn for protection by Highland women. Rowan trees was often planted in churchyards to send away evil spirits and to keep the unquiet dead from leaving their graves. In Wales, it was common for people to wear a cross carved from Rowan. Corpses prior to burial and coffins in transit to graveyards were often placed under Rowan trees to protect the souls from evil spirits.

“Although the Rowan was considered by some as protection from faeries, others say that faeries love the tree and will go out of their way to seek it out. Some even say that anyone harming a Rowan tree runs the risk of faeries seeking revenge by causing illness. In Sligo, Ireland, a legend tells of the “Forest of Dooros” where the faeries who dwelt there loved to eat Rowan berries brought over from Fairyland. One of the berries fell to the ground, and out of this grew a huge Rowan tree. It was said that eating one of this tree’s berries, which tasted of sweet honey, would make a person drunk. Eating two berries would ensure that the person would live to be a hundred years old. Eating three would make the person thirty years old again, to stay that way for a hundred years. To protect their magic, the faeries asked a giant named Sharvan who lived in the forest to guard the Rowan tree, so those few who attempted to take advantage of the Rowan’s magic were usually never heard of again.

“Rowan trees were said to guard against the evil effects of “black” witchcraft. Berries were sometimes strung like beads and hung as a necklace around the neck of a supposed victim of sorcery. Some believed that one way to protect your soul from the devil was to touch a witch with a branch from a Rowan tree. Then, if the devil came demanding a soul, the witch would be taken instead. A cross carved from Rowan was sometimes placed above a child’s cradle to protect it from bewitchment or from being stolen by faeries. These crosses were traditionally renewed each May Day. It was believed that the power of the Rowan was particularly potent if the person making the charm had never seen the tree before cutting the wood.”

We are not in communion! It is time that the truth were stated, that is what TEC did/wanted the world to know and the AOB should be equally honest

Following the PB and Bonnie Anderson’s theory about how the moratorium still holds until another gay Bishop is consecrated puts a big pot hole on the ABC’s path. Because once a name and a face is out there—the name and face of the new gay Bishop—it’s going to be a lot harder for him to say this is the person who’s blowing up the communion.

One of the problems for the CofE, as with all churches, is what do you do when a church departs from a formerly common understanding which allowed interchangeability of ministry? For example, supposing a member church of the Anglican Church became unitarian rather than trinitarian or denied some other fundamental of the faith like the divinity of Christ or individual salvation; suppose that a member church ordained people to the ministry and episcopate whose mode of life would debar them in the CofE, suppose that your ministry and that of your mission partners was being damaged and people were being persecuted as a result of actions of a member church? How should you react? Do you accept unitarians or Buddhists as ministers in your churches through former arrangements for mutual recognition of ministry?

This I can see being a concern for the Church of England in practical terms. This is where the rubber hits the road when talking about ‘Communion’ and which has hit the headlines both with TEC and the Church of Sweden at the same time.

What will the Archbishop do? I have no idea and would not like to be in his position, but he has my prayers.

#37. Pageantmaster,
If I were the ABC, I would begin my letter to KJS with your statement.
Blessings

But a moratorium is never simply choosing not to do something. In other words (and obviously) every choice not to pursue a particular course of action cannot be described as enacting a moratorium. A moratorium is an authoritative declaration that a particular legal entitlement will be delayed (possibly indefinitely). In B033 TEC was adjudged, wrongly in my view, to have made such an authoritative declaration. Indeed TEC itself argued that B033 was such that it satisfied the Windsor Report’s request that TEC enact a moratorium.

In short, the Windsor Report asked TEC to do something they were not doing at the time Bishop Robinson was consecrated. B033 was the response to that request.

D025 returns us to the status quo prior to B033. In other words, consent may be given to partnered gay bishops or if you want, the office of bishop really is open to partnered gay bishops. If this is true (and D025 says it is) then talk of a moratorium is nonsense. It cannot be true that the office of bishop is open to partnered gay candidates and that there is a moratorium against the consecration of partnered gay candidates. Either it is not open or there is no moratorium.

Thus my view is that TEC is no longer compliant with the Windsor Report, the moratorium (authoritative declaration) having been superseded. Thus they should be suspended from the Councils of the Communion.

#34 AnglicansAblaze - isn’t that interesting. I know rowan trees are often found in old gardens. I heard myths of a ‘rowan mother’ years ago in the country which must have been some sort of fairy found in the tree and who would get cross if the tree was cut. Almost the opposite is ivy which has unpleasant associations and is also considered very unlucky to cut when growing up a tree.

Old wives tales, but interesting glimpses into country legend which must go way way back.

To put it in terms that TEC might just understand - I think the time has at last, at long last come, for the Communion to “be true to itself”. Let the ABC just describe where the Communion is. He has been generous to a fault. Now is the time simply to “describe” how far TEC has moved beyond the Communion and the consequences in terms of their participation in the life of the Communion.

Thanks be to God, AA #34, The Church is NOT dependent upon a Rowan, animal or vegetable, for protection against devils, faeries or witches. The human Rowan has shown he has absolutely NO inclination, capability nor desire to protect Christ’s Church.

#33. Please, do not take this as a criticism of ACNA (as we appeared to be getting some peace on that front). I do not think that the ABC can unilaterally recognise something like ACNA, on ACNA’s own terms of self- definition. An ACNA wanting to be a province must apply via the ACC. CP is another matter, strictly speaking. But if the covenant logic is where +RDW tends to gravitate, as in past public statements, then because he has spoken before of two-tiers, he might underscore that now. And nothing prevents him saying he supports Section 4 and looks forward to a positive review, etc. That is to say, it will likely be through the assent to a covenant—and its negative counterpart—that anyone will be differentiated, and of course CP is thinking along these lines. The same cannot be said strictly speaking for ACNA for the simple reason that many/most of its most vocal supporters (at least here) don’t believe a covenant is a good mechanism, don’t trust +RDW, or don’t believe he is necessary (‘GS has more power’ talk). But I doubt we will have to wait beyond tomorrow, and if we do, then my own sense is that this is a positive sign, showing how serious the situation is. I liked the advice to cover the crystal ball however. Prayer is the way things move when everything has been done that is necessary.

<blockquote> “But if the covenant logic is where +RDW tends to gravitate, as in past public statements, then because he has spoken before of two-tiers, he might underscore that now. And nothing prevents him saying he supports Section 4 and looks forward to a positive review, etc. That is to say, it will likely be through the assent to a covenant—and its negative counterpart—that anyone will be differentiated…”</i>

That would simply be a repeat of some of the comments he made a long time back, and its hard for me to see how that would accomplish anything but kicking the ball down the street further, to the benefit of TEC.

Rowan Williams could change the calculus of this debate overnight but supporting a resolution from the COE that it is in communion with the ACNA, and addressing its leadership as an authentic Anglican expression. The biggest beneficiaries would the CP Dioceses, who would immediately gain leverage within TEC. Regretfully, this won’t happen.

Definitely agree with Seitz-ACI. People who think that Rowan will punish the TEC with recognition of the ACNA are delusional. As Seitz points out, “recognition” of ACNA is not within his purview (see #24 for things that are). Expect a delaration of unsatisfactoriness or some such rot. Be very satisfied if there is anything that Seitz is hoping for or my #24.

If we expect decisive action, even after tedious, Ent-like discussions, I should think that we are barking up the wrong Rowan tree.

One could make further comments along the line of the Rowan ‘bark always being worse than the bite’ except that there is the danger of triggering some new cult within the AC; perhaps one whose members paint themselves blue, thrive in Rowan trees and want to be bishop within TEC.

ACNA leaders “don’t believe a covenant is a good mechanism”??
Then what was the meaning of the following ACNA resolution?

“On Sunday 22 June 2009, the Provincial Council unanimously adopting the following resolution:

Resolved, under provisions of Canon I.1.1 of the Constitution and Canons, the Provincial Council of the Anglican Church in North America expresses its readiness to adopt the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant (Ridley Cambridge Draft) at an appropriate future meeting of the Provincial Council.

Further Resolved, that the Provincial Council of the Anglican Church in North America expresses its solidarity with the Communion Partner Bishops in North America in the hope that individual dioceses and other churches [Covenant 4.1.5] might be encouraged to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant whether or not the Provinces of which they are a part have chosen to do so.

Unanimously adopted by the Provincial Council of the Anglican Church in North America at its meeting on the Third Sunday after Pentecost, 21 June A.D. 2009.

Chazaq (#19) is of course right that at each point when the ABC has intervened since 2003, he has defended TEC. Note how the ABC did this: he has thwarted and otherwise prevented the Instruments from acting, particularly where a clear majority favored disciplining TEC. See, e.g., the various Primates meetings since Dromantine. The ABC has not dithered. Note well that each time the ABC has intervened, his intervention has always strengthened his power as the sole Instrument capable of acting.

A different political calculus surrounds the ABC’s power now. All sides are increasingly ignoring him, most recently TEC, when the Presiding Bishop went out of her way to insult and threaten the ABC during Gencon, and the FCA, which organized over the ABC’s opposition. Viewed in terms of the ABC’s power, the events of the last few weeks have been terrible.

Now I do not claim to understand how Rowan thinks. But if he wants to preserve any scintilla of authority for his office as an Instrument, then he may now have to actually do enough to make somebody, anybody, conclude that he relevant in this crisis.

Who would that somebody be? Certainly not TEC, which has just slapped his face, both by what they have done, and by what they have left undone. What about the orthodox? He has burned them numerous times, so they are rightly sceptical of everything Rowan says or does. For that reason, mere words (“I regret what Gencon did”) or appointing yet another panel to produce yet another report won’t prevent the orthodox from proceeding with their plans without reference to him.

Rowan needs to create the impression that he will now lead the Communion’s response. To create that impression, Rowan will have to do something “real” at this point. An example: call a Primates meeting to discuss Gencon and invite both Schori and Duncan to attend. I am not sure what Rowan could promise that such a meeting would accomplish. Moreover, whether the orthodox would trust Rowan now is doubtful.

The foregoing assumes that Rowan cares about preserving the office of ABC after him to be an Instrument. That assumption is not proven. Moreover, defying TEC would cost the Communion $$$ that TEC would cut off. Perhaps, in the end, the $$$ will govern Rowan’s conduct, especially in light that he probably agrees with TEC on the merits.

Could the Ridley Covenant be passed around for modification and approval to those who want to be orthodox Christian Church and play fairly with others - excluding TEC and the ACoC AND despite the disgusting shenanigans of the ACC/JSC/TEC/ABC in Jamaica?

TEC made that mistake once, and will not repeat it. RW would end up looking weak and impotent when the request is rejected.

Which again will be politely refused. KJS isn’t going to resign from anything. And why should she when she holds the whip in her hand? RW would end up looking weak and impotent when the request is rejected.

RW has already castrated the primates meeting, and in any case TEC has more support then might be suspected. It would provide an opportunity for expression of division right when RW wants expression of unity.

RW will do what he always does - speak to the right, and then act for the left. I expect that conservatives will be pleased at the statement he eventually issues. But it will be meaningless because no action will accompany it. Just like always.

#21 - Wait! Hold the bus. Matthew A has a brother who goes by the former name of mousestalker? This is much bigger news than what Rowan won’t do.

I won’t link to it (F-bomb alert), but there is a line out of Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, that perfectly summarizes my feelings about the ++ABC.

With all due respect to Chris Jones at #24, I do not think that the statute he cites means what he says it means. The text of the statute limits its applications to the situation of recognizing the authority of foreign clergy in Great Britain. It is not a global empowerment of Canterbury to determine what communion means. That being said, I think that ++Rowan has inherent authority to declare TEC out of communion any time he wants to do so (but he doesn’t want to do so, apparently). But I don’t think we should rhetorically or legally rely upon the statute proferred at #24. Sorry!

O God, the Father of all, whose Son commanded us to love our enemies: Lead them and us from prejudice to truth; deliver them and us from hatred, cruelty, and revenge; and in your good time enable us all to stand reconciled before you; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

KingDavid, read what I wrote, please, and not what you attributed falsely to me. I said nothing about ACNA ‘leaders’ (your words). My text:

“The same cannot be said strictly speaking for ACNA for the simple reason that many/most of its most vocal supporters (at least here) don’t believe a covenant is a good mechanism, don’t trust +RDW, or don’t believe he is necessary (‘GS has more power’ talk)”.

If the leaders want a covenant, I should think that those who support ACNA on SF would agree. That is not the case (read someone like the ebulliant New Reformer, e.g.). My point was that.

Dr. Seitz, I thought that your word “here” meant in your location; it did not occur to me that it meant only those “supporters” who are on SF. But why not, then, make it clear that any negative feeling “here” is at odds with the statement of the leaders? Confining these supporters, then, to people on SF, I wonder if your interpretation of our opinions here, on SF, is accurate; certainly my wife and I have repeatedly been touting the ACNA resolution to accept the present draft of the Covenant and to be in solidarity with the CP Bishops. As most of us would acknowlege, I think (including ANR), we do not always agree with our New Reformation spokesman. I wonder how many SFers who speak for ACNA are really opposed to the leaders’ resolution in favor of the Covenant?

Of course, that should be husband and I have touted the Covenant. We have both been using the computer and messages are getting a little scrambled.

I don’t usually butt into this kind of stuff but I think the “at least here” was pretty clear and “most vocal supporters” suggest a small, but vocal group. Neither the leaders of ACNA nor a majority of it’s supporters here or elsewhere jumped to my mind.

Outstanding point. Couldn’t agree more. My language was clear: ‘supporters’ not ‘leaders.’ If ACNA believes in Covenant and its supporters at SF do not, then it would be helpful to know that is so. I am not a supporter of ACNA, but as you are, why not voice your concern? ACNA ought to be defended in its integrity and that is a job for those who seek what it seeks.

My remarks were to Paula and her husband, or vice versa. Rocks, you appear to see the issue.

What “moratorium” ? There never was one.. “Encouraging” someone not to do something, is NOT a moratorium, its an encouragement/suggestion…

Clarifying TEC’s position on same sex activities in no way says anything about the moratorium, just simply says, WE don’t think these folk (active gays) should have any reason to NOT be approved for ordination/consecration.

It is indeed an argument against the suggestion!
It remains to be seen what happens now. I would also suggest that the ordination of practicing/partnered folk (after this) will also put the “so there” on the above arguement.

There is no moratorium, ergo no reason to “overturn” the suggestion.
Grannie G.

I am in ACNA and I definitely support the covenant. It isn’t perfect, but it is certainly better than anything that is currently in place. There has to be a mechanism for disciplining errant provinces.

#45, with respect, you have it exactly backwards. If CP increases, ACNA can also. If the covenant process is a dead-end, however, then ACNA will move forward regardless, and the Communion will splinter. Many who support ACNA accept that as a possible, if not positive, outcome. CP is not looking to ACNA as a way forward, for principled reasons…even as some of CP could find this an option when other things fail (as many others might). Matt Kennedy, I thought, got the gist of this in his fine comments last week. Sarah has been tireless on this point as well. Those who believe that ACNA is some kind of lifeboat for CP simply do not understand the principled differences. I am thankful that the leaders of SF, in the form of Matt and Sarah at least, accept that. I would also argue that CP might end up being very useful to ACNA, but God alone will decide that, and ACNA supporters may well prefer to have a Canterbury-free, Covenant-free ‘new reformation church.’

The covenant is having late decel’s (fetal distress) and its medical team consist of 4 late term abortionists and one Ob-Gyn. The team is preparing to dilate the cervix, deliver the head (section 4), crush it and deliver the rest stillborn.

The Ridley draft is simply sad. It makes one look back longingly at the flawed St. Andrews draft. The aborted fetus draft will obviously be weaker than the feeble Ridley.

If somehow the Americans actions could cause Rowan Williams to use his influence so that the Ridley comes out of it unscathed, there would be some hope for the CP-ers. As it is, Rowan was the one who put the abortionists on the medical team.

Well, I guess I would have to say that I do not support the Covenant “as written” since as written, all discipline is in the hand of the JSC, which is to say, under the complete and unchallenged control of Katharine Jefferts Schori. She and Ian Douglas now rule the committee, and she is the de facto head of the Anglican Communion until such time as she is removed from that committee. The GS will be disciplined for boundary crossing, and there will be no discipline whatsoever for TEC or ACoC- and everyone knows it.

If the Covenant emerges with real discipline- some sort of enforcement system with representation that gives the GS the influence that in a democratic system- vs. the current oligarchy of TEC, CoE and Wales, NZ and Austalia- it deserves, then I would have no problem supporting it. As long as TEC controls the levers of power, KJS will use Communion discipline as fairly as she has TEC discipline- with its hundreds of illegally deposed priests and dozen bishops- with more to come.

If ++Rowan was going to do something, he should have done it. All we have so far is a lot of loud rhetoric. It has been great rhetoric, and I thank the folks at Fulcrum and ACI, NT Wright and other English bishops, and those throughout the world who have made plain that TEC has walked apart from the Communion. Unfortunately, none of them holds any power.

My prediction is that if KJS retains her exalted position on the JSC, and sits as a voting primate by the end of the next Primates meeting the Communion will have 15-20 churches left in it, and maybe an ASA of 5 or 6 million inside 2 years.

“ACNA supporters may well prefer to have a Canterbury-free, Covenant-free ‘new reformation
church.’”

Dr. Seitz, with great respect (I have always greatly welcomed the ACI papers), I must have missed some thread on SF but did not notice on this blog that most ACNA supporters are in opposition to the Covenant (with #IV). I realise that the ACNA endorsement of the Covenant must complicate the ACI plan. I simply tell the truth when I say that you are one of the main writers I have read who claim that ACNA people do not like the Covenant. Since all of these perceptions do concern the way forward at this point, I don’t think this matter is off-topic on this thread. I understand why ACI would prefer to minimise the ACNA endorsement (as I believe they do), but don’t let our international hopes—hopes of uniting with CP and with the AC through the Covenant—be thwarted in any way by a few comments to the contrary on SF. Of course, not all our posters are ACNA people. The truth is that I am not in ACNA but I feel drawn to it, partly because of its affirmation of the Covenant. Imagine my surprise when I read your post (the post of a an honored authority) saying that ACNA members do not stand by their leaders’ resolution. I hope they do, and I hope that the official ACNA position will be trumpeted by ACI. I realise that there may be official reasons that it is easier at this time for the Communion Partners to be recognised, and I will be delighted for them to be recognised. But Anglican Communion authorities need to understand how much geography and good fortune have favored some and not others in the United States debacle. I believe that: I know what it is to be 1500 and more miles from a Communion Partner and to have one’s spiritual treasure and one’s family sinking into the deepest revisionist slough with no refuge in sight but ACNA. Please report this kind of experience to the larger Communion; I believe that it is all too common a plight and that it is often overlooked.

Somewhere around the time of NOLA, I began wondering why would anyone give a certain part of a rat’s anatomy about belonging to an Anglican Communion headed by “Rowan - the ditherer - Williams”? I sent him an email this morning in essence suggesting that his excellency is more like his uselessness and that in light of the fact that it did not appear that he would “man up” and speak up about Gencon’s actions, he could do us all a favor and immediately resign. It is good, however, to see how realistic so many are being about this man. I guess anyone who got his job through that moon bat Prince Charles couldn’t be expected to do anymore than he’s not done.

I am in ACNA…I am fine that there is a Covenant…I hope it is actually implemented…we shall see. I am in TX…but in an area where “moderate” TEC is strong…and ironically in an area where CP isn’t. CP gets some lip-service, but not much play…and the lip-service is getting fainter and fainter. Even in the more conservatively “blessed” places, it’s still touch and go.

At this point, I am in ACNA, all I want is a Gospel filled Church. I do not want to be free of anything that is tied to the Communion but the leadership has let me down. I can support those in and out of TEC who are orthodox. What I can’t support is the bickering back and forth of which group is better. Neither is, but we have a lot more in common I would have thought than the liberal TEC. Right now, there are probably people out there who feel stuck. How do we help them?
By the way, to keep this on topic .... I have no expectations of the +ABC.
Rant off.
I have been baptized but not looking for ordination.

The ACNA has spoken unequivocally as a body that it endorses the former covenant draft. It would sign tomorrow.

I am one ACNA supporter that has been very skeptical that the Covenant is the cure, and believe it could become a detriment to the greater cause if (1) it is used as an excuse for not taking bold action on other fronts; or (2) if it becomes the watered down document that means nothing. However, it a covenant draft with teeth emerges, I will endorse it along with everyone else.

Kindly cease misrepresenting/editorialising, #69. I have no strong view on ACNA and covenant at all. That is because ACNA supporters have said, and indeed say here, a variety of things about its desirability. It complicates CP not one iota. CP is not in competition with ACNA for ‘market share.’ Both groups are addressing a specific problem, in different ways. Should the covenant via Section 4 allow for sub-provincial assent to a covenant, and should ACNA decide this is a good way forward, that would be outstanding, if it comports with what ACNA seeks in larger terms. But that is hardly for me to say as I am not affiliated with ACNA.
As for your point about geography. It is simply very hard to know what the effect of differentiation might be. If the situation is so dire that major portions of TEC ended up in a second tier, then the entire way of thinking about anglican life in the US would have to be reconsidered. That is of course the position CP has worked for, because it follows from the logic of a Communion in interdependence, not autonomous national churches/provinces.

Or—there is considerable anxiety that D025 and C056 will not be taken in the way that the spin seeks, and some bishops are running for cover. But this makes them look foolish, since the authors of Anaheim (like Lilliebridge in TX who has written a clear statement on D025 and C056 to his diocese) clearly voted No and did so for reasons that they made clear.

Yes - this highlights what I read from +Kendall about the utter theological incoherence of TEC.

#44 - To be clear, I did not mean to suggest the Archbishop could recognize the ACNA as a province. I did mean to suggest that he could, as the CoE is being asked to do, state that he is in communion with the ACNA, or more specifically, its bishops.

#76 - “Both groups are addressing a specific problem, in different ways.” Which I think is because the problem has manifested itself differently in places, leading to different solutions in different contexts.

In some ways, I think the CP and the ACNA both want the same thing from a covenant - one they can sign on to. I think TEC is seeking a covenant that neither CP bishops nor ACNA ones can sign.

I suppose the Archbishop could simply try to kick things down the road until the covenant is done. But given the lack of trust that many have in the Archbishop, even more so after his actions at the ACC meeting in Jamaica (and it gives me no pleasure to say that; I am simply observing), I suspect that he does not have the benefit of time to do so. Events might then simply overtake him.

Again I have to ask the question, why are bishops who intentionally voted to destroy the Communion- by voting for either or both D025 or C056- being ALLOWED to sign the Anaheim statement? Certainly some of the drafters of the statement read these blogs. Can you supply any rational answer as to why, after determining that TEC should walk away from the Communion, these bishops are allowed to sign on? To date, there is no requirement that anyone repent of their GC decision. All the statement stands to achieve is to provide support for +Rowan giving TEC yet another pass.

If the voters for D025 and C056 have no more principle than to sign on, and the authors allow them to do it, then the authors might as well have written this to help the revisionists get another pass. Was that their intent? I can’t think so, but it is sad to see this being twisted into another tool for the revisionists.

URGENT UPDATE:
After his day-trip to Bristol yesterday, our busy Archbishop has today backed the ‘Candles for Rwanda’ initiative:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/2495

I have caught sight of his itinery:
Monday: ‘Evangelicals and Catholics, can they get along without fighting’ conference at Bristol Cathedral
Tuesday: Light candle for Rwanda genocide with other public figures
Wednesday: Blessing of the vegetables at St Andrew’s House
Thursday: Inaugural sitting of committee for installation of self-composting lavatories at Lambeth Palace
Friday: Lunch with Tom Butler at House of Lords 11 am to 7 pm
Saturday: Write sermon for Sunday: ‘Christ’s environmental footprint’ exploring the use of palm matting entering Jerusalem and the carbon savings from using donkeys

LOL, Pageantmaster. Can I “do lunch” with the ABC?
How much longer, do you think? At least while we are waiting we don’t have to be unhappy with what he hasn’t said yet….

The picture is foggy from Lambeth oscewicee so I wouldn’t like to say - others like Prof Seitz reckon shortly but I wouldn’t like to say.

This might be the ABC’s response to GC09. It is nuanced, touches on border crossings, speaks of responsibility to our neighbors, and he looks resolved. He blew out the wick to send a message to us all. It is a parable.

1. Regarding Entmoots: There are plenty of hobbits to encourage Rowan to come to a decision. However, unlike JRRT’s entmoot, Rowan discounts the hobbits and allows Saruman to influence the outcome. Thus the trees continue to get the chop. Our tree here is in the background giving itself good fertilizer and growing.

2 “... the real battle is not between New York and Canterbury. It is between the Schori-Beers…” I would say the Schori/Beers - Kearon tripartite.

3. I’m waiting for Tom Wright to let us know about the letter that is on its way.

I really think that Rowan is staring into that candle to try and divine what the gods want him to say to the world about the carbon footprint left by burning candles.

.89 On reflection, I think you’re right. And I’m pleased that Danny Glover contributed HIS bit, as well. Very effective!

As Dr. Seitz has invoked me on this thread (#58), let me try to clarify my position, lest it be misunderstood. I won’t try to speak for robroy or others in the whimsical NRAFC, although I think it’s fair to say that however small our vocal group might be, it’s growing.

Like Going Home (#73) and TJ (#68), and like Dr. Noll and the assembled leaders of the ACNA at the recent Provincial Assembly in Texas, I would be happy to see the Covenant adopted by as many provinces as possible, as well as other “churches,” including orthodox dioceses and parishes within TEC, and thus drawing back into the AC the REC and other breakaway groups both inside and outside the ACNA. I can live with the Ridley Draft, including its crucial section 4.1.5, although of course I wish the Covenant were much stronger.

So I am NOT opposed to the Covenant per se. And I fully recognize, as Sarah Hey among others has made clear over and over, the principled differences that keep many supporters of the CP from ever siding with the ACNA.

But I am very much opposed to relying on the Covenant alone (or primarily) to save the AC. I am firmly and fervently convinced that the ACI approach, and the whole Windsor/Covenant process it endorses, is hopelessly inadequate to deal with the severity and depth of this crisis. And that is because that process is not nearly radical enough to deal with the fatal flaws of the current international structures of Anglicanism at their roots (radix, Latin). It’s clear to me that the whole Windsor/Covenant process amounts to nothing more than plucking up a few dandelion stems (or Canadian Thistles or other obnoxious weeks), while leaving the roots still there in the ground to reproduce.

Yes, I am proudly and unashamedly “ebullient” about the prospects of the Rew Reformation, even if it ends up hastening the demise of the old wineskins of the AC. Because, make no mistake, those former institutional wineskins are completely and hopelessly obsolete, and they are beyond salvaging. But please note, the ACNA and the wider FCA/GAFCON movement, aren’t gleefully tossing aside connection with the ancient see of Canbterbury as so much excess baggage. Our leaders have made that clear repeatedly.

But we aren’t willing to grant the hapless, indecisive, internally divided ++RW veto power over our actions either. Just because I now care FAR MORE about being in communion with Abuja and Kampala and Nairobi than with Canterbury or York doesn’t mean that I’ve stopped caring about communion with those historic English sees. But it does mean that, to put it in a nutshell, DOCTRINE TRUMPS POLITY, NOT VICE VERSA. That is the all important point.

But let me close on a conciliatory note. I still welcome and applaud the heroic labors of the ACI team. I’m encouraged by the strong, unequivocal words by which +Wright and Fulcrum have condemned the blatantly schismatic actions of GenCon in Anaheim. I look upon the CP movement as allies, not as foes, even if the favor isn’t always returned.

However, I’m totally convinced that the Windsor/Covenant process is utterly inadequate to deal with the root problems that have made this crisis so wearisome and unresolvable. As I keep saying, and let long-suffering SF readers pardon the repetition one more time, the Old Anglicanism that we’ve known up until now must die, in order that a new and better form of Anglicanism can arise in its place.

And that New Anglicanism will be genuinely new in that it will mark a major transition to Anglicanism recovering a clear and coherent confessional basis. That will, in my opinion, require a new creed to be adopted, to replace or at least supplement the 39 Articles, one that explictly condemns the great heresies of our time, the theological relativism, the moral antinomianism, and the basic Gnostic worldview so prevalent in the Global North these days.

It will also require the development of new polity structures at the international level that will, for the first time, create binding, transprovincial bodies that can impose effective discipline across provincial boundaries. Starting with the Anglican Supreme Court I keep mentioning as a necessity.

The problem is NOT Roman style tyranny. We need to get over that fear that’s a hangover from the first Reformation. Rather, the much greater problem is Protestant anarchy. And we simply have to face that problem head on and find a way to build genuine discipline into our Anglican system of polity.

RE #70):> ” I began wondering why would anyone give a certain part of a rat’s anatomy about belonging to an Anglican Communion headed by “Rowan - the ditherer - Williams”?”

No longer Episcopalian in NH, The problem your above statement is that there are many, many ACNA members and other Anglicans who consider Canterbury to be a critically important connection -preferably not headed by Rowan (despite the beauty and wondrous looks and properties of the tree as exemplified by Quickbeam).

Kenneth Kearon: There, I finished drafting it.
Kate Schori: Nicely done, Kenneth.
Bonnie Anderson: Pretty good. Tell him to incorporate my tracked changes.
Kate Schori: Make the enclosed changes, Kenneth. Be sure to attach our certified check.
Kenneth Kearon: We are most grateful. OK, your Grace, ready for you to sign.
Rowan Williams: Done.

Today, we are reminded that we might get swine flu if we are in communion with each other. I tell you, he is speaking to us in parables.

Interesting 99…
Swine Flu may not be emptying Anglican pews as fast as some OTHER things, though…
He had time to write this, but not THAT…

I guess he thinks he can do something in that area but in the other….the great katherine rules

If you were the +ABC, how would you handle the situation? The only rule is that you can’t kick TEC out. (I am in ACNA, for full disclosure.)
How would handle those dioceses that have fought the good fight - like Albany, South Carolina, Springfield etc.? Would you put their bishops on some of the AC committees? Maybe announce you were in full communion with them, but not others.
What about the churches, the rectors who just want to be faithful Christians and be in full communion with you? Would you acknowledge them?
What would you do about ACNA, knowing they haven’t applied to be the 39th province? Would you recognize their bishops and priests? Would you accept two churches in North America?
Prehaps have a two tier Communion?
How would handle the Covenant?
Or just resign and give the mess to someone else to deal with.

Fr. Handy, was #102 just to prove that you can do a one-liner? Sorry. I couldn’t resist that. The devil made me do it: )

martin5, one step that would be appropriate (though sadly, highly unlikely) would be to take the PB off the JSC. If you’re kicking all the other members of the Communion in the teeth, there’s no good reason for you to be on the summits of power.

Well, TEC has effectively called his bluff, pushing at the boundaries until they have just picked up the courage to kick the door in. We will have to see. The way to proceed is set out in the Windsor Report and subsequent communiques.

That is without prejudice to TEC’s contention that the door is still there, notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary, or was never there at all depending on who is speaking out of which side of their mouth.

Even ACI has recently called for strengthening section four of the covenant. What concerns me is that, like the “Anaheim Statement” if it is drafted as a conciliatory statement (as much as a position statement), TEC will sign at the Province level and again say that “nothing has changed”. TEC leadership has taken spin to the level of morphing a completely new meaning for documents that are in any way “nuanced”. TEC is run by lawyers who only want to present their side of the truth. The way things are now, If TEC had asked General MacAuliffe to surrender his response of “Nuts” would be understood as a request to negotiate.

Hmmm… I see my name being bandied about re: the Covenant, so please allow me to state what I actually think-
1) The Covenant has no meaning until such time as the CoE signs it.

2) Unless there is some stipulation that in order to serve on the JSC, you must a) be signatory to the Covenant and b) must also be in full communion with at least ___ provinces of the Communion, section 4 as written is meaningless.

3) If, like the Anaheim statement, those committed to the Communion’s utter destruction are ALLOWED to sign on, the Covenant merely resets the clock back to 1998, and we get to go through another 15-20 years of disintegration.

4) Understand that if TEC signs on, TEC will interpret that as the Communion’s complete acceptance of “where TEC is now” and since they control the disciplinary structure, will use the Covenant to ostracize and eventually eliminate the GS from the Communion.

5) The PB will use the same format she is currently using- every affront by TEC will be followed by an outright lie about how the affront is not an affront, and in any case, what about the evil border crossers? Since she is, under section 4, the arbiter of what is and is not an affront, and has declared 60 million Anglicans to be heretics, this is a formula for utter disaster.

6) Therefore, I am in favor of the Covenant if, and only if, the current disciplinary corruption is addressed AND the CoE signs it. Without both of those, it is as meaningful as a Panel of Reference commentary.

Floridian,
Because it wouldn’t fair to those who are orthodox and it would limit our imagination to solvingthe problem.

So, PB gets kick out of the JSC. Maybe one of the bishops, who did not vote for either C056 and D025, could replace her as an Episcopal consultant to the committee. In addition, perhaps Dioceses can send their assessment money to Anglican mission projects instead of 815. After all, the church is all about mission, mission, mission ...

Martin-
There is no “Episcopal consultant” to the committee. It is the “Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates.” Which is to say, one is either elected to it by the ACC, or one is selected by the Primates. It has been the habit (not sure it is in writing anywhere) for the Primates to send one Primate from each continent (lumping NZ and some islands into Australia for this purpose). The issue is that Africa, with easily 50% of the Communion’s membership, gets the same representation as N. America, with 5%. If KJS were to be removed, she would presumably be replaced by ++Canada or ++Mexico.
TEC is grossly overrepresented on the JSC, with KJS and Ian Douglas both on it, when arguably, they are so tiny that they should not have a rep on it at all. That Douglas was “elected” by ACC after he had helped engineer the dismembering of the Covenant is indicative of how corrupt the process is. That TEC has any members on the ACC after their refusal of Lambeth 1.10 and Windsor is also indicative of how corrupt the process is.

Re: TJ’s #111, does anyone know what’s happening in the Methodist church? A friend has told me that he thinks the Methodists will be spared TEC’s failure, thanks to the increased power going to the church in Africa and Asia, where there are more believers. Maybe what the Communion needs is not a covenant (since TEC is perfectly capable of saying yes and meaning no) so much as a restructuring that allows the power to go where the people are, presumably where the church is most alive and healthy and holy.

TJ,
I know there isn’t(I was just imagining her being replaced by one her bishops) but replacing her with Canada’s isn’t a great idea either since he is just as bad. I don’t know about Mexico’s.

The main point here is that the United Methodist Church has a number of African conferences. Their increasing numbers have helped to shape the debate at General Conference.

Ron, ++Mexico is the lapdog of ++Los Angeles et al, and would be no improvement in point of view or theology. Perhaps he would be a less effective spokesman for the revisionist wing.

Slap my hand! We shall surely rue the day on which the bishop of Los Angeles were to get two ++s in front of his name, and I am embarrased.

Hey, if I ran the ABC’s office, there’d be a WHOLE LOT OF THINGS different than just the timing of statements.

Despite what I wrote, my #115 was a reply to martinS in his #113. I’ll go back to sleep now.

I am sure there are furious on-going negotiations with many groups regarding what this statement should look like and that takes time.

Katie has given Rowan a fig leaf spin if he thinks he can use it. Otherwise something more substantial will be needed. I personally think he would be so angry with TEC he would love to be done with them—but then there is the $$.

Late to the game here, but NRA+ in #94 largely speaks for me as well in this case. Although I might soften the bit about a new creed as perhaps a bridge too far; perhaps some add’l Articles (or even a contemporary restatement of the Articles) would do the trick.

#121 - Purely speculation, of course, but the Anderson-Schori letter that was clearly intended to be a fig leaf has likely been found to be too small to be effective. I suspect that Lambeth would prefer not to acknowledge the truth about what TEC did, and trying to figure out how to say something about it that is not obviously false has proven difficult, thus the delay.

I think it must also be difficult to address people who will persist in saying red is blue despite the obvious falseness of their claim.

My face is blue from waiting on the ABC to issue a statement…hope i don’t pass o

At this juncture, AbC’s silence is an indication of complete comfort with TE([{c}])‘s full and utter autonomy. Therefore, TE([{c}]) can do whatever it wants with impunity. Such a deal. Feh.

#123,
Yes, it is a small fig leaf and perhaps he feels he would look pretty stupid wearing it.

It is so freeing to be able to speak clearly-and kindly- what one believes and then deal with the reprocussions as needed. He has many examples if he should care to do that.
I believe COE has become an old, tired institution with little or no relevance to the world or faith. Rowan has a home.

“How long, O Lord, how long?”
I think (as another commenter - somewhere - said) the silence of the Global South is also speaking volumes. One would have expected Nigeria or Southern Cone (at least these 2 if not more) to have commented before now.

I think the fact that the GS has not officially reacted as a group indicates that ++Williams is in conversation with them, and that for the moment they believe he is listening to them. How long they will continue to believe that remains to be seen.

Dr. Williams faces a dilemma. He is, no doubt, trying to find language that a) does not outright excommunicate (in both senses) TEC’s leadership and b) is acceptable to at least 20 provinces. Letting TEC slide, as +Shannon Johnson pointed out, is acceptable to perhaps 8 provinces, or maybe 7 now, judging from the CoE reaction so far. It might be possible to get 20 to go along with extreme sanctions against TEC- essentially throwing them out- which already, essentially, has the backing of a dozen or so. But ++Williams has eliminated that as an option. The problem is that the “middle ground only includes about 15 provinces, and there is a very wide variance of opinion over the appropriate discipline. It seems unlikely that ++Williams will be able to get ++Chew, ++Anis and ++Gomez to go along with letting TEC off the hook once again, and so, the coalition necessary to give TEC a pass does not exist.

This is also a case where he is called upon to act in both of his dual roles- as ABoC he is both head of the Communion and head of the CoE. If he is consistent with the recent ultimatum delivered to the Church of Sweden, TEC has a problem with the CoE. Additionally, many of the liberals of the CoE are making an issue of TEC’s insult to ++Rowan at Anaheim- one does not invite the ABoC and then spit in his face. And KJS’ “heresy” remarks went over like a lead balloon.

Regardless of the spin, there is no way that TEC’s recent actions and positions can be portrayed as other than even less in line with Windsor, Lambeth 1.10 and the Covenant than their position prior to GC. If the ABoC wants the Communion to survive, he must, for once, act, or at the very least, get out of the way, and let the Primates act. His intercession on behalf of TEC leadership needs to be limited to intercessory prayer. They have chosen to break communion. He needs to recognize that fact.

Perhaps they’re directing their comments where they will do the most good, GL+.

As time passes, the Anglican Communion bureaucracy, including the ACC, has time to maximize its influence on whatever statement will be made, or actions taken. That is NOT a factor that favors the orthodox. This has been proven time and time again.

What is the ABC’s primary objective now? Bringing TEC into repentance? History says otherwise, that his primary goal is to keep TEC in good standing within the Communion regardless of its innovations. Keeping the GS happy is important, but not as important. I thus expect something that appears tough, but in reality is not. In the past that has been sufficient to keep some conservatives “at the table”.

within the first couple of years after his election VGR told a group of students at Dartmouth college that he knew it was the will of the Holy Spirit that the communion would split. Now, I have no reason to believe that VGR was listening to the voice of God. However, I think that IS the overarching mission of TEC. I think their efforts at placating have only been to bide time while they become deeply entrenched in Western society and establish their “credibility” as the church of the “future”. Why else would they appear to be on a suicide course while saying they want to be in the AC? I believe what people do, not what they say. Besides, if TEC remains in the AC, how can VGR ever get canonized???? ‘cause if there’s any of you out there who don’t think he thinks he’s a genuine martyr, I have a snow bank in the dessert to sell you. And, there’s lots in TEC who think VGR is a martyr. Although, he was relatively quiet at Anaheim - some may be getting burnt out on the VGR narcissism. BTW, thank you to Fr. Handy (#94) for so eloquently and logically putting forth what I was feeling in my gut and shotting my mouth off about.

©2009 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.