Please note: Since the time this post was made, the text of the document posted by ACI site has been corrected. Because the original thread has comments, we did not want to just delete the original excerpt and replace with the corrected text as it would confuse the conversation.  We did feel, however, that it was important to post the correct version.  You can find the corrected text here and ask that you continue your conversation on the new thread in light of the update.

The ACI has posted the thoughts of NT Wright on Rowan Williams reflection.  I’m surprised that the ACI has not released their own single perspective—but perhaps it was felt that a name such as NT Wright’s would be better at this time, with collaboration from the two other organizations.

One sturdy part of the piece was the list of challenges that will need to be faced.  I’ve excerpted a bit of that here—but hie thee hence and look the entire piece over:

(iii) What about Parishes and Individuals? But here’s the problem: it is one thing for bishops and their dioceses to be ‘Communion Partners’, recognised by Lambeth and the wider Communion as full ‘Track One’ members. (That carries its own problems, but if the diocese is the primary unity, as the ABC has insisted, it is clearly possible.) It isn’t so clear how that would work for parishes, let alone for individuals. But a way must be found. The now largely discredited ‘DEPO’ system (‘Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight’) may have been a signpost, albeit one that didn’t seem to be capable of working well, towards some kind of a solution. Granted, the Covenant will provide some kind of a line in the sand. (iv) Getting from Here to There: But how a parish in a non-signing diocese, or an individual in a non-signing parish or diocese, can become a ‘Track One’ Anglican, recognised as such globally, remains to be seen. Many in that position neither want nor intend to join a movement like ACNA, nor should they be put in a position where they have no other option. We may need some interim structures to get us from where we are to where we need to be – and not only in TEC, but also in Canada and perhaps elsewhere. But we need these now, not in six months let alone six years. The Communion Partner bishops should perhaps restate their willingness to provide, with the permission of the relevant Diocesan, alternative oversight for parishes in Dioceses whose bishops might find their relation to the wider Communion to have changed. Issues of polity should, if possible, be dealt with at a provincial, not a global, level.

What about ACNA? All this raises, then, the question of ACNA itself. Without some kind of clear steer on the issues just raised, we can expect that ACNA will continue to attract individuals, congregations and perhaps even dioceses. This is, indeed, already happening. However, though the situation on the ground is often confused, ACNA has expressed a clear willingness to work with the Communion Partner bishops towards whatever greater good may come. And ACNA itself has shown itself eager to sign the Covenant when it is complete. All this will go into the melting pot of whatever new alignments the Communion will discover over the coming months. It is important that bridges, not fences, be built during this period.

‘In Communion’? A pressing question in all of this must be: who, both during this process and at its end, will be ‘in Communion’ with whom? Once Tracks One and Two have been identified, will there be mutual recognition of ministries? Presumably not if Track One is committed to Paragraph 8 of the Archbishop’s paper while Track Two is committed to demolishing it. Will communicants be welcome across the gap between the Tracks? If the Covenant becomes the gold standard, and if ACNA sign up as they may well, will the rest of the Communion (including of course the C of E) be ‘in communion’ with ACNA? These are difficult and uncomfortable questions. But they will certainly emerge; there is already a motion on the subject slated for General Synod in February 2010, though by then all sorts of things may look different.

No Delay. As this process continues to unfold, there is one major problem with a proposal to put all the eggs into the Covenant basket. (I had always understood that the Covenant was not designed to deal with the post-2003 problem, but rather to head off quite different problems that might arise in the future. I remain wary of trying, now, to put all the weight for the full sorting-out of the 2003 problem on to the Covenant, especially on to one brief, dense and inevitably controversial section of it, and particularly when the final drafting of that section is in the hands of a very small group, albeit then reporting to the ABC.) Now that GenCon 09 has happened, even if the Covenant is completed within a few months TEC will assuredly say that it can’t consider it until 2012, and that such consideration could only be preliminary, looking to a more definite decision in 2015. This delaying tactic – twelve years from 2003, when the crisis really began! – must be seen for what it is, and headed off. The obvious way to do this is to declare that ‘Track One’ is open, right away, to Covenant signatories, and only Covenant signatories. How precisely that could be done (granted that the Joint Standing Committee, for instance, includes some from TEC and other sympathetic provinces) remains a question. But it needs to be done, and done quickly.

Section 4 of the Covenant. Picking up the point just made: Section 4 of the Covenant needs to proceed swiftly to its final form. This process is far too important to be left to a small group advising the Archbishop. When the Archbishop receives the group’s work, he should consult with key Communion representatives to ensure that there are no remaining hidden problems. In this process, any reduction or limiting of Section 4 will be a large step away from the mind of the Communion as the ABC has himself expressed it, and would have the effect of nullifying all that he has said in his Reflections.

What about Parishes and Individuals? But here’s the problem: it is one thing for bishops and their dioceses to be ‘Communion Partners’, recognised by Lambeth and the wider Communion as full ‘Track One’ members. (That carries its own problems, but if the diocese is the primary unity, as the ABC has insisted, it is clearly possible.) It isn’t so clear how that would work for parishes, let alone for individuals.

Ultimately the options related to power and money. Most bishops are not going to be willing to divide their dioceses between congregations or individuals, just to satisfy theological divisions. Because Anglicanism up to now has been mostly geographically based, this kind of division is threatening to those have the reigns of power (Bishops) and the resulting revenue. At a time when revenues are in a shortfall this will be even more difficult.

I like Dr William’s proposal, it seems the best we could hope for at this point in keeping the communion together, but the local TEC leadership (bishops) will have to be given great incentives and assurances for a two track system to be instituted in their dioceses. Besides in TEC that would require major changes to our constitution, which takes two conventions to get through. That would be 2015. We don’t have that kind of time.

We need another short range plan

We can speak of “communion” and the entities of TEC, ACNA, and so many more all we want, but for me it boils down to what the ordinary orthodox person will do, and not the “institutions” and their machinations, whatever they may be.  I have been part of a reasonably orthodox TEC parish with reasonably orthodox clergy.  Despite that, I have left that parish as I can no longer stomach any kind of link with anything that has to do with TEC.  Where does that leave me personally, and where does it leave the many thousands of others like me?  I have looked for an ACNA parish, but there are none at any reasonable distance from where I live and work.  I am convinced of traditional Anglican theology, and I can live with the polity - BUT I HAVE NO PLACE TO GO - other than to another denominational church - AND I DO NOT WANT TO DO THAT.  Talk about institutional politics all you like, but don’t forget about me and the huge number of people out there like me.  We need someone, some entity, to address our situation.

Two tiers, two tracks, doesn’t make a difference. Whether Canterbury tries to set up a system that seeks to withhold legitimacy from TEC’s heresies, or tries to set up a system that simply seeks to offer other provinces the appearance of a quarantine from those heresies, does not address the core issue, which is: Will Canterbury tolerate, in any way, competing and mutually-exclusive truth claims on what Christianity is? Will it continue to lend its imprimatur to something that is not remotely Christian? That’s the only question

Let’s face it: If TEC didn’t have any money, we wouldn’t be debating any of this. This “crisis” would be a blip on history’s radar screen, and we’d be on to other things. The only reason Rowan Williams is giving this gay nonsense the time of day is because without TEC’s money, he’d have a hard time keeping the lights on in the Anglican Communion’s ivory towers.

I believe the covenant should be left out of any future planning.  TEC primates now have a history of signing things and then doing and saying just the opposite.  TEC will sign the covenant and then continue to do as it pleases.
  Angliscot, there is an option available to you.  Start working with others you know to start a new orthodox Anglican mission in your area.

Bishop Wright has given us a very insightful analysis of Rowan’s statement (as one would expect).  I especially appreciate his calling attention in several places to the fact that we are out of time—delay will be fatal to the Communion.

My own initial reaction to Rowan’s reflection (which was certainly not intended as a scholarly analysis) is far more pessimistic, because (assuming that past behavior is the best indicator of future performance) Rowan will fail to take any of the actions Bishop Wright recognizes must be done if the Communion (as any kind of meaningful Christian entity) is to be saved.  I can only hope Bishop Wright’s analysis receives the attention it deserves at Lambeth Palace.

Robert S. Munday+

Angliscot,

David+ beat me to it.  Is there any chance you have like-minded individuals around you who are interested in the same thing?  Start reading Morning Prayer on Sunday mornings together, at someone’s home. 

I think your message has spurred me to consider what ACNA may do to encourage folks like yourself to find a way forward that is hopeful in these cases where people are isolated from any already-organized ACNA presence.

Perhaps ACNA needs to develop hotline for house-based fellowships - a way of letting them know you are out there and would like support.  Maybe an occasional traveling priest can stop by and bring communion to you.  Like the circuit riders of old?  Like myself, they would certainly be willing to do so - if they knew where people were located that desired such a ministry.

Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. David’s Anglican (ACNA)
Durant, Iowa

Fr. Darin, could parishes request a eucharist from an ACNA priest? (Wondering how much trouble a TEC parish would get into for that one.)

. But we need these now, not in six months let alone six years. The Communion Partner bishops should perhaps restate their willingness to provide, with the permission of the relevant Diocesan, alternative oversight for parishes in Dioceses whose bishops might find their relation to the wider Communion to have changed. Issues of polity should, if possible, be dealt with at a provincial, not a global, level.

I appreciate that he sees the urgency of the situation. But I think there is no chance at all that a non-orthodox bishop is going to permit CP oversight to one of his parishes. I’m afraid such plans, including flying bishops (though I’d still like to see some bishops fly), are doomed at the outset. It really seems to me that no one has an answer for isolated orthodox believers. If you have congregationalist leanings, that may matter less.

Greg,
I disagree with you.  Money is not the sole motivator for Rowan Williams. I’m not sure it is a motivator at all.  It is certainly true that the loss of income from TEC to ministry and mission throughout the AC will be missed.  To say that money is what drives the ABC is to make a cartoon of him.  Reducing him to a thin man easily dismissible is precisely what we orthodox have endured from revisionists for many years now.  Lets not do the same to others.
We all wish +++Williams would act faster.  But consider this: we orthodox like much of his proposal but wish faster action, while revisionists just don’t like it at all. He is standing on our side.  Lets try to avoid “friendly fire”.

Very thoughtful reflections from +Wright, but I still wonder how many diocesans in TEC would permit alternative oversight.  And what would happen if an orthodox diocesan is asked to yield on oversight to a liberal bishop for a liberal parish in his territory?

The only reason Rowan Williams is giving this gay nonsense the time of day is because without TEC’s money, he’d have a hard time keeping the lights on in the Anglican Communion’s ivory towers.

People keep saying that but I’m not quite convinced it is true.

I don’t have time to articulate all the reasons right now, but far more important reasons are, in my mind:

1) The theology of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his top advisors.

2)  The common heritage and cultural similitude between Americans and the English, particularly the type of often Anglophile WASP’s that tend to make of the leadership of TEC.  It is not enough that the Americans have money.  They are spending their money imitating English liturgies, architecture, music, etc. 

Being a big fan of English church choirs, I think it worth noting that whenever they do a tour of the United States, many if not the majority of their concert and service appearances are in Episcopalian churches.  Many notable Episcopalian choirs tour England regularly.  I recently attended a joint concert at the Washington National Cathedral with the WNC Choir, the Canterbury Cathedral Choir, and the Choir of St Thomas 5th Avenue.  One English choir that did a recent tour included stops at Pittsburgh Diocese several parishes that stayed in TEC, but none that left for ACNA.

3)  A great deal more lattitudinarism, liberalism, broad churchism, apathy and “can’t we all just get alongism” on the part of many (most?) English Anglicans than many English Evangelicals are willing to admit.

“He is standing on our side.”

His actions prove otherwise, at every major junction.

The only reason Rowan Williams is giving this gay nonsense the time of day is because without TEC’s money…”

Has everyone forgotten about ‘The Body’s Grace’?   Hint, it’s not ‘Theology of the Body’ by John Paul II by a long shot.

The reason RW gives TEC the time of day is because he believes as they do.  The only reluctance is that he does not believe the ‘theology’ has been sufficiently developed to convince the ‘mind of the Communion’ AT THIS TIME…but he has said he believes it can be proven/defended eventually.
This is his publicly stated position.

Will Canterbury tolerate, in any way, competing and mutually-exclusive truth claims on what Christianity is? Will it continue to lend its imprimatur to something that is not remotely Christian? That’s the only question

BTW, to me the surprising thing is not that the See of Canterbury has failed to anathemize theological liberals, but that a New Labour political appointee has failed to unreservedly advance the liberal agenda, and has even publicly pointed out why Integrity’s arguments fall short of Catholic Christianity. 

It is almost like a member of Obama’s cabinet speaking out against the stimulus plan or health care “reform”, or the Chaplain to the Senate giving a rousing fire and brimstone “Come to Jesus” speech on the Senate floor should the Senate begin deliberations on FOCA.

I posted this on the wrong thread:

The Anaheim Statement... Some reports indicate that bishops who voted with the majority in Gen Con are now realising the predicament they’ve put themselves in and are starting to sign up to Anaheim instead.

Here is a serious flaw in the Bishop’s thinking and plan. The reasserter blogs decry as duplicitous the bishops who voted for the two communion-breaking resolutions at GenCon, then proceeded to sign the communion-confirming Anaheim Statement. (What do the reassessor blogs say? That these bishops are repenting, as +Wright seems to think?)

+Wright wants to use the Anaheim Statement as an interim Way Forward. This would be a disaster.

#7 (osciwicee),

I don’t know why any parish couldn’t request a eucharist from an ACNA priest.  That priest, with the permission of his or her bishop (in ACNA), could preside.

If the service is being requested by a TEC congregation, then the ACNA priest would certainly (I would think) suggest the event happen off-site, so as not to challenge the TEC bishop directly.  It’s a free country!  For now.

Darin+

Sarah - In case it helps a friendly nod - the version of the statement linked is correct but the extract at the head of this column is from an earlier version at the moment.  People may like to check the link for the corrected version of the conclusion at para 21.  We have just checked this issue at T19.

Here’s what I posted over at Titus19:

I read this letter as a very polite note from Bishop Wright to Rowan Williams saying “your reflection was great for what it is, but what we really need is some leadership NOW!  Not 6 months from now, but NOW!  If you don’t provide it, the Communion comes apart.  I realize that leadership is not your strong suit, so here are some suggestions you might want to follow.  But you must act, and act within days, not months, or you can kiss the Anglican Communion good-bye.”

I recall great discussion over Rowan Williams’ response to TEC at Dar Es Salaam which someone identified as “over acceptance” or some such thing.  The point being that you praise what was done and then try to redirect it it into a new trajectory in hopes that the original speaker will then follow this new trajectory.  I think that this is what Wright is doing.

Sort of like a family who is in a movie theater when someone shouts fire.  The dad panics and runs towards the door, leaving his wife and kids behind.  He yells out “I need to escape!  I need to escape!”  You then say “Yes, of course, he says he needs to escape.  And so he does.  What a very wise course of action to take in such a situation.  But, of course, by saying that he needs to escape, he most certainly also plans to retrieve his wife and children and escape together!” in hopes that the father will realize his duty and return to save his wife and children.