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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Crusader44

100% pure bravo sierra.

#12 yes, and well aged.
The Rabbit.

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

#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"…

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.

Continue the slow dying.  Pray for Bishop Howe!

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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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 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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Vidkun Quisling would be very impressed.

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

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.

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.

#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?

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.

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

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

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

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.”

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.

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?

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

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.

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

Guys, I have been away at the Dio of Alabama Convention...no drama there....so I return to this. Give +Bruce (my bishop) a chance, they may have a plan to keep us together despite ourselves…

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.

Sarah...I was at the Dio of Mississippi, and just came back from Alabama...no drama...and Texas, not much drama..why do you pick these out as needing attention? They seem focused on mission.

I was at Texas also...sorry to not make that clear

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

I don’t understand your question.

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?

Sarah...forgive me, I was looking at 61, not 64....I think we are doing just fine down here in the South, MP

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

Well Sarah, we in the deep south seemed focused on mission....I think that translates to “just fine”. Thanks for your prayers for us.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

HAHAHA...terrafirma...

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.”

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 . . .

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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