What Happened in New York: In 9 Easy Steps (Updated)

Duncan was pretty slick in his statement pointing out that the ACN is looking not only to the AOC but to the Primates for a response to the request for APO. Subtle.

Timothy: What justifies calling Bp. Duncan “slick”?

Matt: Sounds plausible.

Irenaeus, I meant as in “deftly executed, adroit, shrewd.”

Aren’t ##3 and 4 contradictory?

I think that is where the word “alot” comes in. As I mentioned yesterday, I do not think it plausible that the the ABC would have suggested VGR’s invitation to Lambeth. That would never fly with some of the stronger primates.

I think the ABC’s plan may have suggested that the other non-compliant bishops might be invited if TEC could agree to a settlement regarding the status of the NA orthodox. The invitations are, of course, up to the ABC alone. But he may have been thinking he could go into the primates meeting with the wind at his back if TEC agreed to an APO deal of some sort.

I think the AbC suggested exactly that all bishops be invited including VGR.  This is probably what led some GS primates to openly talk about an alternative Lambeth several weeks ago.

Chicken—Who blinks first?

So far the orthodox have not blinked.  I think the AbC’s eyes are getting very dry.

Mark McC—I don’t think Matt+‘s points 3 & 4 are contradictory.  The ABC really wanted to make sure ECUSA had a chance to settle internally and amicably before the Primates imposed a split (which they will). 

+++Rowan really felt he had to call this meeting for several reasons:

* A settlement which was clearly acquiesced to by ECUSA would be pastorally preferable to one forced on them, and would tend to lower the overall level of vituperation in the Communion, whatever issues might remain;

* He believes he must be able to clearly show the small but noisy liberal faction in his own C of E (and perhaps some liberal Primates) that he has given ECUSA every opportunity to settle matters internally before handing the whole mess over to the tender mercies of the Primates;

* The ecclesial structure that emerges from a Communion-driven split is likely to be somewhat confused and give rise to a lot of litigation.  A negotiated settlement between the parties would substantially reduce both problems.

+++Rowan has absolutely refused to make any unilateral substantive decisions on the whole North American mess.  In a lesser thinker one might suspect indecision, but in his case I believe it’s because he is totally committed to the idea that authority in the Church catholic must be conciliar, and he therefore resists any action that even remotely suggests a Papal model.

Matt,

I do not think it plausible that the the ABC would have suggested VGR’s invitation to Lambeth. That would never fly with some of the stronger primates.

It would never fly with the evangelical half of the CoE, nor with his own Bishops and York!

The WR - you remember - said:
* pastoral gay blessings!  YES!
* gay priests!  SURE THING
* partnered gay preists! YEP! NO PROBLEM!
** VGR at Lambeth: no way ever

As it is, ECUSA has finally ensured that they will not be invited to Lambeth - Praise GOD!

And I look forward to the firm, pastoral, structural, loving, and final solution from the GlobalSouth primates.

Four observations:

1)  Bishop Duncan is quoted speaking charitably about Grizzy and KJS in the WaPo news article.  He said that they “genuinely wanted to do something” to help conservatives.  I think this was more than just olive branching.  I think it means that 815 is really ready to deal.

2)  In the ACN statement, ++Duncan mentions APO and the Primates.  Clearly, he is not ready to blink as commenters above have pointed out.

3)  Again, in the ACN statement, ++Duncan mentions his concern for the parishes that are not in Network dioceses.  He clearly insinuates (again) that that is where the biggest mess is.  I am betting (though I can’t know for certain, of course), that this is where the break-down occurred between Tuesday night and Wednesday morning.  I’m betting that either 815 realized that the deal would allow those parishes (outside of Network dioceses) too much leeway, or the ACN realized that there was not enough, (or both) and they couldn’t come to agreement on that point.  ++Duncan clearly sees those parishes as belonging to the Network, and in need of rescuing, and he will not abandon them.  815 may be willing to rid themselves of the handfull of Network dioceses, if, for no other reason than to be done with ++Duncan, +Iker, et al, but, they don’t want to be responsible for taking back to the other 100 or so dioceses a plan that would have them dealing with the chaos and uncertainty of parish-by-parish decisions.  Again, this is just my guess, but it seems plausible to me.

4)  The statements from both the Anglican Communion and the Network sound very positive to me about the idea that people are at least talking, and they seem to give some genuine hope to the idea that a solution is possible.

I did not really expect an agreement of any sort to be reached from this meeting.  There is too much happening this month for anyone to be willing to lay out all of their cards right now.  I do think that that the “failure” of these negotiations may give the Camp Allen and especially the CAPA meetings more ammunition to say that TEC is being uncooperative, which may generate some positive “spin” for the orthodox.

Maybe we will get something more concrete by the end of this month, after some more dust has settled and we get some more formal statements from the Global South (not to mention the Newark election).  I’m not holding my breath till then though as I have more hope for February, though I really hate setting dates—been there too many times over the past three years.

1) Bishop Duncan is quoted speaking charitably about Grizzy and KJS in the WaPo news article. He said that they “genuinely wanted to do something” to help conservatives. I think this was more than just olive branching. I think it means that 815 is really ready to deal.

Eddie: what evidence is there that 815 is ready to deal?  The key word for me in sentence one is that Bp. Duncan was speaking “charitably.”

Tony,

I think Eddie meant that PB and PB-elect were ready to deal with respect to some form of APO agreement. The evidence for this assertion is the TLC report which explicitly indicates that there was some kind of draft agreement Tuesday night.

The speculative part of Eddie’s post, with which I agree, is that the sticking point centered on how to deal with Network parishes in Non-Network dioceses.

The post and comments by Matt, Craig Goodrich, and Eddie Swain are first rate.

I am not as confident as Eddie Swain that 815 is ready to deal, at least if “deal” means a genuine compromise with the orthodox. The revisionists combine, unusually, two self images. First, they see themselves as “prophets” leading where the Holy Spirit is directing them. Second, they see themselves as “trustees” of the assets that TEC, its dioceses, and parishes have been collecting.

Neither self image encourages genuine compromise. The OT prophets generally remained loyal to God even unto death. A trustee properly realizes that property he controls is not really his. In combination, the two self images will make it very hard for 815 to agree to a genuine compromise. The leadership’s view of the orthodox as homophobic reactionary neo-puritans won’t encourage them to be flexible either.

The views of our new Presiding Bishop are both critical and ominous. I submit that the Presiding Bishop-elect has already signalled her determination to deal harshly with us. Her “Mother Jesus” comments, her interviews with the various media wherein she did not articulate anything about Jesus and salvation, etc.; all these actions must be seen as her calculated decision to defy the conservatives and to rub in her power over us.

I see our new Presiding Bishop acting like King Rehoboam (I Kings 12), who resolved to treat the restive Israelites harshly. We shouldn’t expect her to deal.

God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways not our ways.  This morning, Torre Bissell, the most prophetic of the L&B intercessors, recorded this in his prayer:  A word received: “Look at my delays. They are there for the building up of my kingdom.” 
I praise God that His kingdom is being built up in His delays.

I agree with Matt+ and Eddie Swain’s #3 that faithful parishes in non-network dioceses could have been the sticking point.  What strikes me about that, and what probably led Schori to say no, is that we would, in all likelihood, not just be talking about the conservative parishes of which we now know.  Rather, if a deal is in place offering such parishes safe harbor, many more lying low would stick their heads out of the foxhole.  In fact, the ACN could pick off quite a few parishes with a hypothetical agreement, because it would be seen as moving from renegade status to legitimacy.

My reaction to all of these last few days is much less than positive.  First, for some reason I didn’t realize that the Windsor Report permitted 1)pastoral blessings of SSU’s; 2)homosexual priests; and, 3)partnered homosexual priests.  If that is truly the case, then being a Windsor bishop is not much better than being ECUSA/TEC.  I find all three of the above conditions to be unacceptable, including #2 because I no longer believe that any homosexual person who enters the priesthood has an intention to be celibate and any vows to the same are done with a king’s X behind their back.

The idea that the AbC was wanting to invite VGR to Lambeth to be very troubling.  All of this is why I will not be making a pledge this October to my current parish.  When I attend I will write a check earmarked to a particular ministry, but the situation is still to disquieting to be willing to make a financial commitment.  I may not want to remain in the Anglican Communion and may in the end choose a continuing church such as REC or APA.

In the meantime, I have made commitments to financial support Truth for Life and to sponsor a child in Africa.  So, Matt, Greg and Sarah, where do I send the checks?  I still prefer to handle money that way.  So goes for you Canon Harmon and Chris Johnson.  A P.O. Box would be great.

I’m serious, guys.

Tony et al

Bishop Duncan is quoted speaking charitably about Grizzy and KJS in the WaPo news article. He said that they “genuinely wanted to do something” to help conservatives.

Frankly I think it’s just phatic politesse. Like saying it was a “frank discusison” - who hit whom?

The only possible compromise from the ACN’s point a view are:

* the network departs with all property - incuding from any parish in any non-network diocese who wishes to leave - and a proportional share of ECUSA’s assets; ECUSA leaves the communion and the ACN is registered.

* Griswold, Shori etc all resign and Duncan is appointed PB with full executive power over both finance and licenses.

Neither of these would be a started for the discussion

Gayle

First, for some reason I didn’t realize that the Windsor Report permitted 1)pastoral blessings of SSU’s; 2)homosexual priests; and, 3)partnered homosexual priests.

Read the report. That is most definitely the case. Furthermore, the WR explicitly says that discussion on this point of doctirine is to remain open (just that the current doctrine hasn’t changed, and that there is no guarantee that it would - funnily enough, that’s the “official” position of ... ECUSA).  The WR also allowed VGR to remain an ECUSA bishop - although it said he would NOT be invited to Lambeth.

Gayle,

Despite what sinner has said and contrary to it, the WR said Nothing about the three categories you mention other than reaffirming Lambeth 1.10 as the established teaching of the Anglican communion. The WR did not approve or grant legitimacy to those practices. It simply did not explicitly address them.

Very important comments by bishop Iker directly addressing the revisionist spin and the status of the APO appeals:

“After prayerful consideration and consultation, the Archbishop called for the New York summit, which took place on September 11-13, 2006, in hopes of finding an American church solution to an American church problem, but to no avail. We could not come to a consensus as to how to recognize and respond to the needs expressed in the appeal. So back to Canterbury it goes, as the principal Instrument of Unity in the Anglican Communion, but this time with a renewed emphasis on appealing also to the Primates of the Communion as a whole and not to Canterbury alone. The Primates Meeting is a second, very important Instrument of Unity in the life of worldwide Anglicanism. We ask for their intervention and assistance when they meet in February.”

from here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1151/

The Windsor Report states: “we believe that it must be recognised that actions to move towards the authorisation of such rites in the face of opposition from the wider Anglican Communion constitutes a denial of the bonds of Communion.”

We have to remember that the WR is written in British-English-speak and so this says that if we engage in the blessing of same sex unions (either by performing them or being in them) we have constituted “a denial of the bonds of Communion” which the rest of the report makes the case is the tie that holds the global fellowship together.  So by engaging in these acts we break the Communion.

So if one doesn’t care about the global Anglican Communion, then go ahead a bless away and do all those things listed above.  But one should not expect to find oneself much longer a member of the Anglican Communion.

That is what the Windsor Report says and TEC has so far be unable, incapable, or unwilling to take steps to comply.

In fact, the Windsor Report spells out how it can be done:

” In order for these bonds to be properly acknowledged and addressed, the churches proposing to take action must be able, as a beginning, to demonstrate to the rest of the Communion why their proposal meets the criteria of scripture, tradition and reason. In order to be received as a legitimate development of the tradition, it must be possible to demonstrate how public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions would constitute growth in harmony with the apostolic tradition as it has been received.”

The Episcopal Church told the leadership of the Anglican Communion that the only vehicle that could respond to the WR was General Convention and I was there to witness this: General Convention did not do any of the above - zip.  So now we are faced with the next steps of the Anglican Communion responding to TEC’s non-compliance and what TEC’s future relationship will be in light of this non-compliance.

It is clear that Canterbury generously offered an olive branch to TEC and they have not taken it.  They would rather break the bonds of affection than comply with “the criteria of scripture, tradition and reason. In order to be received as a legitimate development of the tradition, it must be possible to demonstrate how public Rites of Blessing for same sex unions would constitute growth in harmony with the apostolic tradition as it has been received.”  They still believe this is a work of the spirit, who is doing a prophetic new thing and to go back on that is to call into question the very foundation of their ministry.

So it is not accurate to say that the WR does not speak on the issues above.  It speaks very clearly and TEC is determined to continue in the same direction. 

bb

Fr Matt

Given that the WR said nothing about ordinations (as you indicate in response to Gayle), why do the criteria for the Camp Allen meeting include such a restriction?  Was this a misstatement? An intensification?

Let me clarify. BB is correct. The WR says nothing explicity about the ending of such practices nor does it suggest any punitive or disciplinary actions for them. It does establish clearly the teaching of the commmunion. It is on that basis, I believe, that the Camp Allen restrictions were drawn up

Matt+: My memory is fuzzy on this but didn’t Dromantine address some of the WR shortcomings?

the snarkster

Gayle: I trust you understand that “Sinner” is a reappraiser posing as a reasserter. He believes only part of what he says. (I can’t read his mind, of course, but he has explicitly acknowledged being a reappraiser.)

In the past Sinner (using that and at least one other name) offered much contrarian insight into ECUSA strategy and the direction of events.

More recently, he has taken to rumbling against his fellow reasserters as though he were an ardent hellfire evangelist.

That doesn’t mean he’s indifferent to facts; it does warrant care about the weight placed on his assertions and the time spent attempting to engage him.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

As you plan your stewardship, you might consider:

—- Anglican Relief and Development is another
http://www.anglicanaid.net
535 Smithfield St. Suite 910, Pittsburgh, PA 15222.

—- The Ekklesia Society, PO Box 118526, Carrollton, TX 75011-8526. Ekklesia (headed by Canon Bill Atwood) supports churches, relief, and development in the Global South. Working through local churches, Ekklesia can help your money go a long way.

Snarkster,
If I recall, Dromantine did close some of the holes left by the Windsor Report. Remember also that Lambeth I.10 specifically states that homosexual activity is “incompatible” with Scripture. This would preclude ordaining active homosexuals, I believe.

Has anyone noticed the attempt to delay a decision until GC 2009 by claiming the PB and PB-elect did not have the “authority” to make a decision? From the Washington Post article:

In a phone interview, Duncan said that Jefferts Schori and outgoing Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold “genuinely wanted to do something” to help conservatives, but believed they did not have the authority to do so without consulting church governing bodies first. Instead, Williams and world Anglican leaders will have to take up the proposal, Duncan said.

From a later ENS article about the meeting. This is a quote from Bonnie Anderson who is the president of the House of Deputies for General Convention (I think president is the correct term):

Anderson said she is concerned that all orders of ministry in the church—bishops, clergy and laity—be represented when such issues are being discussed and especially when decisions are likely to be made.

“The Executive Council and the House of Deputies definitely need to be included in conversations, particularly where decision-making occurs,” she said. Anderson noted that Episcopal polity calls for all policy decisions to be made by the agreement of both the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies meeting as General Convention, and by the Executive Council between conventions.

Anderson said she has expressed that need to the Presiding Bishop’s office “in several conversations and in different ways.”

What this tells me is that +Frank and +Katharine and Bonnie Anderson are trying to stall, claiming that only General Convention can act. Tom Woodward has made the same claim. However, I find it odd that whenever the Executive Council or the Presiding Bishop wants something badly enough, it seems that General Convention does not have to be consulted. So I consider these comments akin to the Nixon Whitehouse “denial” denials back in the good old days of Watergate. Just sound bites meant to confuse the issue.

Well, all I can say is that if they are waiting for the Executive Committee, the HOB, and the HOD to agree on anything, they will have a long wait. At GC06, they couldn’t even agree that the sun rose in the east.

the snarkster

Hello, Fr. Matt,
I follow what is happening in TEC daily.  Until 1995, I was an Episcopal priest.  While I prefer not to go into details, I was parochial vicar in a very large conservative parish in Texas.  I made the huge mistake of preaching about abortion in front of a pro-choice Republicn US senator.  Within an hour of my getting home from Mass, the rector of the parish had called to order me to his office.  I was told, "You will never preach about abortion again in this parish, because Episcopalians have abortions, and your sermons are bad for collections!"  This advice was supported by one of the 7 bishops asking for APO—my bishop, at the time.
In 1994, my family and I left ECUSA and became RCs.  I went from roughly 130K per year to just a little over 19K as a Catholic school teacher.  As a punishment for my "abandonment of the ministry," the Church Pension Fund froze the over 80K I had contributed, and did not allow me to retrieve my contribution.  In addition, as punishment, the money I contributed cannot draw any interest.  My friend, I suspect the same will happen to you and your brethren and sisters, as well.  I have since been ordained as a Catholic priest under the Pastoral Provision for Anglican Clergy.  I work two jobs, but I am no longer worried about my soul, or those of my children.  In Rome, there are few matters of opinion.  The Creed is the Creed.  If you cannot preach it without prevarocation, then the church says you will not preach at all.  The "rules" that so many Anglicans fear actually free us to be better servants of Jesus.  In times such as this, each person must in good conscience see to the first of all life's priorities—the salvation of his/her own soul.  People of good faith inevitably choose different paths. I understand that and, more importantly, so does Jesus, who knows we're all doing the best we know how with the information that's available to us.  What has happened to ECUSA has been like watching my own mother die.  Worse—it has been like watching her choose to die of a disease that is easily curable.  For some insane—or demonic—reason, she does all she can to precipitate her own death.
If TEC formally splits, do you think there is a chance that I could recoup what I invested in the Church Pension Fund?  I am almost 50, and I don't want my wife to have to work until she dies if I go before she does, which given my love for cigars and a nice toddy at night, I almost certainly will! I know this must sound crass, but my wife is the greatest grace the Lord has ever given me.
 Yes, we RCs have horrible music.  Yes, we have a tacky liturgy.  Yes, we have keyboards hooked up to amplifiers, while you have pipe organs housed in Gothic gems.  But, you know what?  When I'm celebrating Mass in my cheap, tacky polyester vestments, I have a peace in my heart that I never had in ECUSA.  I'm not asking you to become RC!  But I am begging you to do whatever is necessary to be at peace with God and with your own souls, no matter what the cost.  It has cost me family, friends, and many possessions; but thank God, it hasn't cost me my immortal soul.  "Thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through Jesus Christ, our Lord!"
 Grace and peace, my friends! 
 Fr. Timothy+
 

Fr. Timothy,
While I am not a lawyer, I am almost certain that is a violation of Federal Law.  Are there any Attorneys on line that can advise? I know there are lawyers out here who could help you, Wick Stephens at the Network, and David Bickel of the AAC Board come to mind.
 

Fr. Timothy: I’ve heard that New York law applies to the Church Pension Fund and provides good protections for beneficiaries.
You might see if the American Anglican Council’s “Legal Link” can shed light on the subject:
http://www.americananglican.org/site/c.ikLUK3MJIpG/b.564161/k.A727/Legal_Resources.htm

If they move to delay a decision until 2009, the decision will be made individually by many of us long before then. This, of course, is what they hope. I'm wondering though, how long TEC will last, when the only ones left in it are the ones who come for the vestments and bells and not for the Word of the Lord.

Hi!  Just got home from an emergency call.  Thank you so much for your help about the CPF.  I think I may have vented too much in the first part of my message, and I apologize for that.  I still hurt.  But I suspect that Jesus would say something along the lines of “Get over it.  Look what they did to me!”
You know, after the smoke all clears, you will have to decide amongst yourselves what you think a priest is.  That’s the crux of the matter.  If Vickie Gene is in a valid succession, he’s a real bishop—just a bad one—because Jesus will not punish his people with invalid sacraments on account of the bad faith and hideous morality of his own clergy.  On the other hand, if you accept Luther’s doctrine of the priesthood of all believers as he taught it, I have to ask—if everybody’s a priest, is anyone a Priest?
These are difficult questions; and questions whose answers come at a terrible cost.  Know that I pray for you.  Please ask Jesus to help me be a good priest for Him.  As I have done since GC06, I will remember all of you at the Table of the Lord this weekend.
Grace and peace, my friends!
Fr. Timothy+

oscewicee's  post is quite correct.  I suspect that there will be a rush for the exits when KJS takes office since it would appear that she plans to be far more aggressive about going after property of parishes that vote to leave TEC than FG has been.  Rumor has it that Via Media has been judge shopping around here to find the jurisdictions most favorable to TEC's point of view in preparation for making an example of a few parishes to intimidate the rest.

Edwin, if the rumor you cite is true, it is further evidence of the abandonment of faith that has happened in ecusa.

"I suspect that there will be a rush for the exits when KJS takes office since it would appear that she plans to be far more aggressive about going after property of parishes that vote to leave TEC than FG has been."
This certainly doesn't jive with Eddie's charitable assumption in the piece quoted in the story.  I agree with your suspicions, Edwin.