Saturday, February 4, 2012
Total visitors right now: 81

Logged-in members:

Andrew W
Anselmic
hanks
Wittenberg

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Breaking: Bishop John Howe responds to Petre’s Report and provides details of the plan

Saturday, February 23, 2008 • 9:26 am

via email

Dear Brothers and Sisters,


It is not quite 11:30 PM here in Orlando. In London it is not quite 4:30 AM tomorrow.  And Jonathan Petre of the London Telegraph has just released a story about yesterday’s meeting between four American Bishops (Howe, Central Florida; MacPherson, Western Louisiana; Smith, North Dakota; and Stanton, Dallas) with the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church.

Petre could not have been much more inaccurate!  Here are his opening remarks:

“The Archbishop of Canterbury is backing secret plans to create a ‘parallel’ Church for American conservatives to avert fresh splits over homosexuality….  Dr Rowan Williams has held confidential talks with senior American bishops and theologians who oppose the pro-gay policies of their liberal leaders….

  “Dr Williams is desperate to minimize further damage in the run up to the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference this summer which could be boycotted by more than a fifth of the world’s bishops….

“According to insiders, Dr Williams has given his blessing to the plans to create an enclave for up to 20 conservative American bishops that would insulate them from their liberal colleagues.”

No, Dear Friends.  Here is a summary of what we presented to the Presiding Bishop yesterday.  We were not quite ready to release it, but in the light of this significant distortion, I am doing so tonight:

Communion Partners

In the context of the Episcopal Visitors concept announced by the Presiding Bishop at the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, a number of us have reflected a need for a larger gathering which we are calling Communion Partners. We believe such a gathering will afford us the opportunity for mutual support, accountability and fellowship; and present an important sign of our connectedness in and vision for the Anglican Communion as it moves through this time of stress and renewal.

Purpose:

To provide a visible link for those concerned to the Anglican Communion

Many within our dioceses and in congregations in other dioceses seek to be assured of their connection to the Anglican Communion. Traditionally, this has been understood in terms of bishop-to-bishop relationships. Communion Partners fleshes out this connection in a significant and symbolic way.

To provide fellowship, support and a forum for mutual concerns between bishops

The Bishops who have been designated Episcopal Visitors together with others who might well consider being included in this number share many concerns about the Anglican Communion and its future, and look to work together with Primates and Bishops from the Global South. In addition, we believe we all have need of mutual encouragement, prayer, and reassurance. The Communion Partners will be a forum for these kinds of relationships.

To provide a partnership to work toward the Anglican Covenant and according to Windsor principles..

The Bishops will work together according to the principles outlined in the Windsor Report and seek a comprehensive Anglican Covenant at the Lambeth Conference and beyond.

Scope:

The Communion Partners will be informally gathered – there will be no “charter” or formal structure

Are committed to non-boundary-crossing: the relationships will be governed by mutual respect and proceed by invitation and cooperation

Will work with mutual cooperation within and beyond the partnership

Participants:

The Episcopal Visitors who desire to participate (EVs named at House of Bishops New Orleans)

Those Bishops who are willing to serve as EVs

Initially, five Primates of the Global South: West Indies, Tanzania, Indian Ocean, Burundi, Middle East

Transparency:

Communication of activities with both the Presiding Bishop and Archbishop of Canterbury

Respect for the canonical realities, integrities and structures of the Episcopal Church and other Churches

Our purpose in meeting with Bishop Schori yesterday was to apprize her of this plan, seek her counsel, and assure her that we remain committed to working within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, and that the Primates involved in this discussion are NOT involved in “border crossing,” nor would we be.  We will visit
no congregation without the Diocesan Bishop’s invitation and permission.  We do believe this is a step forward, albeit a small one.

I hope this is helpful, and I thank you for your prayers regarding this important meeting.

Warmest regards in our Lord,

The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

This plan, in my opinion, is just the same old DEPO pig gussied up in a nice pink dress and lipstick. Parishes in hostile dioceses are still under the Communion bus. They would recieve no succor or help. The possibility of “orthodox” bishops arriving to confirm and perform visitations is very nice, but since the entire process is controlled and overseen by heretical diocesan bishops who will continue to determine succession and demand assessments, it is only a matter of time before orthodox parishes in heretical diocese become extinct. When the rector leaves or the vicar is removed, that will be the end of the game.

Few non-collaborationist parishes within heretical diocese could accept in good conscience a plan that calls for continued financial support of, participation with, and obedience to heretic bishops.

I see this as nothing more than an expansion and internationalization of DEPO. As Fr. Dan Martins suggests, it is too little too late, but worse, it is a recipee for the eventual defeat and destruction of internal resistance within heretical jurisdictions. 


170 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

We do believe this is a step forward, albeit a small one.

Nope.  It is just a side-step, part of a dance.  No progress here.  I am sorry to learn that Bp McPherson and Bp Stanton were part of this; I expected better from them.

[1] Posted by AnglicanXn on 02-23-2008 at 09:41 AM • top

Will they ever tire of empty proposals and worthless conversation? Use the crumbled blocks of ECUSA to build yet another infected structure and you get more pain and loss. These “conservative bishops” should turn attention to their own flocks rather than play the old ECUSA game of “let’s build another middle way.” We have learned what the middle way brings, and it simply allows corruption to spread. One can hope that most will avoid wrapping themselves in yet one more pox-infected blanket. And now Schori and Williams have an agenda for Lambeth teatime.

[2] Posted by stevenanderson on 02-23-2008 at 09:52 AM • top

The deadline was September 30. Until there is tangible discipline of TEC, repentance, and reparation for the lawsuits, forget this stuff. What is really disgusting is that the faithful are positioned as the problem and concern.

[3] Posted by Dr. N. on 02-23-2008 at 10:03 AM • top

If only Petre’s story were true.  This proposal is rather pitiful.

[4] Posted by Newbie Anglican on 02-23-2008 at 10:07 AM • top

This is a major retreat from Dar, actually a total capitulation, and yet it is characterized as a “step forward.”  It is embarassing.  The irony might be that when people see that this is what they have been waiting for, they will decide they needn’t wait any longer.

[5] Posted by wildfire on 02-23-2008 at 10:07 AM • top

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.

I see this as ++Rowan Williams’ and the collaborating bishops’ pathetic attempt to salvage Lambeth and what’s left of the Communion.  Among the other flaws to this plan, it does nothing about the invitation list to Lambeth including the apostate and heretical bishops who agreed to and participated in the consecration of VGR.

[6] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 02-23-2008 at 10:12 AM • top

If the plan had not been “secret” which it was, then Petre would not have had to publish what little he could gleam from his ill-informed sources, and we would have not heard these details from +Howe. Huzzah, Petre! Keep it up!

The Rabbit.

[7] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-23-2008 at 10:13 AM • top

Judging from what came out from the HOB meeting in NOLA, we can expect a series of mutually ambiguous reports from all participants and those who have talked to participants. Stay tuned, they are testing to see what they can get away with without stating an official position.

[8] Posted by Dr. N. on 02-23-2008 at 10:20 AM • top

Matt,
  The second half of your last sentence hits the nail on the head.

[9] Posted by Gordy on 02-23-2008 at 10:38 AM • top

Let us all resolve to pray for +Howe, all the others involved in this plan, and all the dear Christians left in TEC pews.  This plan looks like a last gasp for air and final plea for help prior to going down for the third time.  (Thirtieth time?) The prayers of the faithful will keep them afloat.  These are desparate times for Christians, but His grace is sufficient.

[10] Posted by CanaAnglican on 02-23-2008 at 10:46 AM • top

Dr. N. I couldn’t agree with you more.


Crusader44

[11] Posted by Crusader44 on 02-23-2008 at 10:56 AM • top

100% pure bravo sierra.

[12] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-23-2008 at 11:07 AM • top

#12 yes, and well aged.
The Rabbit.

[13] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-23-2008 at 11:15 AM • top

This is window dressing to try to fool the laity and stop the hemorrhaging to Common cause.  I doubt they are that gullible.

.

They’ve been that gullible for 30 years (be it culpable or not). How can you doubt it continues to be the case now?

.

Yes, this latest proposal is just yet one more way to do nothing except meaningless PR posturing and shoving the real problems under the table. That’s what TEc has done for over 30 years now…

... and it keeps working.

The majority of Episcopalians—even those who call themselves “traditionalists”—have proved to be more loyal to structures and buildings and bank accounts and inertia than they have to the Gospel, the Church, or Christ.

As happened 30 years ago (with the innovations of WO, the flawed and apostate theology coded in to the new BCP, the gutting of catechesis etc), a small handful will show the courage and insight, now, to leave TEc to stay loyal to Christ and the Church.

The rest will simply grumble, stay in the pews, and greet each new meaningless and empty PR posturing - like this latest - as the solution to the crisis… when, in truth, it’s nothing more than the latest palliative sparing them the trouble of actually confronting the issues and making hard decisions. I have little doubt the apostates are privately jumping for joy over this latest meaningless diversion.

.

So, no, I’m afraid I _don’t_ doubt they are that gullible.

.

pax,
LP

[14] Posted by LP on 02-23-2008 at 11:20 AM • top

#6 - well said.  Do we really look this stupid?  Honestly?

I think Stanton really does not believe it’s a “big deal” to be under the authority of TEC, so long as he gets to do his own thing (he is orthodox).  However, I’m wondering where he will be after GC 2009 when they add same sex blessings to the prayer book, and when the TEC will bring him up on charges if he refuses to allow official SSB in the Diocese of Dallas…

Hmmm…I smell another committee being formed to “listen”...  wink

[15] Posted by B. Hunter on 02-23-2008 at 11:22 AM • top

I posted this on T19:

And, to top it off, as others have already noticed, there is no discipline whatsoever envisioned in this plan for TEC. The orthodox are seen as the divisive and difficult ones. TEC remains uninhibited and undisciplined.

This is the real point.  TEC will not be disciplined by the AC.  A Church that does not discipline is not a Church.  The only way forward for the orthodox is GS realignment, and if that fails to materialize, it’s to some other branch of Christ’s Body I go.  Despite the best intentions of Radner and Seitz, it seems to me that border crossing is a red herring in this mess.  Everyone has forgotten or ignored the primates clarification and adjustment of Windsor at Dromatine that placed border crossing at a much lower level of seriousness than heterodox moral teaching and practice, yet it is the latter that will entail no discipline, no official sanctions and consequences, that will continue unabated and uninhibited, and it is the minor issue that the primates recognized as an unfortunate necessity that is being addressed by the communion.  TEC has won the battle for the hearts and minds of the Canterbury AC.  The GS needs to get on with a separate structure.

The so-called Windsor bishops are a great disappointment.  They are proven to be institutionalists who are too cowardly to defend the faith.  Just remember their collective silence at NO that was heard around the world.  How shameful.  It will take only two generations for the heterodox revisionists to consolidate their hold as the remaining orthodox bishops face retirement.  It is sad to see that these bishops cannot see that the political game is over; there remains only mop-up operations that will continue at full speed from PB Shori and 815.

[16] Posted by Philip Bowers on 02-23-2008 at 11:27 AM • top

Continue the slow dying.  Pray for Bishop Howe!

[17] Posted by Alice Linsley on 02-23-2008 at 11:28 AM • top

Ye! No matter how you dress the pig andthe color of lipstick you put on it, it is still after all just a PIG!
#3 Dr. N, SPOT ON!

Bp. Howe, I will pray for you and the others working on this, but please stop and take a breath and ask yourself….can you possibly be serious about this? I agree with Anglican Xn, I would have expected more from you and Stanton and MacPherson. I pray you are not caving. There is so much more that has been done and not done that his plan doesn’t even begin to tuch nor address. Remember, souls have been entrusted to your care. God is watching!

[18] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 11:30 AM • top

You know what this is?  It’s like keeping a terminally ill person, whose lungs keep filling with fluid and is in constant pain, alive for a few more painful, gasping hours.  It can be done - but is usually done only by those patients who fear death.

If +Howe et al. need to do this in order to stave off the eventual death of TEC for a few more years - because they cannot face their own fear of the alternative - then I guess it needs to happen.

However, how sad, how depleting, how futile, and what a waste of money and resources that could be used to further the Gospel and Christ’s Kingdom.

They need to take a leaf from Dumbledore and realize that “Death is only the next great adventure”. 

Departure from TEC is hard and is full of fear - but man, when you are free - it is Freedom indeed.  I just hope they have some people in their dioceses when they finally accept the last gasp and get there.

[19] Posted by Eclipse on 02-23-2008 at 11:32 AM • top

You have to wonder how Petre got hold of some information (however misleading) about this secret meeting so soon.  Who leaked the news, and why?  Regardless, I’m glad the +Howe quickly moved to set the record straight.

But like many other commenters above, I think this plan is DOA (Dead On Arrival).  I honestly can’t see what the four bishops think they stand to gain by this feeble plan.  It’s totally, miserably inadequate.  Doubtless, they think that it’s the most they could possibly hope for within the realities of TEC and the AC as they currently exist.  And of course, that’s just the problem.

That’s why we need nothing less than a full-fleged New Reformation.  To hell with the structures of TEC!

David Handy+
No half-way measures please

[20] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 02-23-2008 at 11:39 AM • top

This is an affirmation of the KJS N.O. plan—dressed up DEPO.  Very sad last gasp.  Onward, Common Cause, onward GAFCON, onward Christian soldiers.

Praise be to Our Heavenly Father for all those who have stepped out of the darkness to lead their sheep into the light His love and truth, no matter what personal sacrifice and persecution await them.  Philippians 3: 7-11.

[21] Posted by BettyLee Payne on 02-23-2008 at 11:39 AM • top

Note that ++Mtetemela of Tanzania is (a) a sponsor of GAFCON; (b) a member of the Windsor Continuation Group; and now (c) an Episcopal Visitor Visitor.

[22] Posted by wildfire on 02-23-2008 at 11:46 AM • top

Fr. Kennedy’s note is perfectly correct. But he doesn’t mention the plan’s failure to provide any future protection for the orthodox dioceses under this plan. We must do more than provide for the orthodox parishes in heretical dioceses, as important as that is. If anyone thinks this will have any impact on Fort Worth’s decision later this year they are sadly mistaken. This plan does nothing to protect us the day Bishop Iker leaves office. Any man the clergy and laity of Fort Worth would possibly elect to be our next bishop could possibly get the necessary consents to be consecrated. Nope, not a thing in this proposal that will impact our vote on possible departure at the next diocesan convention. And I, for one, cannot imagine any proposal that MIGHT keep us wiin TEC that PB Schori would agree to if this one is the best they can come up with.

[23] Posted by texanglican on 02-23-2008 at 11:52 AM • top

Sorry, that should be “no man the clergy and laity of Fort Worth would possibly elect”

[24] Posted by texanglican on 02-23-2008 at 11:53 AM • top

Sigh.  Another toothless proposal that misses the POINT entirely!  Glad to see the SF team is not amused.  As usual, we know this arrangement is rubbish since KJS is for it.  Pretty simple test; she likes it, therefore, it is suspect!  Anything that keeps her in power, she will support.  Next!

[25] Posted by KAY4 on 02-23-2008 at 12:20 PM • top

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding.

No one can be so foolish at this point to believe that Schori and the likes will in any way care for the orthodox. No One.

I suppose if Howe and others fall into this trap, the upside will be that after GC, they will have clarity.  How sad it will be that many of their good people will have no choice but to leave without property (and perhaps without preists and bishops, who will be chained by new canons…)
I will repeat what seems to be a thread tying together all the events of the last few years: God is making clear to His faithful people which leaders/Bishops are blessed with His Spirit (The heart and mind of Christ), and which leaders are utter fools. 
God have Mercy!
Carrie in MD

[26] Posted by cityonahill on 02-23-2008 at 12:40 PM • top

The only way forward I can see is for Bishop Jefferts Schorl and the other bishops who (1) participted in Bishop Robinson’s consecration or (2) permit same-sex blessings to decline to attend Lambeth and thus allow the bishops to attend who have declined invitations because the American and Canadian bishops have decided to attend. 

Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC

[27] Posted by TomRightmyer on 02-23-2008 at 12:42 PM • top

The orthodox are seen as the divisive and difficult ones. TEC remains uninhibited and undisciplined.

An open missive to Bishop John Howe

Bishop Howe,

With your (and the other bishops’) ersatz DEPO-like plan, there is zero requirement of a surcease of power politics and Machiavellian legal tactics on the part of the power elite in TEC.  The orthodox, thereby, are bidden to lie down in front of TEC’s runaway train to Heresyville.  No, Bishop Howe, NO!  We will not, we CANNOT acquiesce.  Tnere are large numbers of orthodox Christ followers headed for the exits due to TEC’s turning its collective back upon the faith once delivered to the saints.  We are taking a stand.  We can do NO other!  Care to join us, or are you adamant in your institutionalsim?

Christe eleison!

Name withheld to prevent any possible retribution directed toward me and my family

[28] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 02-23-2008 at 12:44 PM • top

This plan is nothing more (at this point) than a sure death of the Orthodox in the Western Anglican Communion. Bp. Mark Lawrence was the last orthodox priest to be consecrated a Bishop. He has made his place in the Western Anglican Communion history. There will be none to follow from hence forward and this plan will make sure that orthodoxy dies in TEc.

[29] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 12:48 PM • top

This hang on and hope, “at any cost” leadership, is an example of what has cost the diocese of dallas and many other dioceses, so many lost parishes / sheep…  They have lost much strength and resources.

In some battles, or even some business situations, a Leader has to face a situation wherein things are going to “auger in”.  finish, kaput, die off, the end…

A Leader knows when it is time to cut the losses and regroup for another battle, another day, with a better defense / stradegy. 

If a decision can not be made to do so with sufficient assets / strength still remaining, then the Leader loses the resources / ability to disengage battle with the stronger force, and the “auger in” continues until there is nothing left to recover or regroup with.

Sadly, this story gives me a mind picture of a falling monster space satelllite the size of a bus.  Some hope it really is not going to fall.  Some KNOW it is falling, and are hoping not to get hit by it.  Some are pro-actively trying to be sure they are not hit by it. 

If this was ecusa, some hopeful bishops/archbishops would be trying to strap a toy parachute on the tail end of the monster, hope rising up for a soft landing…

After time, when it augers in, the destruction will be as sure with the toy parachute as without it. 

Just make sure you are not in that satellite or under it, when the final crash occurs.

[30] Posted by Truthseeker on 02-23-2008 at 12:56 PM • top

depending on where we live,  and I regularly attend 3 churches in 3 different dioceses; I find that where I live depends on my ability to abide TEC…in sc I am content to remain because of the strong orthodox leadership..I am not alone and hung out to dry…in nc I go to a church where most of the original members left various Episcopal churches, a group who decided that there is no way to remain within TEC…this church is growing at a rate that I have never seen in all my Episcopal years; how exciting, how motivating, this is a church I would encourage my children to attend, this is a church I could invite others to attend.  And then the last location; this is the most difficult and depressing..I have been there a long time,...I have dear struggling orthodox friends still there,(others have left)..do I stay and struggle with them or do I leave and if I leave where can I go?  If this was the only church I was attending I think I could not bear watching my back when I wanted to be worshiping and I would have to leave…my brother left 15 years ago, my sister’s church left and repaid for their church….5 locations with 5 “solutions”....it’s probably too late for the revisionists to leave

[31] Posted by ewart-touzot on 02-23-2008 at 01:07 PM • top

Two quotes from Winston Churchill come to mind:

“Never, never, never give up.”

“An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” - for our friends in the ACI and the Windsor bishops.

[32] Posted by Daniel on 02-23-2008 at 01:11 PM • top

Just a few lines here and there tell the whole story.
“To provide fellowship, support and a forum for mutual concerns between bishops.” Oh really? Lets read on.
“The Communion Partners will be informally gathered – there will be no “charter” or formal structure…*Are committed to non-boundary-crossing:*....” BP Howe? I think I just located your missing “formal structure.”
“Transparency:
Communication of activities with both the Presiding Bishop and Archbishop of Canterbury.” I’m seriously suppressing some hysterical laughter here. The words “transparency” and “the PB and the ABC” should not be used in the same sentence.
“Respect for the canonical realities, integrities and structures of the Episcopal Church and other Churches.” But lets NEVER insist that we respect the truths plainly set forth by God in Holy Scripture; right, Bishop?
“Our purpose in meeting with Bishop Schori yesterday was to apprise her of this plan, seek her counsel, and assure her that we remain committed to working within the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, and that the Primates involved in this discussion are NOT involved in “border crossing,” nor would we be.”
Honestly; this is repugnant and grotesque. No blood bought, Holy Spirit filled child of the Living God should ever give so much as a sniff to such a groveling, quislingesque abomination such as this. The day I go to seek counsel-and approval-from the likes of the current PB is the day I totally deep-six my Christian faith.
King Solomon wisely observed that there is nothing new under the sun. So here. When Sanballet, Tobias and their allies could not force Nehemiah and the Jews returning from Babylon to stop rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem by using threats of force and intimidation, they tried to destroy Nehemiah through feigned concern and intrigue. As the scheming and plots of Sanballet and his allies failed to stop the rebuilding of the wall and gates of Jerusalem, so this sham will not stop true Anglican Christians from rebuilding the communion into a God honoring structure once again.

[33] Posted by Bob K. on 02-23-2008 at 01:20 PM • top

This plan is not a step forward; it is a sweet tasting poison.  Sorry, no takers here.  Its a shame they bothered to waste the travel expenses on this rubbish.

[34] Posted by Spencer on 02-23-2008 at 01:22 PM • top

I’m thinking of how paralyzed the “Windsor” bishops were in NO last year, unable to function as a voice of opposition, unable to even issue a minority report, silently assenting to the majority in the HOB.  At the time this fatal loss of nerve was blamed on the early departure of Duncan and Iker, leaving them, literally, speechless.  It appears that this group of four bishops still desparately misses the strong leadership of the missing bishops as from my vantage point they have simply agreed to give KJS’s “Episcopal Visitor” plan a try- with barely any modification.

[35] Posted by Nevin on 02-23-2008 at 02:10 PM • top

As Mark (#22) points out Tanzania’s Mtetemela is on board with this plan. The plan was divised to divide the orthodox and to prevent further provinces boycotting, specifically like Tanzania. I found pictures of Katherine Jefferts Schori and Rowan Williams upon hearing of the “plan” here and here. Their smirks are because they think they have defeated the orthodox with the complicity of those who drew up this “plan.”

[36] Posted by robroy on 02-23-2008 at 02:17 PM • top

Doesn’t this charade provide support to TEC’s legal cases against departing parishes (and diocese(s))? Isn’t anyone who participates aiding TEC in their legal cases against the departing orthodox?

[37] Posted by Deja Vu on 02-23-2008 at 02:26 PM • top

#37 Deja Vu,
Thank you for bringing that up. You have hit on a very good point that no one seems to have pulled up for debate! +Stanton, +Howe, +MacPherson, and et al would in fact be aiding TEc in the litigations they have so promptly moved forward with in a vengence and show no signs of stopping or slowing. How do they justify that?

[38] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 02:33 PM • top

I think the red herring is here:

To provide a partnership to work toward the Anglican Covenant and according to Windsor principles..

The Bishops will work together according to the principles outlined in the Windsor Report and seek a comprehensive Anglican Covenant at the Lambeth Conference and beyond.

This is a chance for the TEC followers to take over the Covenant at Lambeth.  The ABC had said that nothing substantive would come out of Lambeth.  Now this is a subtle announcement that the Covenant will be worked on and possibly could be finalized (to the orthoxox loss) at the LC. 
This is the *nuanced* verbiage that +++RW loves to slide in.  Now it is announced and he has a reference to the change in Lambeth agenda if anyone asks.  And the orthodox never noticed the knife sliding between the ribs because it was so thin. (Just as other amputative knives have been missed in the past).

Capt.Scott

[39] Posted by Capt.Scott on 02-23-2008 at 02:56 PM • top

All right, boys and girls, follow my cues please,

“In open position, two two steps down line of dance,
face and box,
reverse the box,
back away three,
back away three,
strut together four,
face to face,
back to back,
basketball turn,
quick vine eight,
point, and die.”

Aren’t we having FUN, now?

Sounds like more of the same ole same ole to me.  I would have thought +John would have settled down by now, and landed on one side of the fence or the other.

[40] Posted by Chip Johnson, cj on 02-23-2008 at 03:03 PM • top

I disagree #6, it will not take “two generations”, it will take less than four years.  GC 2009, and 2012 will take care of cleaning the decks.

It takes that long for canon changes, especially the discliplinary ones to set the stage for mass inhibitions/excumunications.

And there is hardly any question SSU blessings, will be passed as “inclusionary”.. 

Nothing to worry about, no Lambeth in the office (2018), and surely RW will have retired or something.

Its clear skies ahead for TEC folks, what a bunch of ungrateful wretches we are not to appreciate the higher intelligencia who believe they speak for the orthodox among us.

Grannie Gloria

[41] Posted by Grandmother on 02-23-2008 at 03:16 PM • top

At some point certain bishops are going to have to stop straddling the fence and decide which side they belong on.  They won’t be able to keep up the balancing act forever.  My bishop has already made the choice and I respect him for it.

[42] Posted by terrafirma on 02-23-2008 at 03:21 PM • top

As I posted at T19:
This is one amazing development.
We have now moved from calling the American Episcopal Church to repentance and back to the norms and the fabric of our Anglican Communion (which the American church tore by her actions and position on human sexuality and the authority of the Scripture) to debating and devising how to let the American church continue with whatever it is doing now and in the future.
From the way this is going, it is no longer TEc that has a problem, but the faithful. Lord have mercy!
Amazing indeed!
I am shocked.

Fr. Kingsley
Arlington, TX

[43] Posted by Spiro on 02-23-2008 at 03:23 PM • top

Utter and complete nonsense.  We’re back again to the concept that there is only one thing truly evil in the Anglican Communion—border crossings!  Can’t quite remember where that showed up in Scripture, but it must be somewhere.  Bishop Howe, shame on you for being a part of this.

[44] Posted by hanks on 02-23-2008 at 03:51 PM • top

I would really like to hear from AB Venables about this. I mean he is after all providing Temporary Oversight for many like my Diocese and now the Canadian Churches. What would be his view on this especially since this “plan” attemps to metnion and cover border crossings? Bp. Venables, if you are reading could you pipe in and offer up your perspective?
Much Thanks
ODC

[45] Posted by TLDillon on 02-23-2008 at 04:16 PM • top

May I nominate Fr. Kingsley for best and most on target analytical post on any Episcopal blog over the last 5 years?  Fr. Kingsley, you rock!  Will attend to replies to your post on T19, where a polemicist such as I appears to have little welcome.

[46] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 02-23-2008 at 04:16 PM • top

Vidkun Quisling would be very impressed.

[47] Posted by VaAnglican on 02-23-2008 at 04:26 PM • top

You all need to get on board now, for you’ve been sold down the river and you’re never coming back.

[48] Posted by The Pilgrim on 02-23-2008 at 04:28 PM • top

Is Bishop Howe really so clueless that he doesn’t understand that this plays into Schori’s hands as a method of splitting the more domesticated primates of the Global South from the “uppity” ones who are willing to take concrete action to defend the faith and protect the faithful? I’m sure that Rowan Williams embraces it for the same reason. Divide the primates and the running of the communion is safely in the hands of the ACC—a wholly-owned subsidiary of ECUSA.

[49] Posted by Chazzy on 02-23-2008 at 05:15 PM • top

In the context of the Episcopal Visitors concept announced by the Presiding Bishop at the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, a number of us have reflected a need for a larger gathering which we are calling Communion Partners. We believe such a gathering will afford us the opportunity for mutual support, accountability and fellowship; and present an important sign of our connectedness in and vision for the Anglican Communion as it moves through this time of stress and renewal.

I notice no vision for ECUSA only for the Anglican Communion. I would have thought that this plan as explained is already in place. Bishops in ECUSA already allowed some bishops acceptable to them to visit pastorally within their territory. <sigh>

[50] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 02-23-2008 at 05:51 PM • top

#20 said

You have to wonder how Petre got hold of some information (however misleading) about this secret meeting so soon.  Who leaked the news, and why?

  I don’t have a clear understanding of what goes on in the ACO.  However, if I were Queen Elizabeth, I would be enraged that the Anglican Communion News Service failed to report the election of an evangelical primate on Jan 15 and his enthronement on Feb 17.  Especially since he may well be the bravest person in the whole Communion.

[51] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 02-23-2008 at 05:52 PM • top

We will visit no congregation without the Diocesan Bishop’s invitation and permission. We do believe this is a step forward, albeit a small one

I hope those who believe that the Presiding Bishop has little power over congregations will take note. This elevates the office of the Presiding Bishop to greater power than before.

[52] Posted by Betty See on 02-23-2008 at 05:55 PM • top

Sounds like a great plan, considering it is for Episcopalians.  However, may I suggest adding one additional provision?  How about:  “They shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a-whoring.”  Leviticus 17:7 KJV

[53] Posted by Chazaq on 02-23-2008 at 06:02 PM • top

Please disregard my last post I misread the quote and should not post when I am tired.  Elves, please delete my post 53.

[54] Posted by Betty See on 02-23-2008 at 06:18 PM • top

I hear the sound of thousands of garments rending, and the cry, “NOOOOoooooo..!”

[55] Posted by Cindy T. in TX on 02-23-2008 at 06:38 PM • top

There is one crime…border crossings

What is hillarious or tragic, depending on how you look at it, is the constant references to “ancient traditions” and “Nicene Canons” and “catholic order” as being essential to identity as Anglicans, Provincial autonomy, sacred polity, etc.

catholic Order isn’t so important when it tells TEC not to do something, or crosses the Progressive agenda. The philosophy seems to be “Ancient traditions are hugely important, except when they aren’t.”

[56] Posted by Andrewesman on 02-23-2008 at 07:07 PM • top

I am sorry to say that I have completely lost faith in the trustworthiness of Episcopal Bishops.  The lies and dissembling coming from the HoB and its membership in these past few years has destroyed any shred of credibility that they once had.  The only remedy is to leave them. They are corrupt leaders of a corrupt organization.  Those that aren’t heretics need to leave now or be counted among the lost.

[57] Posted by taz on 02-23-2008 at 07:18 PM • top

How many winds can 20 bishops blow
Until they are E-visitated?
The same number of bish-ops minus 8
When they’re E-viscerat-ed?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the Wind.(TM),
Camp Allen, and 09’s General Convention!
The answer, my friend, is twisting in the Wind.(TM),
Camp Allen, and 09’s General Convention!

By the by, since the HOB can’t bind the GCC to any plan of action, how’s it the PB can?

[58] Posted by dwstroudmd+ on 02-23-2008 at 07:32 PM • top

An excellent question. Do I sense a misunderstanding of TEC’s unique democratic polity here?

[59] Posted by Andrewesman on 02-23-2008 at 07:37 PM • top

Folks, again, all of this gnashing and rending of garments is pointless and way way over-reactive.

First of all, this fellowship group no more “divides the orthodox” or “prevents further provinces boycotting” than Gafcon “divides the orthodox” or “prevents further provinces attending Lambeth.”

These actions are a consequence of the division—a division that surely we all recognize from the Network, which existed from the time that it was founded—that already is and has been in the Global South.  Claiming that all the ComCon Primates should acede “be unified and accede to the FedCon plan” is no different from the ACI claiming that all the FedCon Primates should perforce “be unified and attend Lambeth—accede to the ComCon strategy”.

I posted something like this on the other thread:

The Global South is clearly divided. 

One part has decided, it seems to me, that Lambeth and the various other accoutrements of the Anglican Communion are lost.  The other side has decided that they are not lost and to keep trying.

But I honestly don’t think that the former side could be “any more marginalized” than they are.  They’ve chosen a path, and the latter have chosen a path.

You might just as well say the opposite which is “having Gafcon effectively marginalizes those Primates who are determining to work within the Anglican Communion.”

Indeed, “marginalization,” if that’s what we call it, is the name of the game when the two sides have chosen entirely different paths, though both sides, I think are orthodox.  Neither side can actually be “within the margins” so to speak of the other’s strategy, since the paths have diverged in a snowy wood.  ; > )

I’m happy for Gafcon attendees.  They’ll have fun.

I’m happy for the folks in the 10 or so dioceses who have this nice more intimate/friendly relationship with some Global South Primates.  They’ll have fun too.

Most people and parishes in most dioceses will be generally unaffected by either.  We’re pretty much on our own.  In places like Rio Grande, Alabama, Colorado, Mississippi, and on and on it goes, folks need to keep their eyes focused on their diocese, their mission, whatever that is.  Because for the rest of this—[though for those lucky enough to be in Fort Worth, South Carolina, or Dallas, it’s quite different]—this is all so much Sturm und Drang.

[60] Posted by Sarah on 02-23-2008 at 07:52 PM • top

But what if we like gnashing our teeth and rending our garments?

[61] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 02-23-2008 at 08:13 PM • top

To follow up from a comment I left over at T19:

But—as I said above—I am happy for the ComCon bishops to have a fellowship group.  And I am happy for the various FedCon and GS Primates to have a fellowship group in Gafcon.  . . .

I don’t begrudge those happy dioceses that will have some greater connection and fellowship with these five Primates.  And I don’t begrudge those bishops and clergy who will be able to get together at Gafcon.

Most of us in the average everyday dioceses—Alabama, Colorado, Mississippi, Southern Virginia, etc, etc,—will benefit from neither, but it is churlish to begrudge joy and fellowship to others just because it does nothing for oneself.

[62] Posted by Sarah on 02-23-2008 at 08:34 PM • top

Not sure what you mean as “needing attention” MP.

I don’t understand your question.

[63] Posted by Sarah on 02-23-2008 at 08:37 PM • top

When was the last time you heard of a victim going to the perpetrator to seek their counsel,  to assure the perpetrator the victim is working within the constitution and law, and promise never to cross that alley again?

[64] Posted by bradhutt on 02-23-2008 at 08:45 PM • top

Yes, MP, I am sure that you do.  ; > )

[65] Posted by Sarah on 02-23-2008 at 08:48 PM • top

Nope, MP.

RE: “Well Sarah, we in the deep south seemed focused on mission….I think that translates to “just fine”.”

“We [progressives] in the deep south are satisfied with the progression of our dioceses for our mission—and that’s “just fine.”“

Please don’t speak for me, MP, or the many other reasserters in dioceses in the South.  You don’t, and you can’t—we don’t share the same gospel nor the same mission.

Thanks.

[66] Posted by Sarah on 02-23-2008 at 09:18 PM • top

An excerpt from a posting over at T19:

The reason for this “plan” is quite clear from the following in Howe’s email: “Initially, five Primates of the Global South: West Indies, Tanzania, Indian Ocean, Burundi, Middle East.” This plan’s main purpose is to stop the spread of the boycott and divide the Global South.

My only question is why? Clearly the only hope for discipline has always been for a unified front of the orthodox to demand it. This “plan” divides the orthodox and dashes all hope for discipline.

I am quite sure that I will never receive an honest answer from those responsible. All I can say is, “For shame.”

[67] Posted by robroy on 02-23-2008 at 09:39 PM • top

This plan’s main purpose is to stop the spread of the boycott and divide the Global South.

Exactly the way I see it. I think Sarah may be missing the political point and who benefits from this arrangement.

[68] Posted by Chazzy on 02-23-2008 at 09:47 PM • top

Good grief, further delusions, all around us.

RobRoy—there is no and there was no “spread of the boycott.”

This is ridiculous denial.  The Global South was already divided, is now divided, and will continue to be divided, even as you and I are divided.  When you announce that you are going to Gafcon I’m not going to say “RobRoy’s plan’s main purpose is to stop the spread of the takeover of TEC and divide those of us who are intent on staying within TEC.”  Just as when I announce that I am, oh, say, running for bishop or executive council, I hope that you will not say [although frankly, it is looking likely now]: “Sarah’s plan’s main purpose is to stop the glorious Common Cause Partnership and divide those of us who are intent on leaving TEC.”

RE: “Clearly the only hope for discipline has always been for a unified front of the orthodox to demand it.”

HUH?  I thought you had formally announced you had given up on discipline, RobRoy!!  Now that there is a fellowship group started that’s going to “dash all hope for discipline”?

RE: “All I can say is, “For shame.”

No—not for shame.  I am proud of anyone trying to do something within the Anglican Communion and within TEC.  Just as I am proud and happy for those leaving TEC and beginning their CCP entities.

Even though I think this is a fruitless exercise, I quite understand why ComCon bishops and Primates want to get together.

After all, RobRoy . . . your folks are getting together at Gafcon.  Why can’t the ComCons?  Is it only FedCons who get to have meetings and groupings?

I don’t think this plan will help a thing—but there is absolutely no shame in people feebly trying to do whatever they can to get a few folks together for fellowship.

[69] Posted by Sarah on 02-23-2008 at 09:49 PM • top

Sarah, many sources state the the ABC is “desperate” to pull off Lambeth. No, I had not given up on the rescinding of invitations especially with the ABC’s hand so compromised by the recent Sharia-lite fiasco.

Of course, there are divisions in the GS but this plan’s only goal was to accentuate them. In particular, the specific provinces listed could have declined the tea party but now it seems they will most definitely participate.

Conservatives of both flavors (yourself included) have said that the only hope is for discipline to be meted out. Again, I say that the only hope for this was there to be a united front of the orthodox to force Rowan Williams to do what his nature does not want to do. This plan does indeed dash all hopes of any discipline.

[70] Posted by robroy on 02-23-2008 at 09:59 PM • top

RE: “Of course, there are divisions in the GS but this plan’s only goal was to accentuate them.”

No RobRoy, this plan’s goal was to try to gather ComCon bishops and Primates and its goal was not to “accentuate” divisions any more than Gafcon’s plan was to “accentuate them.”

I’ll tell you—you folks sound just like the squawking and screeching of the ComCons when Gafcon was announced.

RE: ” In particular, the specific provinces listed could have declined the tea party but now it seems they will most definitely participate.”

Denial again.  RobRoy—the reason why they have come up with this is because they do not wish to boycott Lambeth or work on the FedCon plan.  They have chosen a different path.  Coming up with a “strategy”, no matter how pathetic it may be, is not a cause of ComCon bishops not following FedCon strategy—it is a result of ComCon bishops not following FedCon strategy.

RE: “Again, I say that the only hope for this was there to be a united front of the orthodox to force Rowan Williams to do what his nature does not want to do.”

I think that we can safely say now that there is no level of pain that will ever reach the level of “shrieking pain” necessary for Rowan to discipline TEC.  None.

And all of your “plans” are the equivalent of my saying “I know what let’s do—let’s have RobRoy give me $100,000 for my retirement account and that way I can write full-time!”

And then when RobRoy does not give me $100,000 my saying “RobRoy has ruined the plan we all had for me to write full-time.  Had he given me $100,000 for my retirement account, all would have been accomplished.  But now . . .he has ruined the plan.”

We do not have the same goals—and even if we had some of the same goals—we do not share the same tactics or strategies.  Nor will we. 

RE: “This plan does indeed dash all hopes of any discipline.”

This plan prevents no such thing at all. RW is perfectly free—as he has always been—to say “Bishop Bruno, your presence is not required at Lambeth.”

He has not done so.  He will not do so.

No amount of the ComCons not meeting—or, incidentally, the FedCons not meeting—will get him to do that.

[71] Posted by Sarah on 02-23-2008 at 10:07 PM • top

Have they considered alternative pastoral care to progressive parishes in neocon dioceses? What about them?

This proposal basically stinks. It has been done in secret, it invites foreign intervention into our affairs, it should require GC or at least Exec Council approval, it has been highhanded by lovely men in lovely purple with no input from lower-than-bishop clergy or laity. Those are enough reasons, IMHO, to discard it straightaway.

[72] Posted by PadreWayne on 02-23-2008 at 10:17 PM • top

The complete illogic of this proposal is really quite easy to spot; in fact, embarrassingly so.

“The Communion Partners will be informally gathered – there will be no “charter” or formal structure.”

If there is no charter or formal structure, then what is it?  A new list-serv?  If anything is on paper—a list of acceptable episcopal visitors, for example—then that is a “charter” or “formal structure,” albeit a very simple one.  If there isn’t, then this is no more than a gentlemen’s agreement, instantly revisable with a phone call or an e-mail, endlessly malleable according to the whims of whoever joins the latest meeting—except that there can’t be a meeting, since that would be a “formal structure.”

This is a classic exercise in futility.

[73] Posted by Id rather not say on 02-23-2008 at 10:23 PM • top

Somebody better check my temperature.  I must be sick.  I find myself agreeing with Padre Wayne.

[74] Posted by terrafirma on 02-23-2008 at 10:28 PM • top

No RobRoy, this plan’s goal was to try to gather ComCon bishops and Primates and it’s goal was not to “accentuate” divisions any more than Gafcon’s plan was to “accentuate them.”

I am surprised you are buying Seitz’s canard. As I said over at Titus:

This plan is obviously not designed to provide aid to the orthodox, for it does nothing the kind - DEPO plus “opening lines of communication.” As if +John Howe doesn’t have ++Drexel Gomez’ phone number and as if +Duncan Gray is going to be calling up ++Mouneer Anis for advice (+Gray was probably one of them who was hurling epithets at ++Anis at the HoB meeting.)

The provinces involved were hardly declared comm-con. They had not declared (to the best of my knowledge) of their definite intentions to attend the tea party.

I know that you know that Rowan Williams would not rescind invitations without significant pressure. He is not resistant to external pressure (witness DeS where he capitulated on just about everything.) His position is much weaker now. Ephraim has said many times that the invitations to VGR consecrators need to be rescinded. The comm-cons and fed-cons are united in this.

[75] Posted by robroy on 02-23-2008 at 10:28 PM • top

HAHAHA…terrafirma…<reaching over to pass the Peace of Christ and smiling>

[76] Posted by PadreWayne on 02-23-2008 at 10:29 PM • top

RE: “witness DeS where he capitulated on just about everything. . . . “

Probably an unfortunate example, RobRoy, since witness that he was able to turn right around after his “capitulation” at Dar and basically do as he wished, which was ignore the requests of Dar of him.

RE: “I am surprised you are buying Seitz’s canard.  . . .

No, Seitz believes this gathering will somehow be of help, as the Camp Allen meeting was not.  I don’t.  But RobRoy—the distance between ComCons and FedCons will continue to grow as we continue to follow the utterly differing paths and strategies that we have chosen.

RE: “This plan is obviously not designed to provide aid to the orthodox, for it does nothing the kind - DEPO plus “opening lines of communication.””

“Gafcon is obviously not designed to provide aid to the orthodox, for it does nothing of the kind—after all, these people will not help the glorious covenant which will save us all.”

“Gafcon is obviously not designed to provide aid to the orthodox, for it does nothing of the kind—after all, these poeple will not attend Lambeth, which will save us all.”

“Gafcon is obviously not designed to provide aid to the orthodox, for it does nothing of the kind—after all, these people will not come and institute a revolution and take over the agenda at Lambeth and announce that the ABC is now dull and void and Nazir Ali is the new ABC, which will save us all.”

[77] Posted by Sarah on 02-23-2008 at 10:38 PM • top

Now Rob-Roy . . . tell me that some of my examples in several of my previous comments did not make you smile, just a bit.

; > )

Good night all . . .

[78] Posted by Sarah on 02-23-2008 at 10:47 PM • top

In one respect, I think Sarah Hey is right: at the present there is no discipline of TEC and “every man is doing what is right in his own eyes.” During such a time of God’s judgement, we need to be careful not to judge, lest we be judged.

However, I do think the ComCons owe us FedCons some explanation with regard to the failure of discipline of TEC. If you go back one year precisely, you will find both groups hopeful that the Dar es Salaam Communique would provide a real terminus to the then 9-year-long stall by TEC with regard to Lambeth 1.10. In fact, the ABC reneged on Dar with eyes wide open (and PB Schori with fingers crossed), and the latest Covenant version has declawed the Primates Meeting itself. (I remember once writing in the debate over the revision of the Canon 3.8.1 on women’s ordination that TEC was saying: “No more Port St. Lucies!”; now the ABC seems to be saying, “No more Dars!”) I would like to see from the ComCon apologists at least an admission: “the ABC let us down – but we press on.” The failure of Dar has forced many painful choices on faithful Anglicans, esp. in North America.

Sarah seems to take the fatalistic view that discipline was never a possibility within the Communion. Some ComCons seem to believe that the Covenant will still come through and save our bacon. I think this is actually a possibility five or ten years down the line, when TEC has continued its Bataan death march even further. At that time, I suspect and hope, the remnants of ComCons and FedCons will to join together in a renewed Communion. It may be, God willing, that in the meantime the latter will have developed theological, pastoral and missiological models for an Anglicanism that can confront the great challenges of the future, such as militant Islam and militant secularism. That is my hope.

[79] Posted by Stephen Noll on 02-23-2008 at 10:57 PM • top

Probably an unfortunate example, RobRoy, since witness that he was able to turn right around after his “capitulation” at Dar and basically do as he wished, which was ignore the requests of Dar of him.

Absolutely not an unfortunate example. But you are absolutely correct about RW’s passive-aggressive eventual total undermining of DeS. But RW is significantly weakened now. If the invitations were to be rescinded next week, they would stay rescinded because the TEc would never repent or offer acts of contrition. The consummate wrong thing to do is to turn down pressure on RW which, shamefully, is what this “plan” does.

Fed-cons and comm-cons are following differing paths but we still have many common goals. Unfortunately, what is clearly evidenced by this plan is that the ACI-ers refuse to work with the fed cons on these common goals, viewing the fed-cons, especially the already realigned, as tainted.

[80] Posted by robroy on 02-23-2008 at 10:57 PM • top

I am not a fedcon or a comcon, a neocon nor an incarcerated con.  I am an orthodox Christian, who happens to be an Anglican, who happens to be an Episcopalian.

These bishops, with this plan have acted as enablers to TEC and its agenda of apostacy.  In effect they are saying that KJS and crew can continue on without repentance and they will attempt to run interference for them.  By honoring her “scheme” (better scam) of Episcopal visitors, they have legitimized her authority.  Granted she is the duly elected PB of TEC, but her teaching, preaching and agenda are pure heresy.  It is another Gospel.  These four bishops are attempting to attain the impossible.  The apostacy of TEC cannot exist in the same space as the Church’s faith. 

Enough of the games, enough of the secret meetings in high places, enough “we have a plan that will allow us to remain one big happy Episcopal Church”, enough betrayal of the orthodox.

We need leaders, not political wonks.

[81] Posted by frreed on 02-24-2008 at 12:16 AM • top

Yawn! Whatever, just rearranging the furniture on the deck of the Titanic as it sinks. This is DOA.

[82] Posted by Anglo-Catholic-Jihadi on 02-24-2008 at 12:32 AM • top

87, Freed,
Well said!  I pray for strength and peace for those who are leaving and I pray for revelation for those who hide in the comfort of the familiar, even as it hardens in opposition to the living Christ’s lordship.  Maranatha, come Lord Jesus.

[83] Posted by Elizabeth on 02-24-2008 at 12:49 AM • top

One of my concerns has been the relative abandonment by both the ACN and the AAC of those “reasserter” clergy and congregations in TEC who, like me (over several years), have made it clear that the glue holding them in place is in fact the Holy Spirit, for purposes perhaps known and/or unknown at this moment.
Certainly, neither would claim that is true in general.  But ACN’s morphed into the CCP with their goals, and the AAC is only waiting for those who “will be” getting out.  This ACN summary is well-stated by Bp Duncan and others; my AAC summary comes from brief discussions with their leadership.
What umbrella group, fellowship or association is left to attend to such membership within TEC?  Well, there’s the new one down in Central Florida….“which one is that?”, you say?......right- not much positive attention given to them.  Not until a few more like that eventually pop up.
This is how I read the Communion Partners idea, bringing it all right back into TEC.  It necessarily replaces the fading interior networks (which admittedly and thankfully are still there) of the ACN and AAC.  It’s not so much “a plan”, as it is a fellowship.  But not waiting for a grass roots association to appear and mature, because time is short, this Partners association is immediately announced as coming into existence two levels up from the parish already.
For those who have found their spiritual freedom and vindication outside of TEC it will seem as foolishness.  If so, then you diminish and demean those of us who, by the Lord Jesus’ hand alone, are obediently not leaving TEC.  You, from your new springs, would be praying for us, and building us up in the Lord.
  I’ve only heard about Communion Partners today, like many of the rest of you.  I like the fact that these particular bishops are named as having made the presentation.  I have already seen it as a necessary rally point, and a way to differentiate from within.  A way to exhort and encourage, and lift up those who fall.  Just like AAC and ACN when they got started. 
That’s it.  Let’s see where it goes, and see if you can’t pray for it’s success, even if in this minimal way.  You may not have anything more important to do while you’re reading the blogs.
I’ll be praying for all of you and your congregations wherever you may be on Sunday—I’ll have plenty of time since I’m at home with pneumonia in both lungs.  Pray for me ,too, and my healing, please.
And the point of that is we should at the very least be praying for each other, and in the power of the Holy Spirit.

[84] Posted by Rob Eaton+ on 02-24-2008 at 01:32 AM • top

I think that Stephen Noll has hit the nail on the head when he writes

I think this is actually a possibility five or ten years down the line, when TEC has continued its Bataan death march even further. At that time, I suspect and hope, the remnants of ComCons and FedCons will to join together in a renewed Communion. It may be, God willing, that in the meantime the latter will have developed theological, pastoral and missiological models for an Anglicanism that can confront the great challenges of the future

except that it might be more like 20-30 years.

My forecast is that none of the GAFCON Provinces will formally leave the AC.  Rather, what we know as the Anglican Communion will devolve into a Federation, and the Instruments of Communion will have lost a large amount of their credibility (as is currently happening now with the Lambeth Conference and the ABC).  But there will emerge a “Communion within the Federation” centered in the GAFCON Provinces.  This group - I hope but with some trepidation - will act like a real communion.  (I am beginning to think that the long-term future of global Anglicanism will be decided upon not by the CDG or the Covenant by how the GAFCON Provinces organize themselves.)

As this development goes on, the liberal western Provinces will continue to bleed members and money, and will continue their march away from Chrisitian orthodoxy.  With the loss of money will come loss of influence on the Communion.  There is also a trend in Britain towards the disestablishment of the CofE, or at the very least, a move away from governmental control over ecclesiastical appointments.

Accordingly, it is my guess that many of the supposed CommCon Provinces will gradually join with the GS “Communion within the Federation”.  In time, this group will absorb the rest of the Communion and the Federation will expire.

Note (Sarah especially) that I am not saying that all CommCons will join the FedCons.  I think that the effect of this in North America will be a big net loss for Anglicanism.  The losses from TEC will not be made up in a gain for the CCP jurisdictions….unless, of course, the new global Anglicanism is able to offer a compelling global version of Christianity that is truly an ancient/future reformed/catholic Church.

[85] Posted by jamesw on 02-24-2008 at 01:47 AM • top

Lord, bring Healing this day for Fr. Rob Eaton, in Jesus’ name.

[86] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 02-24-2008 at 06:46 AM • top

The problem is not that there is a group of communion partners commited to working for reform within. The problem is that this group proposes to do so in cooperation with TEC and 815. To me this dooms the effort as compromised from the start

[87] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-24-2008 at 06:50 AM • top

I’m pretty much avoiding commenting on blogs for Lent, but Rob+ I wanted to let you know I appreciated your comment, and that I’m praying for you this morning for healing, and have asked several other friends to pray for you as well.  Blessings, bro.  May the Lord strengthen you and continue to show you what faithfulness requires and sustain you in a difficult place.

[88] Posted by Karen B. on 02-24-2008 at 07:11 AM • top

RE: “I would like to see from the ComCon apologists at least an admission: “the ABC let us down – but we press on.””

Stephen Noll—as I have been consistently far far far far more pessimistic about the possibilities of Rowan doing the discipline than Matt Kennedy—going back now for years and in writing—it’s quite easy for me to say “oh look, the ABC did not do what so many people thought he would be ‘forced’ to do.”

RE: “Sarah seems to take the fatalistic view that discipline was never a possibility within the Communion.”

Not at all—I always placed my hope on the Primates doing the discipline through the Primates meeting with the ABC standing by and wringing his hands—as Dar purported to do.  My extremely dim view of RW did not go so far as surmising that he would actively sabotage Dar as he did.

RE: “Some ComCons seem to believe that the Covenant will still come through and save our bacon.”

I think it doubtful, but there is some possibility and so I press on.  I also still think there is some possibility of other aids as well, but I don’t want to go into that.

[89] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 07:27 AM • top

A modification a posting at Titus:

Certainly Father Rob’s words are gracious and irenic. But…

Why now? Nothing in this plan couldn’t have waited till after Lambeth. The plan, after all, is just DEPO warmed over plus an exchange of email addresses between the Episcopal visitors and some of the moderate GS primates.

Given Rowan Williams weakened position, there was a possibility that invitations of consecrators of Gene Robinson might have been rescinded IF a unified front of orthodox demanded it. Sarah and others might disagree about the possibility, but this is what SHOULD have happened regardless of outcome (for Rowan Williams is certainly hell-bent on having the consecrators there). Instead, we have the framers of this plan very much playing into the hands of the revisionistas, giving them a free ride. As I said before, Katherine Jefferts Schori and her ilk could not be more pleased.

[90] Posted by robroy on 02-24-2008 at 07:29 AM • top

Rob Eaton+, you are in our prayers.  May the Lord bring healing quickly to you and rebuild your strength soon.

[91] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 02-24-2008 at 07:31 AM • top

RE: “Absolutely not an unfortunate example. But you are absolutely correct about RW’s passive-aggressive eventual total undermining of DeS.”

Heh.  ; > )  I rest my case.

RE: “But RW is significantly weakened now.”

You know, every six months it’s the same thing, RobRoy.  You and others—like the Wile E Coyote—think you’ve got the ticket to somehow “make” Rowan do what he does not wish to do.  Having observed addicts and other highly dysfunctional people . . . it just ain’t the case that you can ultimately make a person do anything [unless you are a Soviet commissar and even then you will find that the gulag prisoners managed to sabotage your plans].  Rowan—until he himself hits rock bottom—will never be made to do anything.  As I have said upstream, I now believe that Rowan is one of those rare beings—and they do exist—that has no rock bottom.  Every time one thinks that particular addict has hit rock bottom—he digs and keeps moving downward.

RE: “The consummate wrong thing to do is to turn down pressure on RW which, shamefully, is what this “plan” does.”

“The consummate wrong thing to do is to turn down pressure on the Communion by not appearing to Lambeth and working on the Communion which, shamefully, is what this “Gafcon plan” does.”

[92] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 07:31 AM • top

Hey Rob Eaton, I hope that you recover handily from your pneumonia—what a horrible illness.  I had it in my mid-20s . . . wiped me out, from an exhaustion standpoint.  Take care of yourself!

Your comment about the lack of an umbrella organization for those within TEC is so so true.

I have no interest, to be honest, in an umbrella organization led by bishops—they have too many political and institutional pressures to really be able or willing to do much of anything.  But I’m just fine with their having a fellowship group.

The part that most struck me from your comment was this: “But not waiting for a grass roots association to appear and mature, because time is short, this Partners association is immediately announced as coming into existence two levels up from the parish already.”

I’m interested in the parish and diocesan levels of grass-roots organizing—mostly of laypeople too.  As we’ve all said for years, for those of us in TEC, that’s where it’s at.  StandFirm Mississippi has done some amazing things in this regard—and there are others out there as well.

[93] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 07:46 AM • top

RE: “Unfortunately, what is clearly evidenced by this plan is that the ACI-ers refuse to work with the fed cons on these common goals, viewing the fed-cons, especially the already realigned, as tainted.”

Huh?  Not tainted, RobRoy—but simply irrelevant to what goes on in TEC.  Why?  Because they have left, they are gone, they are happy, they have a nice new Primate, new bishop, new province.  They are no longer in the game, and as they have loudly and vociferously proclaimed they no longer wish to be in the game.  You can’t very well ask the people who are battling away [admittedly in a place where you think they shouldn’t] to “make plans” for all the people from the outside stands, who aren’t and don’t wish to be even on the playing field.

RE: “Nothing in this plan couldn’t have waited till after Lambeth. The plan, after all, is just DEPO warmed over plus an exchange of email addresses between the Episcopal visitors and some of the moderate GS primates.”

“Nothing in this Gafcon plan couldn’t have waited till after Lambeth. The plan, after all, is just a nice meeting of FedCons warmed over plus an neato venue in Jerusalem/Jordan.”

[94] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 07:46 AM • top

One small point about Comcons, Fedcons, and Gafcon:

Bishop MacPherson has been invited to and is attending Gafcon.

The only way Anglicanism in North America can be saved is if some form of discipline comes from the Communion.  Without that, the actions of the Fedcons will be tantamount of the continuing church movement of the 70’s and 80’s.  In some sense, the Fedcon movement will end up being another wave of folks joining that movement.  I realize folks that comment here at StandFirm have different positions on the success of the continuing church movement, but I don’t particularly have any interest in being a part of that.  If Canterbury based Anglicanism ceases to exist, I think it will be time to give up on Anglicanism altogether.

[95] Posted by Brad Drell on 02-24-2008 at 08:12 AM • top

Now now Miz Sarah. Those who have escaped from Dave Beers, JJ, the former “Bishop” of Nevada and the rest of the thugs, have done so temporarily for the most part. They would return to a reformed TEC in a trice. And having invested hugely in TEC before they did get away from the rottingt corpse that it became, I think it fine if they make their opinions known, and loudly if necessary. They are the diaspora who long for the Temple to be rebuilt.

[96] Posted by teddy mak on 02-24-2008 at 08:16 AM • top

I agree with Brad.  We might hand Kleenex to a cancer patient if they have a cold, but we should never kid ourselves that the Kleenex is going to solve their problem.  I believe the laity are a key to this - we are the ones that hold the purse and sit in the pews.  We are the ones who will stand before the judgment seat and explain what we did or did not do.  The bishops serve the people - not the other way around.  We should not be, as the disciples were in the Garden the night before Jesus died, found sleeping when they should have kept watch.  Look who is willing to put their life, their liberty and their sacred honor on the line and you will find courageous leadership.  We are not about just creating reservations of the discontented - but about the restoration of the historic Christian faith in the Anglican Communion.  There is nothing in John Howe’s plan that moves this forward - it’s about sequestering the faithful into reservations where they are easier targets. 

bb

[97] Posted by BabyBlue on 02-24-2008 at 08:20 AM • top

I’m in the game, Sarah.  In Virginia we have a coalition made up of both those who have separated the Episcopal Church and those who are still in.  We have the French Resistance on the inside and the Allies on the outside.  But we’re all fighting the same war.  It is our adversaries that split us into factions - it’s not factions, it’s fronts!

-Mary

[98] Posted by BabyBlue on 02-24-2008 at 08:22 AM • top

Not tainted, RobRoy—but simply irrelevant to what goes on in TEC.

I have not left the TEc. Bps Duncan and Iker have not left the TEc. Father Handy has not left the TEc. There are gazillions of fed-cons that haven’t left the TEc. But they have been shunned by the ACI-ers who did not even have dignity to ask Bp Iker about the communion plan. This is accentuating differences between conservative flavors that is disappointing.

But that is not pertinent anyway because I am talking about TEc but Anglican Communion. I had a tiny hope that with the Sharia fiasco, invitations of the consecrators might have been rescinded. You had none. None the less, the attempt to pressure the ABC should not have been shot in the foot.

The GAFCon merits or demerits are a separate issue and not relevant.

[99] Posted by robroy on 02-24-2008 at 08:28 AM • top

Brad:
Now that’s just silly. Being “loyal” to a faith system because its secular politically appointed primus inter pares occupies a drafty pile of medieval stone masonry is very risky indeed, very possibly idolatrous. And illogical.
Anglicanism is a system of Chrisitian faith practices and beliefs that have nothing to do with geography and everything to do with the purity of the Faith Once Given by the Risen Christ.

This is why I am still, after all of these months of listening to the agruements, astounded at the concept that buildings, places, heresy and apostacy, are less of an evil than a seperation preserves the faith.

I am suspicious that +Iker, +Ackerman, +Duncan and +Schofield have been abandoned to the tender mercies of 815. This is what naturally follows allegiance to property instead of principle. I pray this is not what has happened.

[100] Posted by teddy mak on 02-24-2008 at 08:37 AM • top

Should have been “than a seperation that preserves the purity of the faith.”

[101] Posted by teddy mak on 02-24-2008 at 08:40 AM • top

BabyBlue’s entire post above bears repeating until Bishop Howe himself hears it:

There is nothing in John Howe’s plan that moves this forward - it’s about sequestering the faithful into reservations where they are easier targets.

This so-called plan is Dead. On. Arrival.  All the laity, whether they have heard “the plan” or not, know this.

[102] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 02-24-2008 at 08:41 AM • top

RE: “And having invested hugely in TEC before they did get away from the rottingt corpse that it became, I think it fine if they make their opinions known, and loudly if necessary.”

Oh, I’m just fine that those who have left TEC are expressing their opinions.  But it’s incredibly silly for those who have left—or who have every intention of departing for the Southern Cone—to complain that those who are within TEC and scrapping away are somehow supposed to come up with a “plan” that includes those who are no longer interested in reforming TEC—because in fact, they are GONE.  It’s a bit like my saying “oh wait—Bishop Schofield—how is your plan going to help my parish—waah waaaaaaaaahhhhhh . . . your departure does nothing to help me in my special circumstances!!!”

And indeed—shockingly—I’ve heard just that.

It’s as if each and every move that any reasserting Anglican takes has to somehow “help me”—me, me, me, me, me and all of my allies.

[103] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 09:00 AM • top

Just for the record, +Gray did not hurl epithets at ++Anis in New orleans.

[104] Posted by Greg Griffith on 02-24-2008 at 09:03 AM • top

RE: “The GAFCon merits or demerits are a separate issue and not relevant.”

Exactly so—which is why I did not mention them RobRoy.  I merely point out the precise and exact parallel between what you are saying about the Communion Partners Plan and what others gnashed over about the Gafcon Plan.

I frankly believe that both “plans” are fraught with incompetencies galore—but that’s neither here nor there.  Arguing that those Mean Wascally ComCons are not using your tactics and strategies is like the ComCons doing the same thing about the FedCons.

[105] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 09:05 AM • top

RE: “Brad: Now that’s just silly. Being “loyal” to a faith system because its secular politically appointed primus inter pares occupies a drafty pile of medieval stone masonry is very risky indeed, very possibly idolatrous. And illogical.
Anglicanism is a system of Chrisitian faith practices and beliefs that have nothing to do with geography and everything to do with the purity of the Faith Once Given by the Risen Christ.”

And . . . I think the above quote nicely illustrates why FedCons will never ever be happy with anything that ComCons try.  Because what ComCons happen to hold dear is of no interest to FedCons.  Canterbury doesn’t matter.  Some silly historic see that has only been populated by Christians for some 1600 years is actually irrelevant to The Plan.  Along with so many silly thingies that ComCons mysteriously hold dear and are basically irrelevant to True Anglicanism.

Again—that’s cool.  It simply illustrates that we don’t have the same goals or values in the matter of reform or renewal. 

And I’m just fine with FedCons going and pursuing their strategy.  I cheer them on—I wish for their success—I give them high-fives—I make an effort within my own limitations to offer them help and support.  But for Pete’s sake, why can’t FedCons do the same?

Why can’t they just say “my—what an incredibly bad idea for the pursuit of their bizarre goals—but ah well, the dears are trying hard and we wish them every success with their bishops and Primates fellowship club.”  Because - -as I have been persistently saying for nigh on 24 hours now . . . that’s what it is.

Instead it’s “but wait—how does that help us with our goals—you know, destroying Canterbury down to the ground, razing it with salt, electing Akinola, lay presidency, choose-your-own-bishop, praise music worship services, and having a nice Federation that switches “sees” every year or so, along with the Westminster Confession as our Covenant?  Aren’t you Pensions/Power/Prestige Princelings ashamed of yourselves for not being on board with The Plan!  How dare you not come up with the tactics and strategies that help us with The Plan.

[Please note—I do not mean to offend any single Anglicans who personally may like Archbishop Akinola, praise songs, lay presidency or any of the other delights in the above list. I just threw in a bunch of illustrations.]

[106] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 09:18 AM • top

Sarah,
I am not now nor have ever been happy with the distinction between ComCons and FedCons.  I am willing to be labeled with the position you and others identify as FedCon because reluctantly I have come to the conclusion that if Communion discipline depends on Rowan Williams it will never happen, and apart from the ABC there can be no Communion discipline.

If Brad Drell’s statement above that “The only way Anglicanism in North America can be saved is if some form of discipline comes from the Communion,” is correct, then I’m afraid that Anglicanism in North America can not be saved.

The options then are rather stark.  (1) One decides either to remain within a Canterbury-centered Communion that one believes will never see discipline; (2) One leaves Anglicanism completely and goes to Rome, Orthodoxy or some Protestant body that one hopes will not succumb to its own version of TECitis; (3) One leaves the Church completely; (4) one attempts to be Anglican in a non-Canterbury-centered Communion.

If (1), (2) and (3) are unacceptable, (4) is the only option left.  That doesn’t mean that I believe that what ComCons hold dear “doesn’t matter.”  To the contrary, I hold it dear myself.  I am grieved that I no longer have confidence in either RW or the Windsor bishops.  I wish RW had acted decisively after GC 2004, and that he had not tried to subvert communion discipline repeatedly with the useless Panel of Reference,  the attempted coup at DES, the invitation of non-Windsor bishops to Lambeth, and the subversion of DES’s Sept. 30 deadline.  I wish all Windsor bishops in TEC had stood toe-to-toe after GC 2006, and insisted that in light of TEC’s non-compliance with Windsor that they were no longer in communion with TEC, and that there was no future for Anglicanism in North America apart from undiluted Alternative (not Delegated) Episcopal Oversight straight from Canterbury and the Primates.  But they didn’t.  I wish that rather than accepting the piece of slop called DEPO that Windsor-compliant bishops in TEC had themselves stepped forward and immediately offered oversight to any and all orthodox parishes in TEC dioceses who requested it right after GC 2004—consequences be damned. But they didn’t.

Does Canterbury matter? Absolutely.  So did Rome in 1054 and 1517.  Do I have any desire to destroy Canterbury, make Akinola head of a new Communion? No.  Theologically, I am, opposed to lay presidency, and I LOATHE praise music.  Moreover, I am neither Reformed nor Anglo-Catholic, and I unapologetically endorse both Women’s ordination and the 1979 BCP.

But once (1), (2) or (3) are eliminated, (4) is the only option left that I can see.  And whatever my own discomforts with some of the details, I suppose that means I will find myself with Duncan & Co.

Moreover, I do believe that the CCP path is the only one that provides hope for those in revisionist dioceses, of which I was until recently a member—because those are the only bishops who are willing to cross diocesan borders.

[107] Posted by William Witt on 02-24-2008 at 10:47 AM • top

RE: “The GAFCon merits or demerits are a separate issue and not relevant.”

Exactly so—which is why I did not mention them RobRoy.  I merely point out the precise and exact parallel between what you are saying about the Communion Partners Plan and what others gnashed over about the Gafcon Plan.

Precise and exact opposites, you mean. The GAFCon most assuredly put the squeeze on Rowan Williams. Many inside sources have stated that RW was very concerned about his precious tea-party. GAFCon increased this. This new plan lets decreases his concerns (as does all the fawning deference given by the ACI to the ABC.) Brad Drell, the comm-con, speaks of the absolute necessity of discipline which this fed-con wholeheartedly agrees. So why work against discipline? This is what I object to. I do not begrudge the exchanging of email addresses. (As if that hasn’t already happened.)

This being said, it is sad that Brad is still holding out for the Anglican covenant to bring discipline on the TEc. Merely look at the progression of the covenant designers: covenant draft one, covenant draft two, and now the communion partner plans. What we see is the pushing aside the Gene Robinson issue and the rise of border-crossings as being the epitome of evil. The covenant’s final form will be used to punish the godly and uphold the heretics.

[108] Posted by robroy on 02-24-2008 at 10:59 AM • top

RE: “Many inside sources have stated that RW was very concerned about his precious tea-party.”

Right—I’m sure that will continue.  But no amount of “oh rats - -now that the ComCons have their little fellowship group, that means they won’t be boycotting Lambeth” will ever ring true, RobRoy.  The fact is—these Primates do not wish to boycott Lambeth.  Thus they will move forward with their own ComCon fellowship group.  They didn’t and do not agree with the “let’s boycott Lambeth” plan.  I understand that you think it’s the cat’s meow—they don’t.

So having their own fellowship club does exactly nothing against “boycotting Lambeth”—as they were not going to anyway.  The fellowship club is a consequence of their not being on board with your Gafcon/boycott strategy and their being on board with their own.

Again—your objections to their having their own fellowship club are smilingly similar to the ACI’s objections to the FedCons deciding to boycott Lambeth.  Neither side agrees with the other’s strategy.

Further—how on earth does the fellowship club “work against discipline”?  And please don’t say “because now that means they won’t be boycotting Lambeth”!  They Do Not Nor Have They Ever Wished To Boycott Lambeth.

[109] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 11:16 AM • top

Sarah

You have a lot of energy!

Phil

[110] Posted by Philip Bowers on 02-24-2008 at 11:52 AM • top

Again—your objections to their having their own fellowship club are smilingly similar to the ACI’s objections to the FedCons deciding to boycott Lambeth.  Neither side agrees with the other’s strategy.

You know, Sarah.  This is a good argument.  It is good because it is true.  You are exactly correct.  In my initial post in the first thread, I stated that this plan was intended to divide the orthodox.  And I meant exactly what you said above: “Now that the ComCons have their little fellowship group, that means they won’t be boycotting Lambeth.” It’s hard to argue with words you could have spoken. 

The conflict stems from the fact that the goals of the two groups are not just different, but incompatible.  One side wants as little conservative presence at Lambeth as possible - specifically to delegitimize it.  A new communion is the goal.  The other side wants as much conservative presence at Lambeth as possible - specifically to maintain a conservative footprint. A new covenant for the old communion is the goal.  What is good for one is bad for the other.

You are right.  The reaction is driven by the fact that this plan threatens the outcome desired by those who desire to “destroy Canterbury down to the ground, and raze it with salt.”  I could have written those words as well.

carl

[111] Posted by carl on 02-24-2008 at 12:37 PM • top

Stephen Noll—as I have been consistently far far far far more pessimistic about the possibilities of Rowan doing the discipline than Matt Kennedy—going back now for years and in writing—it’s quite easy for me to say “oh look, the ABC did not do what so many people thought he would be ‘forced’ to do.”

Sarah, I was thinking of the ACI. Just happened to reread their Communion and Discipline (2004). It is a fine piece of work, just dated. Here is their answer to the question about “within what period of time should discipline [sidelining of TEC and NW] be offered…?”

We would suggest, therefore, that after due notification of the discipline to be offered, that discipline would become effective within three months of this notification [Dar gave six months]. In respect to the time when the form of discipline should be reviewed, we suggest that the next meeting of the Lambeth Conference of Bishops be considered a terminus ad quem [I hope they meant 2008 not 2018] for the form of discipline we have suggested. At this point, if the discipline offered appears to have failed to achieve its purpose of reconciliation in common teaching and discipline, we recommend that the Primates request that the Archbishop of Canterbury initiate whatever process is necessary within the Church of England to bring about a formal break in communion between the See of Canterbury, ECUSA, and the Diocese of Westminster, even as other Primates pursue a similar course within their own provinces. (pp. 66-67)

Advice to warm the cockles of a FedCon’s heart. Unfortunately, the ABC chose not to follow that advice, and so far as I can see the Covenant Draft makes no reference to a terminus ad quem whatsoever. That’s why I suggested that the ACI might at least say: “We tried, he wouldn’t listen, we press on.”

[112] Posted by Stephen Noll on 02-24-2008 at 12:52 PM • top

RE: “In my initial post in the first thread, I stated that this plan was intended to divide the orthodox.”

Carl, the plan does not “intend” to “divide the orthodox”—the “plan” [actually fellowship group] merely illustrates the division that has been all this time.

[113] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 01:04 PM • top

Stephen Noll, thank you for the clarification that you were thinking of the ACI.  I’m relieved that—after all of my bleak warnings about the ABC over the past three years—I am not going to now be painted as “The Optimist about the ABC,” especially since Matt Kennedy got all the praise and kudos for being a Gentle Kindly Optimist while I posted prophetic pessimism about his character and got tagged as a Gloomy Eeyore.

[114] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 01:07 PM • top

the plan does not “intend” to “divide the orthodox”—the “plan” [actually fellowship group] merely illustrates the division that has been all this time.

Yes, that is the point I was conceding.  smile  My statement was wrong.
carl

[115] Posted by carl on 02-24-2008 at 01:11 PM • top

Sarah,

I am not crying that the Communion Partners plan does not include CCP. I do think the Communion Partners plan betrays those in hostile diocese who are looking for structural relief in a form that allows them to have some controll over assessments and succession. I completely agree that those who stay in are in no way obligated to have concern for those who are committed to or who have already left.

I do think that real dissent as opposed to collaboration, necessarily means pushing for a way to care for those parishes in hostile diocese commited to stay in TEC but who need structural protection.

The plan as it now stands, throws these parishes under the bus, giving them a life span that corresponds to the staying power of their current clergy.

The Communion Partners plan is one that hostile heretic bishops could and will embrace with all their hearts because it solidifies their power. It is, in that respect, a surrender to a more collaborative scheme.

[116] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-24-2008 at 01:57 PM • top

Only the Network seemed to care about what happens to those of us in hostile dioceses. We aren’t being left with much choice at all.

[117] Posted by oscewicee on 02-24-2008 at 02:00 PM • top

I am not going to now be painted as “The Optimist about the ABC,” especially since Matt Kennedy got all the praise and kudos for being a Gentle Kindly Optimist while I posted prophetic pessimism about his character and got tagged as a Gloomy Eeyore.

Certainly not you, Sarah, you’ve been pretty consistently the pessimist/realist in all this ... as well as proving not to bow to peer pressure.
——

It is surprising to me that the FedCon think there is perfect unity in the GS. They are in the sense that each is outside the situation but they always have had different perspectives, which is why +Gomez preaching last September was so HUGE. I guess some FedCon thought he come around, but there always been a spectrum of opinion in the GS primates. In an odd way, I take that as hope, for if they can work on their differences outside the situation than maybe this reform movement will not splinter into many pieces as the many others have in the past by their influence of those inside the situation.

[118] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 02-24-2008 at 02:00 PM • top

Well, Matt—you could be right.  I’m going to wait and see.  My initial take is that—while certainly not bold and not that I can see particularly helpful—it is not collaborative to say “we won’t violate the canons and we won’t cross borders.”

I also don’t think that hostile heretic bishops will embrace it, judging by the squawks of outrage from other progressives.  It may be that someone like a Bishop Wolf will embrace it—but then, she has already embraced DEPO too and I don’t see DEPO as “collaborative.”

I just think that the fellowship group is merely a narrowly defined group of happy ComCon traditional bishops.  I don’t think it even attempts to solve the issues of parishes in hostile dioceses—but then, that’s no surprise as nothing over the past four years, save the Five Primates, as offered meaningful oversight.  That is a travesty, but I don’t see that non-offering of help is per se “collaborative.”

Still . . . I’ll be willing to change my mind as I observe further.

[119] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 02:05 PM • top

If Canterbury based Anglicanism ceases to exist, I think it will be time to give up on Anglicanism altogether.

May I humbly submit that the exact opposite is true. Canterbury based Anglicanism must cease to exist in order for Anglicanism not to give up altogether.  The evidence for this is that the Canterbury-based elements of Anglicanism, as it was formerly constituted, are the very elements that self-destructed.  The Canterbury-based Archbishop of Canterbury (the badly-misnamed Focus of Unity) stopped unifying and started driving the disintegration of the old Anglican Communion through pretty much everything he said and did.  The Lambeth Conference (from the Latin conferre “to bring together”) instead became an instrument to drive apart and exclude.  Anglicanism will proceed without a Canterbury basis because the Canterbury basis slit its own throat.

[120] Posted by Chazaq on 02-24-2008 at 02:10 PM • top

Sarah,

The text itself suggests an explicit commitment to honor jurisdictional boundaries and to work only within the purview provided by the PB’s EV plan. There are no provisions for succession or for diverting assessments.

I agree that it is just fine to have fellowship groups and no one ought to begrudge this group of that.

What I do think borders on, if not crosses over, collaboration is the respect these orthodox leaders give for heretics and the power they wield over comcon orthodox parishes in question.

I agree that we must wait and see, but if this is a segway into some sort of a deal whereby the orthodox parishes in hostile diocese are allowed to die or to be coopted by heretic bishops in order to “respect” jurisdictional boundaries, then it is nothing short of a gutless and cowardly capitulation and not at all consistent with the sort of resistance Christians are called to mount against heretics.

[121] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-24-2008 at 02:16 PM • top

That’s true, Matt!  And the best examples of resistance are ++Akinola, ++Orombi and +Venables.

[122] Posted by Alice Linsley on 02-24-2008 at 02:22 PM • top

Fr. Matt:

That was the part I looked at and thought “Wolf in sheep’s clothing” - it’s taking away the only recourse the orthodox have to keep their Faith and stay Anglican.

I’m glad my bishop cares enough about his people to stand up for them - even when they are in another country.

Thank you, Jesus, for ++Orombi!

[123] Posted by Eclipse on 02-24-2008 at 02:42 PM • top

The post goes ever on, so I might as well go with it.  Baby Blue made reference to “sequestering the faithful into reservations.”  I had already mentally used the term “ghetto” and we know what happens to those in the ghetto.

On another topic, Sarah, I think it extremely unfair to claim that FedCons do not hold dear to many of the Anglican traditions and worship practices.  Many of those are what brought me into the Episcopal Church in the first place.  Unfortunately none of them can trump the Truth of the Gospel which is what is at stake here, making me, along with William Witt and others a reluctant but determined FedCon.

[124] Posted by Ann Castro on 02-24-2008 at 02:44 PM • top

Teddy Mak:

I think that if the Anglican Communion fails, then the system of belief that spawned it in the first place is inherently flawed and contained with in it the seeds of its own destruction.

I’ll probably write more on this soon.

[125] Posted by Brad Drell on 02-24-2008 at 03:01 PM • top

“The options then are rather stark.  (1) One decides either to remain within a Canterbury-centered Communion that one believes will never see discipline; (2) One leaves Anglicanism completely and goes to Rome, Orthodoxy or some Protestant body that one hopes will not succumb to its own version of TECitis; (3) One leaves the Church completely; (4) one attempts to be Anglican in a non-Canterbury-centered Communion. “

Succinct. Those are also correct who state that this announcement just underscores existing divisions within the GS, rather than creating them. 

The presence of Gomez on this list is not surprising. What is more significant about this list is that it includes Earnest and to a lesser extent, Ntahoturi and Mtetemela.  This is another indication that they are falling in on the side of Canterbury.  Not that they agree with the ABC or the PB on the big theological issues, just that they are not willing to join Akinola, Orombi and others in essentially saying that those issues are worth splitting with Canterbury if not definitely resolved in the short term.

Those of us fedcoms need to get comfortable with the fact that we are not going to roll over the Episcopal Church, nor are we going to convince the ACI, Gomez, Howe, etc. that it is time to give up on a Canterbury centered communion, or even that additional Episcopal parishes should leave the denomination (other than those already on the way out).  If a new Anglican styled presence is going to flourish in the US it will be based on the dynamism of the parishes and leaders involved, not some Machiavellian political maneuver. 

Akinola, Orombi and their colleagues are only with us for a season. Further delay threatens to squander this opportunity.  We should quit trying to convince they orthodox leaders that are determined to stay in TEC, or within a Communion with TEC, that they should do anything else.

[126] Posted by Going Home on 02-24-2008 at 03:30 PM • top

Aren’t all of us who are now being called FedCon (or at least the great majority) ‘reluctant’?  And isn’t every current FedCon a ‘recovering’ ComCon?  As has been noted, the vast majority of those who have left are praying daily for a viable Anglican presence to run back to - manning the life boats, as they say.

Sarah, me thinks thee do protest “way” too much.  You’re boys have simply taken the next logical step in the sad ‘Windsor Bishop’ dance.  And this time, their words (which have yet to be backed-up with any real action) were meant to be in private.  They were not even going to make it public.  Have they gotten so timid with their orthodoxy that they cannot say “neigh” out loud to heresy, print a dissenting opinion, or even speak publicly about their new fellowship group?

By the way, still in a TEC parish, under a Windsor/Camp Allen Bishop who claims orthodoxy - at least in private - but who is fighting us tooth and nail (including threats of a lock-down and defrocking) because we have the audacity to consider a period of discernment.

Your ‘dissapointment’ in the FedCon’s expression of dismay at this new Fellowship seems strangely out of place to one who sits under a Windsor bishop who will not take a stand.  I cannot even imagine how an orthodox Anglican in a blantantly revisionist Dio might be feel about your calling their options unfaithful.

[127] Posted by Wilkie on 02-24-2008 at 03:44 PM • top

Brad:
So when the Reformation split from Rome (or even earlier, the split with Constantinople), this meant that Chirsitianity was “inherently flawed and contained with in it the seeds of its own destruction.”?

I think not - but a good house cleaning (read Reformation) may be needed so that the ORIGINAL BELIEFS are restored to their rightful place, above Polity, systems of governance, and bloated hierarchies (read idols).

[128] Posted by Wilkie on 02-24-2008 at 03:49 PM • top

Wilkie, best wishes for the discernment period!

[129] Posted by Going Home on 02-24-2008 at 04:07 PM • top

Per 131:

I think that if the Anglican Communion fails, then the system of belief that spawned it in the first place is inherently flawed and contained with in it the seeds of its own destruction.

I’ll probably write more on this soon.

Mr. Drell, I’d consider looking into the lack of central authority as one of the major seeds of destruction.  It was to Henry VIII’s advantage to not give the Archbishop of Canterbury such power as well as the advantage for all of the future Kings and Queens of England.

Just think, if the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams had central authority today, you would know exactly what he thought about the gnostism that is destroying the Anglican Comunion because (for instance, gnostics say the human condition particularly sexuality is all plastic, all malleable, all changeable. Then there’s the whole gnostic enlightened, superior intelligence way to experiencing Christ’s presence in our life as opposed through tried and true sacramentals like the Eucharist…) Dr. Williams could not only speak freely about what the Truth is, he could punished those who walk away from it.

Because of his lack of Central Authority, he is not allowed to do that.  It would be considered an abuse of his power.  Instead, he’s allowed to make accomodations designed to keep as many in the fold as he can. Accomodations like conforming Christ to people’s lives.  Which of course, if done long enough with enough issues will destroy the Church.

[130] Posted by Mrs. Lawrence on 02-24-2008 at 04:14 PM • top

GH:  Thanks. 

Sad but necessary if we are to live faithfully and be able to again focus on His work (not to mention stop feeding the beast that is TEC).  So sad that our CA Bishop is throwing around threats and brow-beating our awesome Rector.

Interesting that the Canon to the Ordinary met privately with our Vestry in an attempt to try and convince us to delay the process (our Bishop retires in 18 months and the Canon is running for the office) after the same man was the bull dog when we visited the Church Corporation to talk property options.  Seems when they realized the stick was not working, it was time to try some honey.

[131] Posted by Wilkie on 02-24-2008 at 04:18 PM • top

“The possibility of “orthodox” bishops arriving to confirm and perform visitations is very nice, but since the entire process is controlled and overseen by heretical diocesan bishops who will continue to determine succession and demand assessments, it is only a matter of time before orthodox parishes in heretical diocese become extinct. When the rector leaves or the vicar is removed, that will be the end of the game”.

“It is a recipe for the eventual defeat and destruction of internal resistance within heretical jurisdictions”.

Yup, and the clergy within those “heretical jurisdictions”, unless under more compassionate bishops(still willing to work with traditional clergy and parishes) like Geralyn Wolf, will do no more than get eaten alive by the corrupt liberal machine. 

This is nice that Howe and co. have put this plan together, but it sells down the river any traditional parish in a revisionist diocese.  Is Howe’s opinion “oh, well, that’s their problem”?  A good compassionate, empathetic Christian attitude, if so. 

Despite these bishops’ supposed abhorrence of boundary crossing(which they foolishly treat as a greater sin than the abandonment of the Faith itself; go figure), Archbishop Nzimbi is one of my heroes; as, without him, his courage, the like bishops of his province, and his Biblically-sound theology, my pals in my former Diocese of Massachusetts would have nowhere to go.  At least, not anywhere Anglican.

Frankly I’m about tired of hearing certain CommCon bishops trashing the likes of Bishop Duncan—at least he’s one American who actually gives a damn about what I would call the “lost souls”. 

Someday I hope Howe and co. do better.

[132] Posted by Passing By on 02-24-2008 at 04:32 PM • top

“This plan, in my opinion, is just the same old DEPO pig gussied up in a nice pink dress and lipstick.”

I actually think it’s worse than DEPO.  It’s actually the PV plan, though so watered down that we had a hard time recognizing it.

When compared to the original DES PV plan, this ‘communion partners plan’ can be seen clearly for what it is: a capitulation to KJS.

[133] Posted by Fr. Andrew Gross on 02-24-2008 at 04:34 PM • top

The only difference over KJS’s version of the PV that I see is that the ‘communion partners plan’ clearly articulates that some GS Primates may visit orthodox diocese for fellowship and sacramental celebration.  It is nice that this was stated as desireable, but of course, this has always been possible in the past and so represents no real development.

What the ‘communion partners’ plan does do is allow Windsor Bishops to tell their constituents that “the Windsor Process is moving forward,” at the same moment as it kills the original, substantial PV plan.

[134] Posted by Fr. Andrew Gross on 02-24-2008 at 04:41 PM • top

That’s sort of what I said Fr. Gross, perhaps not so “nicely”.  Here goes:  from the Brad Drell string:

“Well, its seems to me its just a way for those “fence sitters” to cover their backsides.
Quite a few of them know that they have parishes “THREATENING” to bail, and there’s quite a bit of pressure from their dioceses to “do something”..  Under this plan, they can claim they are under some sort of “alternate primatial foolishness”, so the “people” are not to worry….... LOL

Meantime, back at the Diocese Bursar’s office, the money is still going to TEC to back the lawsuits and the other stuff (including paying for KJS to go to Lambeth. 815 will never agree to this without the money still coming in… A case of not letting the right hand know what the left hand is doing.

Please folk, do NOT BE FOOLED.  This would make (at least externally) for the best of both worlds for these bishops. (Sorry Brad), but I speak the truth.  Covered in the blanket of “APO”, but performing as usual for as long as it takes for the people to see the truth or they can get to retirement whichever comes first.

Don’t waste any more time on this, it means nothing to the orthodox, and these bishops KNOW for a fact, no truly orthodox bishop will even consider signing on.

I just wonder how their flock feels about all of it.

Grannie Gloria

This HAS nothing at all to do with the truly orthodox, they will be left “swinging in the wind” by this bunch of “moderates”.

[135] Posted by Grandmother on 02-24-2008 at 05:42 PM • top

Dear Brad:

I think that if the Anglican Communion fails, then the system of belief that spawned it in the first place is inherently flawed and contained with in it the seeds of its own destruction.

The mental picture I get here is Eeyore.  You are being a little fatalistic, my friend… or did you just loose your tail again?

Reality is Brad, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Church of Christ, Assembly of God, Nazarene, Non-Denominational, Inter-Denominational, Presbyterian, Quaker, God and My Own Tree Church, or Golf Tees at Nine - all Christian denominations being ultimately defined by the presence of Homo sapiens are inherently “flawed and contain the seeds of their own destruction”

If we simply could get rid of humans out of the church then we wouldn’t have any problems with church.  OF COURSE, then it wouldn’t be a church - which is a fundamental problem.

However, unfortunately, God expects us to “forsake not the assembling of ourselves”.  We are to be ‘beholdin’ to one another - even when that ‘beholdin’ ain’t gonna be perfect.

Problem with giving up on Anglicanism and going somewhere else - is that that other golden place is still full of humans - will be full of humans until Christ comes again, we get to go to heaven and be put out of our finite, flawed, current humanistic form and put on one that actually smacks of heaven. 

The best we can hope for, My Friend, is a glimpse of Christ through one another now and again - and a church community that helps us draw closer to Christ.  If you will recall in the recent past, TEC gave up the first option as too ‘limiting’ since it involves giving up sin, and the second was close on its heals since adhering to Scripture means you have to deal with your own sin and that’s way too limiting.

Neither of the TEC’s inventions have one OUNCE to do with Anglicanism. 

So, I’ll stick with Anglicanism - even w/o Rowen at the Helm - because Anglicanism isn’t dependent on ABC - it’s dependent on Godly people (bishops, clergy and laity) trying to worship God as faithfully as they can and trying to become less like themselves and more like Christ (That’s what Lent is about, for Pete’s Sake).

Brad, with our without your tail, it’s still a glorious day,  you can find Godly clergy and men who love Christ, you can still follow Jesus, and you can still be a Faithful Anglican.  However, I will admit that the latter is much easier to achieve when one is delivered from TEC.

Bishop Guernsey is right - it’s not a funeral, it is a Reformation - and we have the chance to either grieve or be a force of change in our communities.

Me, I choose the latter.

[136] Posted by Eclipse on 02-24-2008 at 06:12 PM • top

if the Anglican Communion fails

Now that the Canterbury-based Anglican Communion has failed, Anglicanism cleansed of the Canterbury corruption has a chance to look forward to what the power of God unto salvation will accomplish.  Choose life.

[137] Posted by Chazaq on 02-24-2008 at 06:35 PM • top

Granny Gloria, Yeh, we’re on the same track.  This plan is so meager that it’s hard to understand why anyone would bother.  Maybe the originators truly think that some will bother, or maybe as you suggest, they’re just in it for PR reasons.

[138] Posted by Fr. Andrew Gross on 02-24-2008 at 09:21 PM • top

RE: ” . . . but if this is a segway into some sort of a deal whereby the orthodox parishes in hostile diocese are allowed to die or to be coopted by heretic bishops in order to “respect” jurisdictional boundaries, then it is nothing short of a gutless and cowardly capitulation and not at all consistent with the sort of resistance Christians are called to mount against heretics.”

Matt—I don’t get what you are saying.  It seems clear that orthodox parishes in hostile dioceses [and by that I mean led by bishops who are both revisionist and hostile, as opposed to merely revisionist] will indeed die unless they leave. 

I thought we all had agreed to that.  Even Seitz and Radner have acknowledged that as a probable need [although perhaps they would quibble as to *which* or *how many* dioceses were hostile].

So . . . it appears that what you are asking is that a current sitting diocesan TEC bishop “cross diocesan lines” and defy the canons.  The result of course, would be that bishop’s deposition, and eventually that bishop would be in exactly the same position, with regards to Anglican Communion participation, as any other non-TEC bishop functioning in the U.S.  So . . . why wouldn’t the current situation—non-TEC bishops functioning under the oversight of GS Provinces—be the appropriate “solution.” Why repeat what has already happened, only in the process get another TEC bishop deposed whose calling and mission and sense of responsibility [rightly or wrongly] are to function within TEC?

Furthermore, if you are asking this, you are asking what even Bishop Duncan did not do as moderator of the Network. 

Has you position shifted such that you have decided that TEC bishops who are unwilling to cross diocesan boundaries and offer oversight are engaged in “a gutless and cowardly capitulation”?

If so, then that essentially is merely a repetition of the FedCon strategy which is “leave TEC now” and thus seems somewhat circular.

[139] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 09:26 PM • top

RE: “On another topic, Sarah, I think it extremely unfair to claim that FedCons do not hold dear to many of the Anglican traditions and worship practices.”

Ann Castro, I thought my statement above was clear.  TeddyMak does not think Canterbury important.  I stated that it was fairly clear that FedCons do not have the same values and goals as ComCons.  Surely you would grant that that is true?

Please note that I did NOT say that only ComCons are “True Anglicans.”

[140] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 09:30 PM • top

RE: “As has been noted, the vast majority of those who have left are praying daily for a viable Anglican presence to run back to - manning the life boats, as they say.”

Of course, that has not been noted at all.  It is my thesis—and I think it very very hard to argue against it—that those departing Anglicanism entirely do not consider the CCP in any way a “viable Anglican presence.”

I’m with Brad and unsurprisingly, as a ComCon, wholeheartedly agree.  I have zero hope that there can be a functional, healthy Anglicanism within the US without Canterbury as a center that holds.  And so, if the center “flies apart” as looks likely, I will be going elsewhere.

RE: “I cannot even imagine how an orthodox Anglican in a blantantly revisionist Dio might be feel about your calling their options unfaithful.”

Me neither—but as I did not call their options “unfaithful” we don’t have to worry about how such an Anglican might “feel”.  ; > )

[141] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 09:34 PM • top

Fr. Gross, I agree that as an oversight plan—as I’ve said several times—it’s pathetically pointless.  Can’t imagine why any parish in a hostile diocese would go to the trouble for very little return, although it might be helpful for a desperate rector with a divided parish who may wish to throw a bone to conservative laity in the hopes that they will be confused.  But I don’t think it will work.

It’s a nice fellowship group, ultimately, and I’m happy for them to have that, although it certainly does nothing for me and others.

[142] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 09:40 PM • top

Sarah, for those on the inside, it seems a constant struggle to figure out what is capitulating, vs. when civil disobedience is in order, vs. just plain hunkern’ down and waiting for ‘the next important moment.’ 

Having just been on the inside and felt this way, I’m now glad for the moral clarity that has come from being outside TEC.  However, it seems to me that those on the inside will only see the shades of gray blur further. 

A lot of things that the camp allen bishops have done lately look to me like capitulation, but maybe they’re just laying low because they have a larger strategy in mind.  All that to say, from the outside it’s hard to tell, but none of it looks like much fun.

[143] Posted by Fr. Andrew Gross on 02-24-2008 at 09:41 PM • top

Sarah,
Your pessimism about the CCP is always sobering to me.  I hope that you are wrong (and I suspect that you would also be happy to be wrong about this prediction).

Do you really think you could leave the Prayer Book worship behind and go into a different denomination altogether?  If there was a CCP church that was healthy and geographically close to you would you even consider it if/when you leave TEC? Or have you already sworn them off as an option?

[144] Posted by Fr. Andrew Gross on 02-24-2008 at 09:56 PM • top

So this is what we have been waiting for?  Newsflash: this has been going on for some time with visiting Bishops asking permission before barging into a Diocese.  There are several Orthodox, Catholic Bishops who visit and have visited for years until the rules are changed and they are thrown out such as the Diocesan of Pennsylvania not allowing the retired Bishops of Quincy into the Diocese to minister to the sister parishes there.  It only works for so long and the time is over.  This plan being hatched in secret should be kept a secret…............forever.
Reunification looking better all the time.

[145] Posted by Dallas Priest on 02-24-2008 at 09:56 PM • top

I would like to ask what many might think a silly question.  Exactly what are the benefits to being in union with Canterbury?  I cannot see anything that is achieved by that status.  The current holder of the position provides no leadership nor anything else of value.  He lives in a big castle and makes frequent dissertations that prove to be embarrasssing to the Communion.  I am not being facetious.  Just why is Canterbury necessary to be considered Anglican?  Every time he opens his mouth he inserts his foot.  Somebody at Lambeth palace is continually having to explain what RW really meant.  Why do we need him?  I am dead serious.  Can someone explain just what his office is actually supposed to provide for the AC?

[146] Posted by terrafirma on 02-24-2008 at 10:06 PM • top

Dallas Priest, I guess we should continue praying for +Stanton though.  Those slivers have got to be awfully painful!

[147] Posted by Jill C. on 02-24-2008 at 10:07 PM • top

RE: “If there was a CCP church that was healthy and geographically close to you would you even consider it if/when you leave TEC?”

For me, Anglicanism is about much more than a healthy local congregation.  If if were not, then I would stick within healthy TEC churches!

One can never predict the future.  But as of now, it is extremely doubtful—as doubtful as possible—that I would consider it.  Better, to my mind, to go ahead and make a clean break.

But since I’ve gone over in grinding detail all of this in other posts, I think I’ll stop with simply answering your question.

[148] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 10:11 PM • top

While we await Brad Drell’s eventual amplification and defense of his rather pessimistic remarks in #131, I want to offer a preliminary response to the tantalizingly brief but important comment he made.

First, he begins by posing a scary premise that probably haunts many of us, “if the Anglican Communion fails…”  Well, first I’d like to know by what criteria we will know that Anglicanism has failed.  Will it be if there is a massive formal schism?  Or if the current Instruments of Unity fail to impose any discipline on TEC etc?  Or if the Communion devolves into a mere Federation of completely autonomous provinces?  Or perhaps if orthodox Anglicanism fragments?  There are lots of possibilities.  But that’s a relatively minor issue.

Second,  I think Anglicanism is more than a “system of belief.”  It’s also a system of polity, a system of worship, and a whole religious ethos.  Perhaps Brad was just being extremely succinct and his later elaboration will clarify just what he really meant.  I suspect that he meant that considered comprehensively, “if Anglicanism fails,” then it will reveal that Anglicanism has been severly compromised all along in crucial ways, and that’s why it’s time to give up on Anglicanism altogether.  Or maybe he really does mean that it’s especially in the area of doctrine that Anglicanism is so flawed that it’s time to abandon the Anglican experiment.

Regardless, my primary point is that I’d argue that Anglicanism remains worth salvaging, but that it is indeed severely flawed.  But to me, that just shows the need for a drastic New Reformation, one as radical as the original 16th century Reformation, and doubtless equally divisive.  There are many precious aspects of the Anglican heritage that are worth fighting for and preserving.  I think we hold them in trust for the whole wider Church and thus we are responsible for our stewardship of these unique gifts we have to offer the universal Church.

But I agree that this crisis is bringing to light hidden flaws that have been there all along in Anglicanism.  One is our theological incoherence and our perverse pride in abstaining from anything that smacks in the least of dogmatism in doctrine.  Another is our lack of any central authority structure that can adjudicate the kind of severe provincial conflicts that we are now witnessing.  Another is our captivity to the social and cultural elites in the western world, a worldliness that has left us highly vulnerable now that the culture as a whole has turned secular or neo-pagan and has jettisoned the Christian worldview for a new pluralistic, relativistic, hedonistic one.  Finally, there is our seeming inability to adjust to the fact that we now live in a post-Christendom world that is increasingly hostile to biblical Christianity, forcing us into a most uncomfortable Christ AGAINST culture stance.

More could be said about Anglicanism’s severe and perhaps fatal flaws (in its current form, that is), and I expect brother Drell will explain in due time what kind of flaws he is waking up to and seeing.  My point is simply that while this crisis has indeed exposed the soft underbelly (or Achilles’ heel) of Anglicanism in many disturbing ways, I myself believe that this calls for a New Reformation, not the abandonment of Anglicanism altogether.

But make no mistake.  Merely preserving the orthodox Anglicanism of the past is totally insufficient.  If the Old Anglicanism had been so great, we wouldn’t be in this mess.  I have no interest whatsoever in merely preserving the classical Anglicanism of the past for future generations.  Nor am I interested in the largely futile and thankless task of merely revising and renewing or remodeling the Anglicanism of the present.  Rather, what truly excites me is the thrilling prospect of building a whole new KIND of Anglicanism that is suited for the 3rd Christian millenium.

I continue to believe, more fervently all the time, that the best days of Anglicanism are yet to come.  The New Anglicanism will be far more biblically-based, far more theologically coherent, far more rigorous in its discipline, and above all, far, FAR more aggressively evangelistic and far more thorough in its disciple-making than the old Christendom-based Anglicanism of the past ever was.

Remember Jeremiah 18 and the story of the prophet’s visit to the potter’s house.  Yes, Anglicanism is a severely flawed vessel all right.  But I don’t think for one moment that the Lord intends to just throw the marred vessel away on the junik heap.  But I do think we are entering a period in which he is drastically remolding the Anglicanism we have known and loved, in order to remake it into a much stronger, better, more beautiful vessel that suits his sometimes inscrutable purposes.

David Handy+
Passionate Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom Anglicanism

[149] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 02-24-2008 at 10:17 PM • top

Like the Cheshire Cat, the British Empire is gone, including it’s state religion department.  We still have the memories and Masterpiece Theater.

[150] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 02-24-2008 at 10:20 PM • top

RE: “Moreover, I do believe that the CCP path is the only one that provides hope for those in revisionist dioceses, of which I was until recently a member—because those are the only bishops who are willing to cross diocesan borders.”

William Witt, I missed your comment earlier.  I do agree that those parishes in hostile revisionist dioceses—I’m assuming that you meant hostile—essentially have to leave for CCP options in order to save themselves.  I have frequently supported in any way that I can those in that situation.

I have also supported those individuals who simply, for reason of conscience, needed to leave.  I also have been crystal clear in writing that one does not have to be “in the Anglican Communion” in order to be an Anglican.

We also agree on the actions of the ABC as well as his character.

The only difference in our situation [other than the dioceses in which we have found ourselves] is that in the case of your four options, I’ve chosen Option 2, should I make the determination that the Communion as it is know is lost.  The reason for that is because I wholeheartedly agree with Brad’s statement above.

But . . . for me . . . there are miles to go, I think.

[151] Posted by Sarah on 02-24-2008 at 10:21 PM • top

The only difference in our situation [other than the dioceses in which we have found ourselves] is that in the case of your four options, I’ve chosen Option 2, should I make the determination that the Communion as it is know is lost.

Sarah,

It is largely thanks to your irrefutable reasoning that I have concluded that the Communion (at least for the foreseeable future) is indeed lost.  I was advocating a year ago that orthodox bishops needed to attend Lambeth regardless.  You have pointed out repeatedly that (as with Lambeth 98), any orthodox coup would simply be ignored.  That leaves only the Covenant as a possible way forward, and with each revision it becomes more and more toothless, with only border-crossing remaining as the unpardonable sin.

As I read it, you see no future for a Communion without Canterbury, yet everything you have written that I have read indicates you had given up on Canterbury (or at least Rowan Williams) long before we perennial optimists had.  So, I’m missing something.  If there can be no Anglican Communion without Canterbury, yet the current ABC is hopelessly committed to doing nothing, why then do you write as if the Communion is not yet lost?  (I’m not being rhetorical here.  I’m just obviously missing something.)

My ecclesiology prevents me from taking option #2.  I could only move to Rome or Orthodoxy if I became convinced that either of their mutually contradictory claims about being the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church were correct.  But in that case, what was going on in the Anglican Communion would be totally irrelevant.

As for moving to another Protestant body—when I initially was confirmed as an Episcopalian, I committed myself to this church as a community.  Any choice I would make would have to be made with the church, not as an individual.  That has been complicated, of course, because I did not anticipate that the orthodox within TEC would themselves be so completely divided about the way forward.

And, yes, I did mean “revisionist” diocese, not just “hostile religious” diocese.

[152] Posted by William Witt on 02-25-2008 at 06:42 AM • top

Sarah, my position has not shifted. I always assumed those staying in would need on certain occasions to practice civil disobedience in at least some forms. Those parishes in hostile dioceses would need to withhold assessments, not open their pulpits to heretic bishops or perhaps hold alternate services if said bishop forces his way in etc….those leaders including bishops on the outside would possibly need to cross diocesan boundaries…but that is not the question here since the CP plan does allow for a sort of DEPO approach.

My point about capitulation was, I thought clear, if the CP bishops intend to cut a deal that includes visitations but does not include succession or assessments, then they have made a cowardly and gutless deal. It is something akin to handing over Chekoslovakia. 

I would suggest that a way to avoid this wihtout breaking canon is to refuse any deal that will end in the death of the parishes in question.

It is, as you say, best for them to leave for the CCP. But there are also those in hostile dioceses who are committed to the AC and for whom the CCP is not an option. These are the parishes that would be betrayed by this deal

And, yes, as I said, I think it is gutless capitulation.

[153] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-25-2008 at 06:49 AM • top

RE: “As I read it, you see no future for a Communion without Canterbury, yet everything you have written that I have read indicates you had given up on Canterbury (or at least Rowan Williams) long before we perennial optimists had.”

Hi William Witt, I do distinguish the see of Canterbury from its present occupant.  ; > )

And my point about Canterbury is that I believe that it will take some other “center” besides theological congruence to hold Anglicanism together.  I sincerely believe that this is in part because Anglicanism is not strictly confessional by its nature, as with, say, the PCA or the old Presbyterians.  Even were the CCP to “get its theology together” [which I do not think possible, and no it does not have to do with what people often claim that it does], I believe that Anglicanism is uniquely a “thing that flies apart.”  So I do not see Anglicanism holding together in a functional, thriving, healthy way without something other than a confession.

That being said—and not going into other orbits about the CCP specifically—I also do not think that a failure in the current occupant of the see necessarily means the failure of the Anglican Communion.  I think it more likely now than four years ago—but I’ve never been one given to highs and lows about the demise or triumph of the Anglican Communion.  I do believe that it will be over the long haul that we will see what will happen, not in one event or even 10 events.  As I have found over the past four years . . . things have a way of changing!  ; > )

[On a side note, for instance, I have just received a note from a layperson out West who one month ago was rightly in the depths of blackness about his parish and preparing to leave and . . . . is just now appointed the head of the search committee.  ; > ) ]

Still, I think the above is theory.  Had I been in your diocese, I would have probably been gone from Anglicanism long ago.  But who knows? I think, given your choices above, you have made the right decision.  I have friends who have either selected either #2 or #4 and in their shoes I certainly understand it.

[154] Posted by Sarah on 02-25-2008 at 07:07 AM • top

This thread has been very painful to watch develop.

I do think the plan stinks and just about all the Instruments of Unity have failed us. There also seems some can flippantly disregard the offices which makes me wonder what is their basis for their identity as Anglicans. So in the end this thread has mostly made me feel really sad as it highlights not only the troubles in the Communion but the divides of evangelical mindset verses catholic or FedCon verse ComCon or the many others.

This FedCon is in admiration of Sarah, not only for being a one woman debate team, able to handle all the volleys, but also for an evangelical, she is giving better catholic replies than Dr Seitz+ or Dr Radner+ in her reasoning.

[155] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 02-25-2008 at 07:13 AM • top

Those parishes in hostile dioceses would need to withhold assessments . . . I would suggest that a way to avoid this wihtout breaking canon is to refuse any deal that will end in the death of the parishes in question.

Just as an aside, these were the deal-breakers with the CTSix parishes. Andrew Smith was more than willing to provide DEPO for all six parishes.  However, he required an upfront commitment to full payment of assessments—even though numerous revisionist parishes were not paying them.  And he absolutely refused to promise that revisionist priests would not be imposed on the parishes when their own priests retired or moved.  When Smith has had the opportunity to install clergy for the TEC remnants of CTSix parishes (as, for example, St. John’s, Bristol and Christ Church, Watertown), they have always been revisionist.

[156] Posted by William Witt on 02-25-2008 at 07:14 AM • top

Hi Matt, I had misunderstood your point above.  I had thought that you were saying that any TEC bishops who did not cross diocesan lines while violating the canons were gutless. [ They may indeed be gutless, anyway, by the way!  ; > )]

“My point about capitulation was, I thought clear, if the CP bishops intend to cut a deal that includes visitations but does not include succession or assessments, then they have made a cowardly and gutless deal. It is something akin to handing over Chekoslovakia.”

As near as I can see, there hasn’t been any deal.  The news stories have [post event] made clear that the Schori visit wasn’t a request for permission but simply a courtesy call, since the group is really—as far as I can see—a watered down warmover of what the old Network attempted to do, which was to initially gather some bishops in TEC who were distraught.  Once those bishops gathered they did all sorts of things, but as nearly as I can see this latest, latest, latest group is to try to cobble together some bishops who are still in. 

I’ve already belabored now on five separate threads [at least] in the blogosphere, point by point, why I think some of the reported details are simply way way off—specifically listing my predictions as to how such a group would be received by five separate classes of parishes.  But in its broadest outline, I see this as nothing more than a nice fellowship group.  My personal opinion is that it will go the way of the Camp Allen group, but then, it’s always easier for me to believe doom based on past behavior.

Sometimes—very rarely—people do free themselves from past patterns of action—so I’ll be interested to watch.

[157] Posted by Sarah on 02-25-2008 at 07:17 AM • top

Exactly what are the benefits to being in union with Canterbury? 

  (#152)

I think it’s important to distinguish between the See of Canterbury and the current Archbishop.  Clearly, there is no advantage to being attached to ++Rowan Williams himself, nor to future successors if they are selected by a secular government.  There is, however, enormous value to having an ancient See as a “Focus of Unity”, especially in a tradition as malleable as ours.

Stephen Noll once proposed that the Communion ask the British Govt. to disestablish, not the whole C of E,but just the See of Canterbury.  This would allow the ABC to be picked by bishops of the entire Communion, (with the Archbishop of York becoming the Primate of England).  This seems to me an excellent way of going forward, and I’m very sorry that nothing has been done about it.

[158] Posted by In Newark on 02-25-2008 at 07:18 AM • top

#165 In Newark - I don’t think it would be that easy to disestablish the see of Canterbury.  You have to remember that the Church of England is two separate geographical provinces: the sees of Canterbury and York - whose laity, clergy and bishops in separate Convocations come together in General Synod.  There would have to be a radical change in the whole structure and governance of the two provinces for such an idea to work.

There are probably other easier ways to achieve something that at the moment I am not in favour of; nor have I given up on the current incumbent.

This CPP is couched in the diplomatic language of international treaties from which it is hard to understand how it is envisaged it will work in practice.  Clearly some hard work has gone into it and perhaps someone can explain.

[159] Posted by Pageantmaster [Pray for +Mark Lawrence] on 02-25-2008 at 07:35 AM • top

That leaves only the Covenant as a possible way forward, and with each revision it becomes more and more toothless, with only border-crossing remaining as the unpardonable sin.

Let’s just say it; the Covenant as currently drafted is USELESS.  In fact, it is less than useless as it was to have been the process and statement that brought cohesiveness and coherence to the AC.  Since it presently accomplishes neither, the Covenant is actually harmful.  Things are looking starkly bleak, then.  It’s time for some truly fresh and frank and realistic and spiritual thinking leading to action in the halls of leadership.  Instead, it looks like the lights are going out, not with a bang, but with a whimper.

[160] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 02-25-2008 at 07:38 AM • top

PM—thanks for the information—I had no idea of the structural problems. 
What about moving things to Rochester, whose fearless bishop has despite death threats, again defended Christianity against the incursions of Islam:
<a >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/24/nchurch124.xml</a>

[161] Posted by In Newark on 02-25-2008 at 07:47 AM • top

In Newark #168
There are real questions which have arisen:-
1. with the damage done recently in the driving of a wedge between the majority of members of the Communion; and
2. the disasterous and unnecessary bringing of the Church of England into public ridicule. 
I wouldn’t underestimate just how upset members of the Church of England are at all levels.  The damage limitation continues.

The way in which our senior bishops are appointed including the ABC is being looked at the moment.  There are good arguments for looking at the means of appointment of the bishop who is the ostensible head of the Communion and that other provinces should have their say.  There is a stronger argument for this since the enhanced role for the ABC envisaged in the new draft Covenant.

There are a number of names in the hat for any successor to Dr Williams as ABC if it comes to that but that will not deal with this real issue of the headship of the Communion.  Dr Williams and his office have paid a terrible price but there is still time for some rapid emergency action to be taken.  Dr Williams may need the support of his fellow bishops in the CofE and the primates to be effective in that.

[162] Posted by Pageantmaster [Pray for +Mark Lawrence] on 02-25-2008 at 08:00 AM • top

Just slightly off topic, but relevant, I think.  Our adult education class recently read “The Anglican Spirit” by former ABC Michael Ramsey.  There were times when my blood ran cold as I spotted with great clarity the so-called “seeds of destruction” mentioned elsewhere on this thread.  He would point out that certain things would become problematic “if they got out of hand,” and so they have.  I would recommend this book to anyone interested in how we got where we are (apart from blaming Pike, Spong, and the issue we’re not going to discuss on this thread).  However, it would also be instructive for those who still have hope for Anglicanism in some form, as I do, as a way of discerning in some detail what needs to be corrected as we move forward.

[163] Posted by Ann Castro on 02-25-2008 at 08:03 AM • top

Ann Castro

hope for Anglicanism

Thank you for your reference - one remains hopeful that for all the various parties pulling in different directions and despite our actions that Christ is working out his purpose for making His church fit for purpose and for that reason I remain very hopeful for Anglicanism.

[164] Posted by Pageantmaster [Pray for +Mark Lawrence] on 02-25-2008 at 08:27 AM • top

In an article, The Special Ministry of the Ordained, in the book The Marks of the Body of Christ, Carl Braaten writes:

“My thesis is threefold: first, that Lutherans have been and are still confused on the doctrine of the ministry; second, that there is no way to resolve the difficulty by going more deeply into our own confessional sources because they bear the imprint of ambiguity inherent in Luther’s own statements on ministry; and third, and most importantly, there is no ecumenically viable way out of this morass without eventually realigning and reconciling Lutheran ordained ministry with the episcopally ordained ministries in apostolic succession in the Eastern and Western brances of the one holy catholic church.”

It seems to me that the ambiguity Braaten mentions is also present within Anglicanism.

[165] Posted by tdunbar on 02-25-2008 at 09:13 AM • top

“Purpose:

To provide a visible link…  fellowship, support and a forum… a partnership to work toward…  “

 

This plan may be a roaring success, and yet may still be indiscernible to the average parish.

wink

The announcement appears to have prompted side discussions as to GAFCON and failure of anglicanism - with respect to these discussions, two quick comments:

(i) the planners of GAFCON have emphasized that they are not leaving the AC.  They appear simply to believe that the instruments have been ineffective in discipline and will likely continue to be.  I’m sure they would be glad to be proven wrong.

(ii) any discussion on the failure of anglicanism could probably benefit by a definition of terms, including the meaning of the word: “failure.”

[166] Posted by tired on 02-25-2008 at 09:22 AM • top

re #173, Braaten goes on to say, regarding ordained, episcopal ministry:

“The presuppositions at work in the current crusade against the church’s traditional ministry come not from the Reformation, for which the loss was a regrettable tragedy, but from the Enlightenment, for which it was a matter of good riddance, and thus, not from the normative sources of Christian dogmatics, but from modern concepts of individual freedom and personal autonomy.”

[167] Posted by tdunbar on 02-25-2008 at 09:32 AM • top

While I am no longer in TEC or the Network, I believe the hope and intent of the plan (Matt - press your sources!) was closer to what was reported by the Telegraph. +Howe’s letter raises serious concerns if there was significant compromise in the meeting or if the plan seriously degraded in the past few months (or I could be just plain wrong).

Nevertheless, it’s a reoccurring theme that keeps coming around - discussion, meetings, proposals that are DOA and in NO WAY protect orthodoxy for those willing to stay nor the people, parishes, and clergy who hold such positions.

[168] Posted by Festivus on 02-25-2008 at 11:17 AM • top

William Witt (#159 & 163 etc.),

I’m glad you’ve jumped back in the fray.  I’d been missing your incisive and informative comments.  Welcome back.  I appreciate your four-part outline of the basic options for orthodox Anglicans in North America.  Needless, to say, I agree wholeheartedly that option 4 is really the only way to go if you want to stay both orthodox and Anglican.  And your pointing to the example of how the notorious +Andrew Smith has acted in CT was very apt.  In England the situation may be different, but in America at any rate, I see no longterm viable future for orthodox parishes in revisionist dioceses.  The record of the last 40 years shows that it’s only a matter of time before the revisionist forces get ugly and hostile.  They talk about moderation and peaceful co-existence and such pleasant ideals until they achieve full control of power in a given diocese.  Then watch out!  All that mild talk goes out the window.

William, I hope that now that you’ve resumed posting once again, you’ll keep it up.

David Handy+

[169] Posted by New Reformation Advocate on 02-25-2008 at 11:38 AM • top

I think I know the answer to this. But where does this leave CANA & AMIA members? What of the Common Cause Partnership? Does anyone have any inside info on what the CC partners think of this?

a

[170] Posted by archangelos on 02-28-2008 at 03:08 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.