Baby Blue: Uh oh ... Mouneer Anis jumps the shark?

I’ll cross-post my comments from over there:

I disagree widely with your interpretation of Mouneer’s letter, BB.

The man has decided not to go to Gafcon. The Gafcon leaders don’t like that, understandably. But to me, it’s simply his decision, and he chose a way to communicate that decision while laying out his reasons that he is going to Lambeth.

RE: “But then he reveals what appears to be the real agenda of the letter - intentional or unintentional, when people are in pain it’s very hard to tell - and that is to sow discord amongst the leaders of the Global South by claiming that there are unnamed forces from the North out to get them.”

Oh I don’t think he’s “sowing discord”—I think that, like the “Leavers and Stayers” debates in TEC, he’s a symbol of the discord that already exists, and which we all know exists, only Mouneer “said it out loud”. There’s a big divide in the Global South over *what to do now*. And Mouneer is one of those who has decided something differently from the four or five GS Primates who are staying away from Lambeth.

Furthermore, there’s no doubt that those leading the “TEC Leavers” are indeed the ones most associated with Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, and Rwanda—they’re in alliance. So it’s understandable that folks think that Gafcon is primarily for the Common Cause alliance, only internationally. That’s what I’ve thought from the beginning, and indeed it is sometimes touted as that.

For Mouneer to say “Gafcon isn’t for me, folks” is a bit like my saying that the latest CCP event is not for me.

I think it’s very clear that the leadership of the Global South is divided as to tactics, and this is but the latest example of that division, among many.

But to somehow fancy that Mouneer is one of the bad guys because he’s going to Lambeth and not to Gafcon is the age old question about “leaving” or “staying.” Mouneer didn’t undermine “the Global South leadership and relationships”, BB. He simply doesn’t support the direction of four Primates within the Global South. And that’s a different matter altogether.

RE: “But when it comes to bringing leadership to the Global South he reverts back to old prejudices and scapegoats.”

I just don’t see that, BB. It seems pretty clear what he means by “the North”—that would be the US and Canadian Gafcon leadership which are all basically CCP in philosophy: Duncan, Minns, Atwood, and Harvey. This is fine for that to be the leadership of Gafcon from the US—but that basically makes it a CCP group that is not interested in a Canterbury/Instruments-led Communion. That is also fine too! But that’s clearly not where Mouneer’s heart is, not one bit.

RE: “Another troubling thing is that he sews discord in this letter rather than recognize that wars are fought on many fronts.”

Like I said above—I don’t see that it’s about “sowing discord”. The discord already exists, and he acknowledges it in his letter. That discord is about whether to pursue a non-Canterbury/Instruments sort of communion-within-a-Communion, as JamesW has so well described, or to continue on plodding with the Canterbury/Instruments Communion.

This is the classic debate between the inside and outside strategy only writ large and internationally. It seems clear that he doesn’t really wish to be involved with the efforts toward a non-Canterbury/Instruments communion and wishes to stick with the a Canterbury/Instruments communion. I don’t see that as sowing disunity or discord but rather simply stating what he is going to do and what his priorities and values are, which de facto acknowledges the disunity that exists already in the GS concerning tactics—the same disunity that exists amongst conservatives over here.

BB’s comments are repeatedly insulting to +Anis, who is by most accounts a conscientious and godly bishop. 

BB is incapable of responding in a coherent manner to the whole content of the letter; instead, she embarks on an immature sentence by sentence, phrase by phrase, sometimes word by word dissection. 

BB’s comments are often based on little more than wild speculation about +Anis as a person and about those influencing him.

And the irony—after criticizing +Anis throughout the letter for what she claims is unnatural passivity in his writing, she takes one very direct statement (the bit about God speaking to him through the book of Jonah) and criticizes it for being too forceful.

I don’t doubt that there are those, including you Matt+, who can write a reasoned critique of +Anis’s letter.  That’s not at all what BB has done.  But then, those of us that read her blog regularly won’t be at all surprised.

RE: “But then, those of us that read her blog regularly won’t be at all surprised.”

I read her blog regularly and am quite surprised.  Normally I wholeheartedly agree with Baby Blue, with the exception of two of her recent posts.

But then we shouldn’t be surprised at that!  BabyBlue and I both believe in the same gospel and have essentially the same foundational worldview from which we view words, concepts, ideas, and priorities.  It is understandable that revisionists would not normally appreciate her analysis of things.

Who leaked the letter and how?

And why?

And who was it addressed to?  And who was the real target audience?  (they’re not necessarily the same)... 

So many questions that we will most likely never know the answer to…

bb may be wrong, of course, but given the fact that the text was released to the world as it is and that various readers read it in their context and interact with it to give it meaning, whose to say she is?  I am personally suspicious that bb is demonstrating the effect of a hermeneutic of suspicion directed toward the text and its alleged brethren.  NO reappraiser dare dissent from such an exercise or its results on the grounds of authorial intent because the latter is immaterial.  Meaning is derived by the reader according to the reappraising line.  How dare anyone suggest that bb is wrong as though there were static norms of good and evil or intent and meaning which they arrogate to themselves to possess!

Of course, if words have meaning and authors intent, then one might dare to criticise any particular interpretation on the grounds of truth and falsity to the same.  But that’s not an open option for reappraisers.  Cf.  Constitution and Canons of the ECUSA/TEC and actions of PB Schori, the HOB, and the textual reading of the same by Beers.

His message is very clear. He thinks the innovations of TEC are wrong. But he also thinks the interfering North Americans are wrong, and are causing schism, and if GAFCON results in a split, he is sending out advance warning that he will not follow the GAFCON leadership.

So it looks like he is following the open evangelical path. If GAFCON do formalise a split, that leaves him as the new extreme right wing. In time they will replace him with a more liberal voice and his province will be assimilated into the ‘new thing’. Or if there is sufficient depth in his province, they may join the GAFCON folk at a later stage.

United they will win, divided they will fall. The conservative side has divided and continues to fragment. Look at the emergence of Fulcrum and read some of the posts on their site - their unity is found not in resisting TEC and their innovations, its found in resisting those silly literalists. Look at Wycliffe Hall and the opposition to a conservative college. Look at the split of Spring Harvest and Word Alive. Look at the bitterness of the Elaine Storkey lawsuit
http://www.mortimers-solicitors.co.uk/press.php and her intent in dragging this matter through the courts even though she has received a handsome settlement. The communion is finished. The liberals will get the spoils. The conservatives will just keep fighting each other.

I agree with some of what you write, Observing.

But I disagree with this line: “So it looks like he is following the open evangelical path.”

It’s perfectly possible to decide that one does not wish to be in a new Anglican non-Canterbury/Instruments communion and never agree with Fulcrum, open envangelicalism, et al. 

I would be one of those people.

I think—yet again, I’m saying this—that you can’t underestimate how many people are going to say “I may leave Anglicanism altogether, but I won’t be going towards the CCP entity.”

So many choices.  Just like Lot.  He could have stayed in Sodom, or stoped off in Zoar, or gone up into the mountains to Abraham, or just joined up with the native Cannanites, or start two new nations:  Moabites and Amonites.  His wife could not decide and turned into a pillar of salt.  Some would blame Abraham for taking Lot down into Egypt where he learned about the well watered plains.  We may not know the answers but we do know the results of Lot’s choices.  Thankfully Apostle Peter lets us know that Lot was righteous.  I never would have figuted that out myself!

I find Mary’s interpretation of this letter unconvincing.  We shouldn’t jump to conclusions.  ++Anis remains one of the good guys in the white hats in my book.  His actions in New Orleans were anything but passive-aggressive; they were forthright and straightforward.  I don’t think he’s changed character suddenly.

And choosing not to attend GAFCon need not mean that he’ll refuse in the end to align himself and Egypt with Nigeria, Uganda, and the CCP etc.  That’s speculative and reading far too much into perceived implications of this letter.  I think we should take someone like Bp. Anis at face value.  When he says over and over, I’m one of you, I think we should believe him.  Babyblue’s suspicions seem unwarranted to me.

David Handy+

His letter is political, not theological. 

Imagine, if you will, that Greg wakes up tomorrow morning and has finally had it.  He’s organizing the StandFirm team to Lambeth and he’s just had it.  He pens a private letter to all the blog owners on the blogroll, insinuating that Northern Forces from New York (aka Matt Kennedy) are seeking to undermine the original mission of StandFirm to engage in the issues of the Episcopal Church and not all those troublesome schismatic Anglican breakaways.  Then Sarah turns around and leaks his private letter to Terry Martin who promptly puts it up on his blog with gleeful and congratulatory accolades.

And Greg is glad Sarah leaked it.

How do you supposed Matt would feel?

And wouldn’t the rest of us wonder, what in the world is going on?  Who is our friend and who is our adversary?

Now, we know that would never happen at StandFirm, there is an amazing tolerance of lots of different view points here and we never hear of Northern Forces usurping the Episcopalians.  Sarah is remaining in the Episcopal Church while Matt has departed.  And Greg goes hunting.  But there is an understanding that each path is viable - no one is badgered about their loyalty, either directly or indirectly.  We don’t see what Greg passively/aggressively questioning whether those who have separated from the Episcopal Church"should not be allowed to disrupt the common vision” at StandFirm.  Such a statement is controlling and dictatorial and one can only imagine what Sarah and Matt would do to Greg if he started taking that tone of voice with them.

So while we have differences of opinion and those opinions lead us to to different actions, the relationships remain. The “common vision"is not threatened because the common vision is Jesus Christ, not who gets a Christmas Card from the PB.  Bishop Anis has set his sights too low.

I am concerned that in this private letter from Bishop Anis he intentionally or unintentionally alienates himself from the rest of the Global South by doing just such a thing - not only to those who are not going to Lambeth, but those who are.  It’s not a ComCom thing or a FedCom thing or a GAFCON thing - he has alienated himself by breaking trust with his fellow bishops, with those whom he has worked side by side with, to those who are not strangers but those who thought they were his friends.  Just as if Greg had broken trust with Matt by writing a private letter to all his allies behind his back, it would call into question Greg’s own lack of standing in his own blog. Such a thing is unthinkable, which is how I thought about Bishop Anis until yesterday.

And so who would benefit from reading this letter?  Why - 815, of course.  And the folks who bring us Lambeth.  Jim Rosenthal, call your sleigh.

The bishop’s language is even odd.  Imagine Greg attempting to write:

<blockquote?>“As StandFirm bloggers coming from different contexts, we were led into deep conversations and helpful clarifications on the challenges before us. We reaffirmed our total and collegial commitment to the solemn vocation of blogging at StandFirm. We resolved, and urge all in the bloggers at StandFirm and other orthodox blogs of the wider blogosphere to strengthen our hearts and wills to work together for the fundamental renewal and transformation of the world wide web.  Even if there are different perspectives , they do not and should not be allowed to disrupt the common vision, unity and trust within StandFirm.”</blockquote>

And that is why the letter was disappointing at the deepest level.  It conveys, in its writing, its execution, and it’s dissemination betrayal.

And who benefits from that.  We should look at this very seriously, lest we follow in his footsteps.  Our unity is not in our Anglican identity, but in our common faith in Jesus Christ. 

And that’s why it works at StandFirm.  Even when I’m waxing lyrical about 12 Steps and reconciliation and repentance and bugging the hell out of my dear friends here, my loyalty is not questioned, at least I don’t think it is.  I’m just questioned what I’m smoking.

And now back to a href=“http://youtube.com/watch?v=HaVQaqDzdeE”>ur regularly scheduled programing</a>o. 

bb

Any chance this has to do with the political situation in Jerusalem?  The fact that Egypt is a Muslim country?  That other bishops from Muslim countries will only be going to Jordan? That the bishop of Jerusalem is ambivalent?  Could this be merely a peace keeping on the home turf move? +Anis has declared his position re TEc and its innovations, so he is not abandoning ship on this.

I long for a more candid and honest discussion of where everyone is headed.  This development seems to be leading people in that direction, although many of us were hurt when we read this letter. I suggest the following:

1.  Neither TEC or Canadian Church is going to change course.

2.  The Canterbury led communion is not going to force TEC or the Canadian Church to change course, or to expel the churches for not doing so.

3.  A significant minority of the GS Primates, such as Mouneer, are not going to break ties with Canterbury regardless of (1) and (2) above. Those of us that would wish or pray for a different outcome need to get over it. We will hear more and more and that preoccupation with the North American issue is diverting attention from more pressing GS matters.  That will suit Schori and Co. just fine.

4. Over the long run, the churches that have left, or are leaving TEC, will have to be satisfied with their ties to Uganda, Nigeria and a few other provinces.  We need to reconcile ourselves to this outcome and focus on developing an identity and message that is not tied to the internal Anglican Communion debate.

The only salient criticism I have against BB’s analysis, other than her devaluation of the “Jonah” call, is that it is overly emotional. But then again, aren’t we all?
The Rabbit.

he intentionally or unintentionally alienates himself from the rest of the Global South

Could I just, as point of information, ask who is officially in the Global South and who is going to GAFCom?

Marcus, the Global South website is here,
and the GAFCON website is here.
The Rabbit.

I held off commenting the first time the letter came around because I believe +Anis is right on one aspect - some of this is being driven by the North Americans, and being driven in a way that sometimes gives me a cause to pause. First, we created the ‘tear in the fabric’ of the communion, only after our own clothes have been unraveling and fraying for decades. Yet, most of us remained part of the group causing the wear and departure from Truth. Second, our request for coverage is leading to discussions in the Global South at a very quick pace about what actions to take or not take. I believe these conversations would NOT be taking place with the depth and calls for a separation of the Canterbury identity if we had not reached out into the Global South for primatial coverage. Third, in many respects, our influence is now felt in these relationships as our new Bishops, clergy, and laity are included in their annual conventions. If recent history has taught us one thing, it’s that the Northern hemisphere lives in a culture of immediate expectations and global influence. Ironically, it’s been many of us that has been slow to take action to separate ourselves from that which has caused the very tear; it’s part of the Episcopal mindset that has gotten us to where we are as a denomination, slow to respond, culturally compromised, and comfortable in the pews. (Yes, some of you have left the Episcopal Church and have paid a personal and parish price for doing so.) With that said, I do believe the alignment of the Communion has been happening and at a quicker pace than I expected. There are a lot of things that have been a catalyst. Chief among them has been the progression of liberalism and heresy in the Global North and maybe more so the inability of the Anglican Communion and the ABC to respond with strong, decisive action. Meanwhile, our Global South neighbors have endured persecution, wars, famine, disease and their faith has triumphed, growing as a loud and louder voice in the Anglican Communion. If history has shown anything to them, it’s that what we do has not affected their spread of the Gospel. I believe what +Anis is saying is do not let the events and new partnerships of North America unduly influence our walk together in the Global South and our actions. And he is right. If anyone does not see GAFCON as pressure on Lambeth, they are blind (+Anis sees it clearly). I do believe I a defacto Communion division has occurred; I believe +Anis sees it as well. And if God is moving to make it happen then it will occur. But it won’t be because of the ‘now’ mentality to exert pressure on Lambeth and send a clear signal to the ABC. Let’s continue to clean our own houses in the meantime and be gracious guests in our new relationships - we have a lot to learn about suffering, endurance, and running the race. The fate of the Communion is in the Master Thresher’s hands.

Naturally, I, too, am disappointed that +Mouneer will not be at GAFCON.  His fearless witness in New Orleans will ever go down in my book as an example of one who spoke the truth in love in an extremely difficult setting.  He has been on the receiving end of much of the same insulting stuff the GS bishops have i.e. questions about whether or not he actually was the author of his N.O.comments.  The way I read his letter is that he cannot bring himself to be an active participant in what may be the place and time wherein Canterbury-centered Anglicanism is set aside by a significant chunk of the church.  I speculate that he is still hopeful that the communion can be preserved and doesn’t want to be standing on the lever when the tipping point comes.  Perhaps for him, being in communion with Canterbury is a non-negotiable.

So Abp. Anis says, “I’m going to Lambeth, and I invite you, too,” and now he is being accused of being a passive/aggressive.  And there’s a devil behind every tree, too.  When you start calling your friends enemies, then you should surrender because you already lost the battle in your heart.

I hope BabyBlue reads your comment, Zoomdaddy.  You’re absolutely right.

RE: “I am concerned that in this private letter from Bishop Anis he intentionally or unintentionally alienates himself from the rest of the Global South by doing just such a thing - not only to those who are not going to Lambeth, but those who are.”

Not according to Greg Venables who wrote on this very blog, BB, just a few days ago and who seems just fine with Mouneer’s letter.

No, the people that Bishop Anis may have been alienated from by his decision not to attend Gafcon are four Primates on the Gafcon leadership team—Akinola, Orombi, Nzimbi, and Kolini—who wish to create a non-Canterbury/Instruments communion, along with their American bishops.

And if people are claiming that someone who was once their friend—Mouneer—is now no longer a “friend” because he wrote a letter that clearly stated what he himself was going to do and not do, then I suppose his “friends” weren’t ever real friends to begin with.  If that’s what “friendship” is . . . you support what I want to do and involve yourself in it even though you don’t agree with it, and for heaven’s sake don’t ever say anything out loud  . . . than I guess we all belong back in the old Soviet “Republic” too.

Let’s try a different analogy.

Let’s suppose that Greg Griffith founds a blog.  It’s a great blog.  He wants his other four “friends” to be fellow bloggers with him.  We are all “unified” in purpose, which we had thought was to expose the corruption and heresy of a national church and help people—whether inside or outside the Episcopal Church—to resist it, and reform and restore whatever they could wherever they were.

A year goes by.  Slowly—almost unnoticeably—Greg begins posting paeans of praise to Hillary Clinton. Once a week, then once a day, then three times a day some new blog post goes up about her.

One week we notice that a small corner of the blog has been devoted to Hillary’s life and times—her bios, pics, her old school papers, and even a fundraising banner is in the top-left corner of the blog.  Some of the bloggers—Jackie, Sarah, and Matt—protest this “creeping Hillaryism” as we call it, but Greg always calls a StandFirm Bloggers Meeting, we have Eucharist, David Ould supplies a moving homily about being all part of the family of conservatives, Greg supplies great food, and we go away.  Each time we issue a press release announcing that we are “unified” around a common cause, which is “to expose the corruption and heresy of a national church and help people—whether inside or outside the Episcopal Church—to resist it, and reform and restore whatever they could wherever they were.”

But every month, more of The Hillary Campaign Corner takes over the home page of the blog.  When confronted privately about this, Greg now claims that a part of the strategy to restore Anglicanism is to “elect someone who cares” to the highest position in the land.  After all, one cannot restore a church without a stable government, he points out.  But then some fundraising letters go out and there’s a section about “our highest priority at the moment is to elect Hillary Clinton.”

And then a new blogger is announced as being on board—a former campaign staffer for Hillary who has suddenly “converted to Anglicanism” and who will be blogging about the Effects of Good Government on Church Transformation.  There is more grumbling from the troops.  But nobody wants to say anything—after all, the StandFirm blog has been a great success, and we all support and love one another don’t we.  We’re All Friends, After All!  And furthermore, Greg tells us that there can be a “White House political strategy” and a “religious information strategy” and that StandFirm will be the “umbrella group” that unifies both strategies.

Greg also announces a unifying event that will be held in . . . well . . . Washington DC in January of 2009.  What on earth!  Why would he choose Washington DC, for heaven’s sake!? 

But it will be all about the original purpose of StandFirm, we are told, which was “to expose the corruption and heresy of a national church and help people—whether inside or outside the Episcopal Church—to resist it, and reform and restore whatever they could wherever they were.”  All conservative Anglicans are invited, whether working on the “White House political Hillary strategy” or the “religious information strategy.”

The Leadership Team is announced, and we are all relieved to see that Matt Kennedy is on the team.  Surely things will now be balanced at this great unifying event.  The rest of the team is made up of Greg Griffith, the new Effects of Good Government on Church Transformation blogger, a woman named Maggie Williams, a man named Mark Penn, and a man named Jonathan Mantz.

I, Sarah Hey, do some feverish googling, being the talented researcher that I am, and note an alarming trend.  All but Matt Kennedy, Greg and the new Effects of Good Government on Church Transformation blogger are long-time Clinton advisors and friends.  I point this out to Greg privately, and he responds with “ah yes, but three of the StandFirm team are also on the Leadership Team.”

That’s true—but to be honest, just who is the Effects of Good Government on Church Transformation guy?  Isn’t that really a fourth “White House political strategy” person?  And wouldn’t Greg actually be a fifth “White House political strategy” person, even though he is a StandFirm blogger?  Isn’t the whole “Elect Hillary Clinton” theme what he started in the first place?  So in actuality we have poor lone Matt Kennedy representing the “religious information” strategy and five others representing the “White House political” strategy.

In the meantime, the wonderful chants about the “unified strategies” all being together at one grand event continue.  There are more things that make me uneasy.  For one thing, I’ve learned that the Unifying Event party decorations are going to be red, white, and blue.  In crepe streamers.  With confetti.  And there will be a band that will play various patriotic songs.  And they are planning some sort of “entrance” for Hillary that will involve her walking up to a podium and delivering a speech.  Where’s the “religious information” strategy being represented in all of this?

The topper one day is that over in a corner of Greg’s office I discover a rolled-up banner.  And on it, on the left side, is a picture of Hillary Clinton.  On the right side is a Presidential Seal, and across the banner in the middle are the words “We Said It.  We Took It.  Now Let’s Rule It.”

I realize with a chilling certainty that I cannot be a part of such an event.

I’ve never supported Hillary Clinton in the first place, and while I had hoped that we could all live together under the umbrella of StandFirm, it seems clear to me that nowhere in the mix is the “religious information” strategy that Greg had said would be a part of all of this.

But what should I do?  Should I write a public final blog post denouncing the event?  Do I want to do that to my friends—the folks with whom I’ve worked and sweated and conversed?  Could they simply be mistaken in all of this?  Perhaps even now they don’t know what the event will be.  Perhaps I—after all the evidence before me—have mistakenly interpreted the evidence.  Perhaps Greg really is a honest and forthright as he’s always seen and he’s planning a surprise for the Religious Information strategy group. 

But can I take that risk?  Do I need to appear on the platform as the supporter of the event, when it appears that I do not support it?

But if I’m not willing to support it, then shouldn’t I make my decision and its reasons clear for the unwary?  Shouldn’t I try to inform others by writing something public?  But then if I do that, I’m betraying my friends.  There is no way that my writing something public that repudiates the event will not be seen as also repudiating my friends entirely.

Suddenly, all the old psychological rules that I remember from my training at my Great Great Great Great Grandmother’s Knee spring to mind. 

Simply state your boundaries.  Use I statements.  Say what you will do and will not do.  Do not blame others.  Do not postulate motivations of others.  Do not use “you” statements.  Do not take the opportunity to bring up all the old hurts and wrongs.  And write it to your compatriots only . . . but in such a way that if the letter is ever leaked by a rival blog, perhaps T19 or Drell, you will not have denounced your friends in any way, because after all, who can know what should be or should not be.  You might well be mistaken and all of us are clearly taking different paths, in all good conscience. 

And that’s what I do.

“My very dear Bloggers in Christ . . . .”

I think Sarah has pointed out, once again, what we keep failing to understand.  In the orthodox camp there are at least two sub-camps.  There are those committed to the Communion and its renewal and those who are willing to form a new Anglican-like communion. 
Those committed to the Communion are tempted to say, “How can you give up on the Communion so easily?”  Those who are ready to form a new communion say, “How can you give up on orthdoxy so easily?” 
I am a Communion person.  I, like others in this sub-camp think that being in communion is a mark of the gospel.  Fragmentation is the direct result of sin.  There’s no use of pointing fingers and saying, “But they sinned more,” or, “They sinned first.”  I do not find it helpful to confess the sins of others.  I have enough of my own to keep me busy. 
I think Sarah is also correct about stating what you will do, what you believe, and what your boundaries are.  Change comes from the inside out.  If I want TEC to change, the only way I can do that is to change the way I interact with it.  If I want the Anglican Communion to change, I have to change the way I interact with it.  +Anis wants to change the Anglican Commuion, so he has to interact.  Others have given up on change, and so they will no longer have to interact. 
The least productive thing to do it to say that if you want to interact with TEC or the Anglican Communion, I no longer will interact with you.  +Anis’ letter indicates that he intends to continue to interact with the Anglican Communion.  His letter is also an interaction with the Global South.  He has said that he will continue with the Global South, though he will not participate in the aims of GAFCON.  That, my fellow bloggers, is a very mature response.  It is not a dependent response.  It is not a counter-dependent response.  It is not even an independent response.  It is an interdependent response.

Sarah,
You seem to have knowledge that should be shared outright with the rest of us if we are to make informed decisions for ourselves.

We know it is a fact that there are those who are willing to split from Canterbury in order to preserve orthodoxy.  I suspect GAFCON may provide such a moment.  There are also those who want to see a Canterbury centered Communion preserved.  We can all agree on this.

Perhaps, just perhaps, GAFCON will be a shot across Rowan’s bow.  (Not that ++Rowan cares.)  And perhaps, just perhaps, ++Anis is going to Lambeth to plead with ++Rowan to not let the Canterbury based Communion collapse.  (As it surely will if ++Rowan does not do something.)  Therefore is it possible that he pleads with GAFCON not to do anything that might irrevocably prevent a Canterbury based Communion and at the same time he goes to Lambeth and warns ++Rowan that this is his final opportunity to preserve the Communion as we know it.  I am not saying that this how I read the text of his letter.  However, it certainly seems a reasonable course of action and given the integrity of these GS bishops and their relentless battle contending for the faith, it certainly seems more likely than I thought yesterday.

BabyBlue:  Let’s also remember that Anis was never onboard with the GAFCON idea right from the start.  So it’s not like he was a GAFCON cheerleader who suddenly and mysteriously pulled out.  From everything I have read, Anis’s letter is simply restating pre-existing concerns that many in the Global South organization have had for a long time.

BabyBlue, while I respect you very much, I wonder if you are not showing some signs of battle fatigue, given the bitter law suit involving Truro and TEC, and that that battle is perhaps coloring your view of Anis’ letter.  Perhaps you feel that Anis’ legitimate criticism of North American impatience and unilateralism (and let’s face it BabyBlue, there is a very HEAVY Northern presence on the GAFCON leadership team) is actually an attempt to undermine Truro’s legal case.  I really don’t think it is.

Anis is not surprising anyone with this letter.  He is simply giving voice to underlying tensions which we all knew, or should have known, exist.  Anis furthermore, restates his solidarity with the orthodox Anglican leadership.

I personally find this attack on Anis to be very sad.  We conservatives have to accept legitimate differences amongst ourselves and not try to suggest that those who disagree with *our* tactics are somehow sell-outs or traitors.  That is one sure way to splinter the Anglican orthodox.  I have no problem with you disagreeing with Anis.  No problem with you arguing that the North American leadership does not have undue influence in GAFCON.  No problem with you arguing that GAFCON is the way to go.  No problem with you arguing that Lambeth is a waste of time.  But, please, do not suggest, without real evidence, that a heretofor lion of the orthodox cause is a turncoat simply because you disagree with his letter in which he gives voice to pre-existing concerns over GAFCON.

It is perhaps the harder option for +Anis like +Venables and +Chew and others to go to Lambeth.  I watched +Anis during the ABC’s press conference at the Lambeth Conference launch; he looked most uncomfortable if not downright unhappy.  Prayers for him and the hard road he has taken.

“...those who are willing to split from Canterbury…”

I suppose that there may be some who are ready to break communion with Canterbury, but I have not seen any primatial statements to that effect.

The message that I am receiving (e.g., “The Road to Lambeth” - “We will definitely not attend any Lambeth Conference to which the violators of the Lambeth Resolution are also invited as participants or observers.”) is that Canterbury is not addressing the crisis and that something else must be done.  Of course, the RTL report was followed by the DES Communique, early invitations to Lambeth including TEC, TEC’s repudiation of the Communique, and the ABC’s interference with Primates’ Meeting’s adjudication of the DES Communique.  Clearly the instruments are not functioning to ameliorate the crisis.     

I see many possible outcomes to GAFCON.  Perhaps its outcome is primarily spiritual.  Perhaps it results in a stronger covenant as an option for communion consideration.  Perhaps there is the formation of a communion within the AC - sort of an ACN or FiF at the communion level. 

I may have missed it, but I have not seen anything that supports a clear indication that a break is imminent or proposed.

Even the above referenced letter contemplates a range of possible outcomes.  I take Bp Anis’ statement of personal reasons at face value.

But then, I miss lots of things.

#23 Sarah - helpful analogy.  I suppose it might be a lesson on the GAFCON conference organisation and their American friends; then again might it also serve as an analogy for the Lambeth conference organisation and THEIR

American Friends?

[PM too quick on the trigger]

I wish Bishop Anis could have shown you his letter, Sarah, before he sent it.  I really do.
I continue to read this letter with deep concern.  His desire to circle the wagons around the Global South is troubling and his passive alluding to “an exclusively Northern agenda” and “Northern personalities” and phrases such as “driven,” as though the Africans are stooges is one thing when it comes from 815, but quite another when it comes from a friend. 

I am troubled with phrases in his letter - even from an esteemed bishop, perhaps most especially from an esteemed bishop that says,  “God has spoken to me through the Book of Jonah.”  When we say to our friend, “God has told me to tell you,” or “God has spoken to me and so I’m off to do such and such,” what is a friend to do?  Nod with a weak smile?  That kind of rhetoric shuts down not only conversation but relationships.  The friend either agrees and so we are surrounded by those who tell us what we want to hear, or our friend disagrees but doesn’t want to, in Bishop Anis’ words, “disrupt the common vision.”  And if our friend disagrees openly, then what does that say to us?  That we are not hearing directly from God?  Or our friend is not as spiritually directed as we are?

Humility requires - even if we trust in our heart God has indeed spoken to us - that we venture into this field with ownership for our own decisions and seeking counsel. “I feel as though God is speaking to me directly when I read read “such and such a passage” in Jonah. I feel my heart burn that this is for me.  And it seemed in my mind and heart that what I should do is go to Lambeth.  What do you think?”  Then those who are not going to Lambeth can affirm it, can say, “yes, my brother, that seems well to me.”  Or they can continue the dialogue.  “Well, I know that when I read the account of Moses before Pharoh crying, ‘Let my people go,’ that it feels as though the Lord is speaking to me that I cannot go.  What do you think about that?  Do you think I’m missing the point?” And the conversation continues.  It’s not this posturing “God has spoken to me,” “No, God has spoken to me,” and then then blaming “Northern personalities,” rather than the simple fact that there is a difference of opinion.  The introduction of over spiritualization of these decisions - even by bishops, most especially by bishops - makes real decision making difficult.  And this letter contains this kind of statements.

And why this is so important is I ask who profits from such actions?  Who would love to see the Global South divided?

Again, there is a job of the laity and it’s not be, as again Bishop Anis says rather patronizingly (for I think hes speaking of us here at StandFirm and not the lukewarm Episcopalians at their garden parties).  I think it’s directed at the Sarah’s in the pews when he writes of the people in the pews “who may be confused or misled, having less understanding of the issues of the controversy, but who want to remain true Christians and Anglicans.”  Who wants to remain a true Christian and a Anglican?  He infers that those of us who are in exile and under the sheltered wing of Global South primates are “confused and misled” and that we have “less understanding of the issues of the controversy.”  I believe it’s important, even in this later hour, to make it clear that we do grasp what’s happening and circling the wagons and casting blame elsewhere is not going to do it.

Which is why I posted this

.  Repentance doesn’t begin with the progressives, it begins with ourselves.  I am sorry, Sarah and all of you if you found my words too much, too emotional, too hurtful, and for my own participating in friendly fire.  That was not my intention and I’m sorry that I conveyed that in any way.  Please forgive me.

Perhaps those alluded Northern personalities can go and ask forgiveness of this good bishop.  And perhaps this good bishop can ask for their forgiveness as well.  And then, God willing, let’s open up the wagon train.  We have things to do.

bb

Not that I know anything but I would be surprised if ‘northern personalities’ was directed at those like StandFirm and US conservatives generally, but at those who have been directly advising the leadership of GAFCON and who since DAR have excited such animosity and dirisory comment, even I was shocked to see by Lambeth Palace.
FWIW

Tired,
++Anis wrote, “For this reason I appeal to you to take the above statements fully into your consideration and to be careful not to make binding decisions which may result in dividing Anglicans in the Global South and elsewhere.”

Apparently ++Anis is concerned that such divisions are being considered…  And merely by not coming to Lambeth, this in effect says that communion is broken at least for the time being under these circumstances.  Such divisions will only grow deeper if the tide is not turned.  Those who are willing to stay away from Lambeth and Canterbury represent over half of the Anglican Communion, and they are the growing half, not the stagnant half.  This is a very real concern and I do not think it serves any useful purpose to make light of that very probable outcome.  When there is an alligator nipping at your heels, it isn’t helpful to just ignore it as you seem to be.  Yes, today is Friday and I intend to not take too many things very seriously this weekend.  But, whether one is happy with ++Anis’ letter or not, (and I hope I have not misunderstood you, but) I do not think that he is taking such matters as lightly as you seem to be.

RE: “You seem to have knowledge that should be shared outright with the rest of us if we are to make informed decisions for ourselves.”

Hi CarolynP, what I have discerned I have shared copiously on this blog.  And others as well seem to see and be able to analyze just as well as I can.  RevRJ above, for instance, says basically what I’ve said, along with now a dozen others on three different blogs.  So it’s all pretty basic analysis, for which no special knowledge is needed.

For example, any Internet-accessed person can truck right on over to the Gafcon Leadership page and view the leadership team for themselves and then analyze that team:
http://www.gafcon.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=5

Here’s one way to analyze that list, although there are other ways too.

Support for non-Canterbury/Instruments communion:

Nigeria—two
Uganda—one
Kenya—one
Rwanda—one
US—three
Canada—one
England—one

Support for Canterbury/Instruments communion:
England—two
Tanzania—one
India—one

That leaves just two more—Southern Cone and Sydney, neither one of which I could particularly place in the “Support for Canterbury/Instruments communion” group, so I’ll just leave them out rather than put them in the “Support for non-Canterbury/Instruments communion.

[34] The lightness is in reference to my chronic tendency to cluelessness.

Nevertheless, the primates have said the fabric of the communion is already torn at its deepest levels.  IMHO - non-attendance at the indaba Lambeth, at this point, is merely a symptom.  Some of the global south made commitments in the RTL report, and the ABC elected to thwart the DES Communique and follow on process, welcoming TEC and leading us to where we find ourselves.  The potential for further “binding decisions” at GAFCON are a possibility, but only among the other possibilities that I listed above.  My point is that from what I have seen, further divisions or broken communion with Canterbury are not a given outcome of GAFCON.

RE: “I am troubled with phrases in his letter - even from an esteemed bishop, perhaps most especially from an esteemed bishop that says, “God has spoken to me through the Book of Jonah.” When we say to our friend, “God has told me to tell you,” or “God has spoken to me and so I’m off to do such and such,” what is a friend to do?  Nod with a weak smile?  That kind of rhetoric shuts down not only conversation but relationships.  The friend either agrees and so we are surrounded by those who tell us what we want to hear, or our friend disagrees but doesn’t want to, in Bishop Anis’ words, “disrupt the common vision.” And if our friend disagrees openly, then what does that say to us?  That we are not hearing directly from God?  Or our friend is not as spiritually directed as we are?”

Hi Baby Blue—I’ve had loads of friends say this sort of thing to me.  I simply take it as an “I” statement.  Bishop Anis does not, after all, state that “God has spoken to me and says that *you* should do this.”  He says “God has spoken to me and I will do this.”

The only response a friend need say to this straightforward account is “Go with God, brother.  God has said to me to go over here.”  If the friend disagrees with the other friends interpretation of God’s voice, then that friend could easily say “You say that God has spoken to you and said this, but couldn’t it be that you misheard God’s voice and He actually said this over here?”

Among friends that is easy to do.  On the other hand, you’re right—if someone believes that going to Lambeth is a sin—as some of the conservative Anglicans have declared—then one says to the friend “God cannot have told you to go to Lambeth—it is immoral.”  I get the feeling that some others are thinking that—but unwilling to say it out loud since it’s rather hard to back up, scripturally, and then we are off to the races with another theological argument.

At any rate, if you don’t think your friend is engaging in immoral sinful behavior, then it’s probably best to simply make an “I” statement back which would simply be “God has spoken to me and has told me to go to Gafcon, and to stay away from Lambeth.”

And I have no doubt that He has.

RE: “Who would love to see the Global South divided?”

The better question, I think, is to ask “Who knows that the Global South is divided as to tactics [not the gospel] and does not mind everyone knowing it.” 

And once you ask that question, one sees that the list is endless.  After all, one of those people would be me!  I might have acquired the letter, and leaked it, since it does not trouble me at all to 1) acknowledge that the GS is divided as to tactics, and 2) know that others know it, and that it is out in the open.

In fact, I think it a good and healthy thing for that knowledge to be firmly out there, and I think it a sign of terrible dysfunction for people to try to hide it, or browbeat leaders into not speaking of it, based on some notion of friendship or alliance.

Finally, BabyBlue, I want you to know that I did not find your words hurtful or too much, although I did find them emotional [and I certainly am all for your expressing emotion—that’s a good thing]. 

I challenged your thinking about this letter because I truly find it faulty.  But I’m not offended or hurt or upset at all.

Just wait until I get to the one other thing that I disagree with that you’ve posted!
; > )

who since DAR have excited such animosity and dirisory comment, even I was shocked to see by Lambeth Palace.

I must have missed that Pageantmaster,  please tell me where I can find it if you can remember.

#35 Sara - glancing at the link you posted, I believe the first 3/4+ of that list is leaning “Support for non-Canterbury/Instruments communion”.

re: chronic tenancy to cluelessness…

Well, I suppose we are all clueless.  None of us really knows what is afoot…  Perhaps even those who are “in the know”.  But we have faith in and serve a God who does… 

Of course that does not stop us from speculating.  It keeps our minds sharp and can be quite entertaining!  BTW, anyone want to start a pool so we can place bets on what is going to happen in the next few weeks?  That would certainly add some more excitement!

It seems to be coming down as to which is the worst sin - the GS leaders willing to break with an already broken and corrupt “communion”, or staying with the key players in that communion for the sake of unity.
I am very sad to see it come to this.  But I am still certain that God is in charge, and what comes out of the ashes of this sorry situation will be a renewed and faithful Church.

You know, if Luther and the English Reformers had valued unity above everything else, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

RE: “It seems to be coming down as to which is the worst sin - the GS leaders willing to break with an already broken and corrupt “communion”, or staying with the key players in that communion for the sake of unity.”

I do not think that either is sinful in and of itself, although certainly we may do these things and then add sins on top of those actions.

For instance, those leaving could say “and I curse all of you who remain and wish you ill” and I suppose that that latter part [after the leaving] would be sinful.

And those staying could be collaboraters, which I believe is sinful.

But I don’t think either departing the Communion [or constructing a new one] or staying in the Communion is sinful in and of itself.

Babyblue—I would be very interested in your views on the following. Why do many of us who have left TEC feel so hurt by Mouneer’s letter? Its one thing to disagree with his sentiments, which I certainly do. But I have been musing over why I initially felt so frustrated when I read his letter on this site.

Perhaps I am still working through some of my grief or anger at having to leave TEC? Or perhaps a my pride is hurt because things are going as well in the international Anglican debate as I would like?

It is time to move on to a different focus?

Yet again, jamesw, gets it right in #27.

Peace to all, prayers for all,

Just read it and skipped to the comment without reading all the other comments:  He says go to Lambeath and influence the outcome (I agree).  He says Global South has a seperate mission from within the A/C and is unified and the U.S. and Canadian orthodox need to unite and do like wise.  He is not a supporter of allowing the “northern” orthodox boot strap with the G/S.  (The G/S has never been the white knight.) While the G/S should support the northern interests it cannot be the savior of those interests..(I agree).  He issued this after the agenda issued and he is obviously concerned that the northern interests will prevail and G/S will prematurly withdraw from the A/C..I think that is a very real concern which we all should be concerned with.  I don’t see this as sinister.

#38 REv Reynolds - I had in mind a number of comments by English Bishops and a press conference with the ABC.  Unfortunately I do not keep all the links to everything I read or listen to although might be able to dig them out.  It has seemed to me that this is a great pity.

I don’t know whether you would agree with me or not, but I suppose I see some of the things going on [to which others take some exception] in a somewhat different light.  So some of the things going on and actions taken may be outside the normal run that the institutional church is comfortable with in its structures, but then again in those, what I will call new structures, it seems to me that people are deepening their relationship with, and sometimes coming to know Christ for the first time.  Congregations are being placed on their mettle and sometimes you can see Christ doing wonderful things in those places.  I think BabyBlue’s congregation is a very good example of that.

Surely this is what we should be about.  One thinks of Gamaliel.

Sarah, you are right to say that it is a good thing to know that the GS is divided.  It is always better to see the truth of the situation.  For too long we have looked to the GS for salvation.  I recently heard a GS primate say something to the effect of, don’t look to bishops to get you out of this mess.  If you think it is a mess, do something about it yourselves (I will now plug “Little Stone Bridges”). 
The GS has many concerns that we do not share.  The Saudis are funding new mosques.  HIV/AIDS is threatening entire generations.  Malaria is taking the lives of countless people.  Globalization is carrying the best and worst of western culture to them.  The greatest problem with the Bishop of New Hampshire for them is that the West has again dominated the agenda. 
Please do not now launch into an explanation of TEC’s departure from the faith.  The reality is that the West is also guilty of a departure from the faith because we watch the Saudis spend millions to bolster Islam on our plasma screen TVs, and give pennies to the churches of the GS. 
The solution to the problems of the West have to come from within.  The solutions cannot be imposed from the GS.  The thing is, in the words of Albert Einstein, solving the problems of today will require a higher level of thought than we had when we created them.  This will require us to put into play new idea beyond schism or collaboration.  I am firmly convinced that God’s way forward has yet to be discerned.  The two options on the table seem to be to break away or to stay and struggle against the tide.  I ask, in all honesty, is there another way that our paradigms have blinded us to?

Keep thinking like that, Revrj.
Maybe we’ll come on to something.
The Rabbit.

Not to rain on y’all’s parade, but if we need to question or constructively criticize primates, let us start with the Archditherer of Canterbury, who has repeatedly, whilst paying two-faced lip service to traditional Anglican theology, undermined and sabotaged the Windsor Process.

Agree with BB in much.  And she makes a good point about the closing paragraph of +Anis’ letter.  I find it disturbing that he feels we “people in the pews” don’t have a firm grasp of the issues. 

It doesn’t take a divinity degree or a funky shirt collar to know that when you hear that Jesus isn’t divine at Christmas from the pulpit that there is a major problem. 

Many of us are waiting to see what our “leadership” does at GAFCON and Lambeth.  We pray that +Anis and others actually DO something besides talk and write letters that promise much and accomplish nothing.

Goin Home asks:

“Why do many of us who have left TEC feel so hurt by Mouneer’s letter? Its one thing to disagree with his sentiments, which I certainly do. But I have been musing over why I initially felt so frustrated when I read his letter on this site.”

Since he has been one of the key members of the Global South leadership (and he has done some less visible things but still strategically significant things over the years since 2003) it’s troubling that at this hour he is calling for the wagons to be circled and isolating what he calls “northern personalities” who are in fact his comrades, his friends, his fellow workers who have labored together so closely for so many years now.  It’s not like he was out on the range chopping wood while the rest of the Global South leadership were in the kitchen making pancakes.  He was in the kitchen too. 

What is clear in the letter is that the kitchen is getting very hot.

To those who are still in TEC, the bishop’s letter may only outlinethat there are differences of opinion in the Global South.  Big deal, right?  But the ramifications of those differences do not carry the weight of one’s own personal future as a church or people who have separated from TEC.  Our churches in the “North” have aligned with the Global South, including Bishop Anis.  He is one of our bishops, one of our leaders, just as surely as the House of Bishops in TEC impacts those who are still in TEC.  They are a community and as a community impact their people.

For example, Bishop Bruno and All Saints Pasadena have been busy this past week since the California ruling allowing people of the same gender to marry each other.  His actions, though he’s a California bishop in Los Angeles, impact those who are still in TEC.  What he does or says impacts the future of the Dioceses in the Anglican Communion Network.  He is one of the leaders of The Episcopal Church.  When he speaks, he speaks with the authority of The Episcopal Church.  That is why the press is talking to him.  But orthodox TEC Clergy and laity read the headlines with alarm.  His actions carry authority that can spread all the way to the local church community that greets his actions with alarm, and not a simple shrug, whatever.

But for those of us now outside the Episcopal Church structure, Bishop Bruno does not impact us directly any more.  We follow his antics and those of All Saints Pasadena with curiosity, perhaps -  like an old uncle still showing for parties wearing a lambshade, a bit embarrassing,  but we don’t have the same level of alarm any more. 

What Bishop Anis has done, however, is akin to Bishop Iker writing a letter to his diocese or to other friendly bishops complaining about “Pittsburgian personalities” at work in Common Cause.  Would he call Bob Duncan a"Pittsburgian personality?”  No, of course not.  If he did, I’m sure the orthodox Episcopalians (and I’m sure a few Anglicans as well) would be quite alarmed.  That “Pittsburghian personality” is his friend and comrade.  It is obvious that they have major theological differences, but they’ve hitched their wagons to same wagon train and they are not about to call for everyone to circle.  It’s too late for that.

But the temptation to try to circle the wagons and go back to the way things were is always before us.  All of us - we’re all tempted to want to go back.  There is no going back, writing letters and making statements was the caisse de résistance for many years.  But those days are over. 

However, we may be in different places along that trail and of the important things for us to remember, I think, is to show generosity and kindness to one other if we are in different parts of the trail.  But it also meaning being truthful if there are difficult spots along the trail, lest one of our friends is caught unaware and trips and falls.  I think it’s possible that this letter is one of those spots.  Not everyone will agree - and that’s okay.  But please, watch the trail carefully.  It’s full of twists and turns and parts of the trail are narrow and steep.

We cannot build or rebuild bridges when we circle our wagons, especially if there is smoke on the bridge.  If there is smoke on the bridge, as this letter indicates, the last thing we should do is feed the flames and burn the bridges down. 

Unless, of course, you want the bridges burned.

bb

RE: “What Bishop Anis has done, however, is akin to Bishop Iker writing a letter to his diocese or to other friendly bishops complaining about “Pittsburgian personalities” at work in Common Cause.”

No, Baby Blue, what Bishop Anis has done is akin to Bishop Howe writing a letter to the Network complaining about “Common Cause personalities” at work in the Network.  Or like Radner resigning from the Network for the precise same reason.

You know this.  And in fact it happened!

RE: “If he did, I’m sure the orthodox Episcopalians (and I’m sure a few Anglicans as well) would be quite alarmed.  That “Pittsburghian personality” is his friend and comrade.”

Yes—we were quite alarmed, until we realized that the Network was entirely [save for the token bishops] all about CCP and a non-Canterbury/Instruments communion.  Then we all wished that those who were NOT FOR such an alternate communion would go ahead and bite the bullet and do what they already are—move away from the Network.  Such a move is inevitable, BB.

RE: “It is obvious that they have major theological differences, but they’ve hitched their wagons to same wagon train and they are not about to call for everyone to circle.  It’s too late for that.”

Well they’ve hitched their wagons to a “shell” called the Network.  But they certainly have not all hitched their wagons to the CCP which is actually the mission of the Network now.  So one group of Network bishops is riding in a wagon that says “nonCanterbury/instruments communion” and the other group is riding in a wagon that says “Canterbury/instruments communion” . . .

Why try to blur the fact that Anis is clearly upset with the influence of the non-Canterbury/Instruments faction?  There are two factions, BB, in the Global South, and both are wrestling for power.  It’s quite clear to even the most dim of web observers. 

RE: “It’s not like he was out on the range chopping wood while the rest of the Global South leadership were in the kitchen making pancakes.  He was in the kitchen too.”

He was out on the range chopping wood while four Primates in the Global South were deciding they don’t want a Canterbury/Instruments Communion, BB. 

RE: “Our churches in the “North” have aligned with the Global South, including Bishop Anis.”

No.  The churches who have left TEC, BB, have aligned themselves with Nigeria, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and the Southern Cone.  There is division in the Global South and there has been that division for closing in on five years now as to whether such oversight should have ever taken place.  We all know this.  It has been clearly understood now for years.

I believe that the divisions between those who have sought the “inside” strategy and the “outside” strategy will continue to strengthen, widen, and deepen. 

No amount of pretence or obfuscation will prevent that from occurring.

I don’t quite agree with that analysis, Sarah. Politics is like a series of triangles, that’s the best way I can think of describing it.  From the early days of when I was active in the prolife movement and was part of the “Reagan Revolution” in Washington, to even now in the Anglican political front and still working in DC, what I have noticed over the years is that alignments are made in triangles, not as dyads.  Perhaps I should write more about that.

The analysis I might offer, though, is based on the Bowen Theory of Family Systems.  So in this case, it’s not about a split in the Global South, but a triangle.  And analyzing who or what is the third point of triangle is key.  Triangles are both ways of keeping the system stable, but are created because of the instability of dyads.  They are also a way of destabilizing a system and that can be maintained intentionally and indefinitely. 

Here’s how the Bowen center at Georgetown describes triangles:

Paradoxically, a triangle is more stable than a dyad, but a triangle creates an “odd man out,” which is a very difficult position for individuals to tolerate. Anxiety generated by anticipating or being the odd one out is a potent force in triangles. The patterns in a triangle change with increasing tension. In calm periods, two people are comfortably close “insiders” and the third person is an uncomfortable “outsider.” The insiders actively exclude the outsider and the outsider works to get closer to one of them.

Someone is always uncomfortable in a triangle and pushing for change. The insiders solidify their bond by choosing each other in preference to the less desirable outsider. Someone choosing another person over oneself arouses particularly intense feelings of rejection. If mild to moderate tension develops between the insiders, the most uncomfortable one will move closer to the outsider. One of the original insiders now becomes the new outsider and the original outsider is now an insider. The new outsider will make predictable moves to restore closeness with one of the insiders.

At moderate levels of tension, triangles usually have one side in conflict and two sides in harmony. The conflict is not inherent in the relationship in which it exists but reflects the overall functioning of the triangle. At a high level of tension, the outside position becomes the most desirable. If severe conflict erupts between the insiders, one insider opts for the outside position by getting the current outsider fighting with the other insider. If the maneuvering insider is successful, he gains the more comfortable position of watching the other two people fight. When the tension and conflict subside, the outsider will try to regain an inside position.

This is a picture of what is going on not only in the Global South, but in the Episcopal Church, in the Church of England, in the Anglican Church of Canada, and in the Anglican Communion itself.  It happens in our churches and in our dioceses.  It happens in our families and at our work.  The idea that we can be attached to a community in conflict and not ourselves be drawn into the conflict is at best, naive.  The level that we are aware of what is happening is the level at which we are prepared to make choices about our own participation in the triangling.  As the conflict worsens, we see the Anglican Communion not just divide, but shatter.

To publicly point fingers at one’s comrades is shattering, not only at the structural level, but the personal one. My concern for our orthodox leadership in the Anglican Communion is that they intentionally or unintentionally fall into building their own conflict-oriented triangles to disseminate the enormous tensions they are feeling right now. 

I’ve seen this happen so many times in politics, so many times. Back in the early days of the Reagan years, the highly charged YAFFER-type political activists used to characterize some Republican conservatives as “squishes.”  You might agree with their views, but if you didn’t agree with their tactics, you were considered a squish.  It might be true, but it did nothing to propel the cause.  It just caused infighting and failure. Either convert them to your view or let go, but don’t hoist them up the flagpole.  You’ll end up being hoisted by your own petard.
One way we can deal with that is to take responsibility ourselves as much as we can, honestly, truthfully, wholeheartedly, transparently, and not to cast blame, especially on one’s friends.  That just shatters the communion even more.  Even if the Global South sent all the northern personalities out to sea, the Global South would still be triangling because they belong to a Communion that is shattering.  We can’t escape it. 

The level to which we accept that, the level to which we come to grips with the fact that the crisis is worsening and happy talk is not going to fix it, is the level by which we will begin to recover.  But pointing fingers at one’s own friends is not going to solve the problem.  In leadership, one assesses one’s assets and one’s liabilities and then considers ways of turning the liabilities into assets.  The premise though must be accurate. 

My caution in your analysis, Sarah, is that it is two sided.  But I would say we are dealing with three sides, not two.  You write, “There are two factions, BB, in the Global South, and both are wrestling for power.”  No, there are three sides and the question is - and who is the third side?

The one thing we can know about that “third side” is one that may not share the same goal as the other two.  We are clear, as friends, that the two sides you mention are in unity in the essentials.  But they differ in on the ground tactics.  The “third side” will be in conflict with one of the other two sides, that’s why they are triangled in.  If we really want to solve problem, we triangle in an friend of the one we are in conflict with to solve the problem.

But to the level of conflict, that third person if unsuccessful at solving the problem will become the scapegoat of the two remaining sides.  It is a very difficult place to find oneself.

We’re more inclined to triangle in an ally of our own against the one we are in conflict with.  The only other way this can be solved is to bring in a third party with with an abundance of trust but no fish to fry, mediation.  But in order for that third side to be successful, the other two sides must claim responsibility and cease casting blame.

In the Anglican Communion, we are so far from that place that it is only a spot on the horizon - but it’s there if we can get to it.  And the rivers don’t rise.

bb

An interesting analysis.  In psychological theory you are describing triangling within a family system.  But in fact the remedy is different from what you describe.  The key is to actually engage in direct communication with each relationship rather than triangling “in an friend of the one we are in conflict with to solve the problem”.

In fact, triangling is notoriously unhealthy.  It is always best to have one to one relationships, rather than triangling if possible.  Thus if there is a conflict between person A and person B in a system with 10 people, an unhealthy and corrupt way of handling it would be to ask person C to go talk to person B about the problem.  No, the healthiest thing to do is to say to person B “I do not intend to come to your meeting and I will be going to this other meeting” which is what Mouneer did.

The fact that there are other interested involved people in the system is neither here nor there.

The conflict in this particular instance is in the family of the Global South, between a group of Global South primates who wish to engage in a Canterbury/Instruments-based communion and another group of Global South primates who wish to engage in a non-Canterbury/Instruments-based communion.  Of course there are literally hundreds of other conflicts, but the particular one in question that Mouneer needed to directly address was the issue of whether he was going to attend a meeting whose goals it appears he does not agree with.  He decided not to attend that meeting and wrote a letter stating that he was not, and also warning the party with whom he was in conflict in the family about a third party outside of the family [of the Primates of the Global South, that is] that he deems to be influencing the family system [of the Primates of the Global South]. 

I understand that we will not agree on this issue, since I’ve talked and read enough to see the cusp of our disagreement.

. . . Of course, for all of our discussion, we may well find out that Mouneer has a dread disease or family crisis that will prevent him from attending the GS meeting and that, indeed, it was purely personal and so all of our analysis was moot and rendered dull and void.  ; > )

That’s blogging for you!

rendered dull and void.

Sarah and BB, you are sometimes tendentious, but never dull.

The Rabbit.

The world of blogging invites speculation about the future.  I’ve done my share of it in the last few months here at SF.  But the fact remains that a great deal about the future remains unclear. There are too many variables in play for any of us to claim to predict future outcomes with any confidence, except perhaps in the broadest terms. 

For example, personally, I think Sarah is right and the diverging trajectories will continue to lead to increasing distance and tensions between the inside strategy camp (i.e., the Canterbury/current Instruments based Communion) and the outside strategy camp (the Nigeria-Uganda/orthodoxy based Communion, if you will).  But the fact is that the inside and outside AC groups aren’t inert artillery projectiles that once launched are going to land at a predicatable location.  They are manned space rockets, so to speak, capable of mid-course corrections.  And there are centripetal forces at work, drawing all the orthodox back together despite tactical differences of opinion, as well as the more obvious centrifugal forces that are so evident.

Let’s not forget that ++John Chew and ++Mouneer Anis remain good friends with ++Peter Akinola and ++Henry Orombi.  There are lots of conflicting responsibilities and loyalties pulling all the principals in various directions.  Sometimes we are going to be disappointed with decisions that people we had considered heroes or at least allies make (poor +John Howe, so often derided here at SF would be a good example).  There are unexpected setbacks.  The Dar es Salaam accords end up being gutted by Canterbury.  The Windsor bishops completely fold in New Orleans.  The Network fails to hold together when part of it ardentsly supports the CCP and the rest draws back.  And so on.

But there have also been pleasant surprises too.  For me, one was ++Drexel Gomez preaching at the consecration of +Bill Atwood and +Bill Murdoch in Nairobi.  Another was for +McPherson and the Diocese of W. La to publicly chastise the PB for mishandling the depositions of +Cox and +Schofield.  You may have other events that have surprised you, for good or ill.  I suspect we all do.

I fully expect deep differences over strategy and tactics to continue to divide the orthodox side in this Anglican civil war.  And yes, Sarah is probably right, ie., that the differing trajectories that the Canterbury-linked and Abuja-linked groups are on will most likely continue to take them farther and farther apart.  But what will really doom the cause of orthodoxy is for these tensions to be complicated unnecessarily by all sorts of accusations of betrayal or other casting of aspersions on the characters of the leaders on either side.

Unfortunately, that is how bb’s highly accusatory reading of ++Anis’ letter struck me.  And yes, I recognize that I could be accused of making a personal accusation against Mary/bb here myself, though I only point to her recent postings on this matter as an illustration of a constant temptation we all face.  I’m not wanting to pick on bb here.  I think we all struggle to avoid jumping to negative conclusions when people we thought we could count on to agree with us and act with us choose to do things we find profoundly disappointing.

Bottom line: sharp differences of opinion are inevitable given the complexity of the crisis we face.  But animosity and suspicion are optional, and to be avoided as much as possible.

David Handy+

Hmmm .... it would make me very happy, very happy indeed, to be wrong. 

bb

What a perfect response, bb.

Don’t you think part of ++Anis’ problem is the fact that GAFCON was planned to be in his province without consulting him to begin with.  That was certainly not a good move to make.  He registered his complaint of this action early on.