Rowan Williams Responds to GAFCON

Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion

Ummm….guess he has missed a lot of what the Presiding Bishop has been saying….
Maybe it’s the language barrier….

Too little, too late.

In 2003 the ABC’s statement might have had more credibility. For five wretched years the ABC has, by design or dithering, prevented the Instruments of Unity from acting to protect the Communion from the revisionists. It is no longer credible for him to ask the reasserters to trust him to do the right thing.

As I said when this was released, Rowans innuendo concerning “scandalous” behavior of GS accepted Priests/Bishops is worthy of a western political campaign.

Good and balanced. Certainly not negative.

“Patience!  Wait, wait. Don’t DO anything, for heaven’s sake.  Wait.  Then wait some more.”

Amazing how fast and how clearly he can speak when his position has just been enormously threatened.

Yes—there are a lot of problems with GAFCON.  For a Catholic there are insurmountable problems, for a Protestant much less so.  However, the major problems are for the Archbishop of Canterbury himself.  It is HE who is going to have to deal with a competing authority and the issue of overlapping jurisdictions.  (They’ll only be overlapping for him,not for GAFCON members.)  Perhaps he can come up with a good solution during one of his professionally facilitated focus groups next month.

The Anglican problem lectures the Anglican solution? And how many times has the ABC been offered the opportunity to resolve the other Anglican problems over the years?

The ABC has been, essentially, declared irrelevant and for good reason. He continues to fail at addressing the real problem(s).

Sigh.  I am with #1 - Didn’t Jon Bruno publicaly apologize for evangelizing Hindus?  Didn’t Schori and Bruno both object to boxing God in a small container with that whole way / truth / life stuff (Time Magazine and LA Times, respectively)?

“...and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations.”

Remember, this Lambeth was a conference carefully designed by Rowan, the ACC and TEC to allow for no resolutions—an effort obviously designed to thwart any conservative effort. Lately, there have been some mysterious talk within TEC leadership of some type of Lambeth resolution to address cross-jursidictional issues.  You can bet your bottom dollar that the ACC has been working closely with TEC to orchastrate a crafty resolution that attacks the Gafcon effort, while containing some of the platitudes in Rowans statement.  The purpose will be to regain some positive publicity and carve out some institutional conservatives.

And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?

An interesting theoretical point, Your Grace, but the existing indiscipline (and indeed apostasy) is the problem being addressed here.  This is not a new problem, but if it was bad enough before, it has got far worse on your watch.  What have you or your allies ever done to prevent it?  Nothing but spin and fudge.

Nobody (including the GAFCON primates) regards this new approach as anything other than second-best—as even you could tell based on their five years of hoping against hope that you would do something about it. 

Your Grace, don’t you know that great swaths of the Anglican world are ruled by non-Christians, as the GAFCON statement correctly points out?  Those are legitimate mission fields, full of people who are perishing without the Gospel.  If we don’t worry about stepping on the toes of the RCs, why should we worry about stepping on the toes of atheists and pantheists, mitres or no mitres? 

Don’t you understand, Your Grace, that there are souls at stake?

Phil Hobbs

The subtext of the GAFCON statement is that it no longer matters what Rowan Williams says, except to the extent that he cares to enter the fray, as opposed to holding our coats while we fight. He can either hold our coats and let orthodox and revisionists duke it out, or he can join the fight himself. That’s what he’s going to have to do if he wants to have any say in how this all shakes out.

Not sure this qualifies as putting up his dukes, though.

Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.

Yes, that statement is laughable indeed.

There’s so much in His Grace’s statement to discuss, but I can’t let this straw man pass:

I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel.

I haven’t heard anyone saying that.

“An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life…”
The reason the Lord’s field has been TAKEN OVER by the weeds is because they were allowed to flourish for so long, being liberally watered and fertilized, and allowed to choke out so many of the good shoots!
We have been patient for so long, it may be that the field may not be viable for growth for many more seasons. 

And as for “good and balanced….not negative,” Marcus, I could not disagree with you more heartily.  There was lots of negativity in RW’s response, as well as insinuation that the GAFCON participants perhaps were insincere.
The whole thing came down to this:
“There, there, little people.  Nothing to be alarmed or upset about.  If everyone would join us at Lambeth, I’m sure we will work it all out.”

If I were of a sarcastic mind today I’d think, having been told he’s no longer terribly relevant he’s trying to say that he is relevant.

Too bad, so sad.  And too late for him, anyway.

Ditherers and fence-straddlers now have a “justification” for inaction they can embrace.

By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?

How indeed, your grace. How indeed.

I feel like I have read one of Hillary Clinton’s last campaign speeches during the primary.

I’m pleased the ABC has given an initial response to the GAFCON statement. He raises good questions and states again his affirmation of the virtue of patience.  I wonder if deeply in the background is his own distinguished historical work on the Arian crisis - the decades of discussion about the right theological language to use in respect of the Son. Thus perhaps he identifies not with any particular player in the Arian crisis but, so to say, looks at the course of the whole dispute and sees in it the slow working of God’s Providence?

I probably have much more to comment on regarding ++Rowan’s response, but I want to first remind folks that ACNS published NOTHING about GAFCON (at least as of last night), not even the final statement. (They do deign to link the final statement in Rowan’s response, but it was not published on ACNS).

To publish ++Rowan’s response in a total vacuum, without in essence giving the GAFCON leaders a chance to make the case re: GAFCON for themselves, seems to me to be incredibly arrogant and irresponsible.

After all, ++Rowan is supposed to be merely the “first among equals.” But as in Orwell’s fiction, it seems some Primates are more equal than others.  ACNS seems to totally disregard the shared and unanimous concerns of 7 Anglican Primates, but jumps into action when ++Rowan speaks.  Sad.

Dont be in such a hurry to clear the weeds… We must “wait for one another”.

City boy.  Everyone here knows what happens when you “wait” to clear the weeds…

Interesting that Mr. Williams takes months to respond to TEC’s innovations and even then uses very weak language (which his defenders insist is ‘british subtlety’).

Here, in a mere 24 hours time, Rowan shoots from the hip, and miraculaously seems perfectly capable of speaking clearly.  Apparently months of ‘prayerful discernment’ are not needed when responding to GAFCONites.  Only TEC benefits from his dithering.

The statement itself is so full of self-serving nonsense that it’s hard to know where to begin.  I’ll begin and end with the first and most obvious foolishness in the letter:  “The uniqueness of Christ is not in dispute.”

  Dear Rowan, read an occaisional diocesan newspaper from TEC. Pick one.  Better yet, google “Schori.”  You won’t even have to leave your office.

Just in case anyone was beginning to forget why GAFCON was necessary, this statement from Williams serves as a poignant reminder.

Striking how much our beloved Archbishop of Canterbury can imitate an ostrich when it serves?

Isn’t he aware that our very own GC2003 refused to pass a resolution acknowledging Jesus Christ as the author of our salvation?  That he was not unique and required of our salvation?

I’d venture to say the American HOB, speaking in (near) unison on such a subject does inded constitute a “dispute in the common life of this communion”.

I can’t decide if the man is blind or evil, impaired or malicious, uncaring or unable.

Which is it do you suppose?

I have to think of something funny, quick…

Ah yes, remember the scene in the movie Animal House, near the end, when the students had thoroughly ransacked the parade and had the town in an uproar.  A very young Kevin Bacon, in ROTC uniform, is standing on the sidewalk facing a fleeing out-of-control crowd and holding up his hands, repeatedly screaming something like “Don’t Panic, All is Well!” as he is run over and flattened into the concrete sidewalk by the panicked crowd.

It’s rather like that, I suppose.  Sigh.

Needing some support to KTF today….mrb

Rowan Williams is the living definition of the word “reactive”.  Something happens in the Communion, and he reacts; then something else happens, and he reacts to that.  But he takes no initiative himself; he does nothing, ever.

Not an unexpected response from one who apparently listens to the wolves in TEC or Brazil or Canada when he wants to know how the sheep are doing.  Very sad that he is either so terribly out of touch with the realities on the ground in parts of the AC or worse.
My former bishop calls himself “orthodox” and is probably a good friend of Rowan Williams.  I used to pray that he would stop preaching false doctrine when he came to visit our parish, but it only got worse over time.  What does Rowan Williams know of the cruelty of another near-by bishop who has denied every tenet of the orthodox Christian faith in the presence of many witnesses?  A close friend of this bishop is a member of the ACC. 

I awoke this morning praising God again for speaking so clearly through the GAFCON pilgrims.  I have been waiting for many years for such a time as this.  Seeing real Christian leadership is balm to the souls of the faithful and we have just seen the best example of it that we may ever see in our lifetimes as Anglican Christians.  For Rowan Williams to react in such a way in no way diminishes the beautiful witness for the Lord Jesus Christ that came from Jerusalem yesterday.
Prasie the Lord for the GAFCON pilgrims!

Australia: “The Anglican Communion is about to get a dose of order.”

Canterbury: “Bullsh*t”

Your Grace,

TEC took off running in the other direction and hasn’t even looked back.  We waited and waited and waited.  You sat on your hands and told us to play nice.  The game is over, we will not throw away the Gospel in order to make KJS and the gang at the HOB feel better.

RSB

“Two questions arise at once about what has been proposed. By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions”

The British never did understand revolution over matters of Conscience. He doesn’t get the problem about Apostacy at the core of the creation of GAFCON. “He don’t git it” said the stupid kid from the back of the room, “and they say he is so smart; in a pig’s eye he is.”

I completely concur with the comments of HeartAfire and would add only that Scripture mandates that we pull the weeds just as quickly as they crop up.  Williams conveniently quotes Scripture calling for patience but ignores Scripture that clearly states that we are to have nothing to do with false teachers.

Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion

Apparently he’s borrowing a move from John “It does not happen in my diocese with my permission” Bruno. The apostasy isn’t “official,” after all!

While we “wait for one another” my children are growing older.  When this trouble began my youngest was two.  She is now seven.  I will not raise them in an apostate church.  I am having to catechise them at home.  Pray for the children.

Great comments Fr. Andrew Goss.  Certainly the quickest response we have ever seen from the “deliberating” archbishop.

Cantuar’s got questions, we got answers!:)
1.  “By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council?”  Presumably upon their sincere adherence to the statements of GAFCON, not least the Jerusalem Declaration. Paragraph 13 both assumes the standard of orthodoxy elaborated in other paragraphs and also calls for repentance on the part of those who have “denied the orthodox faith in word or deed.”  Presumably any Primates who return to that faith would be welcome as well, though that is of course total speculation on my part.  Recall that the need for alternative or additional structures in the Communion is occasioned by the actions of those who have “denied the orthodox faith in word or deed.”
2.  “And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a siutation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?”  Anywhere in Anglicanism, priests are subject to the discipline of their bishop, wherever they are canonically resident.  Discipline should follow from the bishop to the priests under that bishop’s control?  What’s the problem?  That having been said, I’m willing to accept as sincere his statements in the next paragraph of his statement, as it acknowledges genuine situations regarding theological integrity.

I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’.

Ah yes, like the Episcopal church waited for AC authorization for ordination of practicing homosexual as a bishop.  And how the Episcopal church is waiting for AC authorization to conduct or “bless” homosexual unions and “marriages” before they just “do their own thing!”  NOT.

Dear ABC, don’t you realize the entire AC has been waiting on you (just you) to act decisively based on Scripture and AC structure to end the crisis and schism?

We have waited on one another, and now the Church is moving on.

Driver8,  As you know,  in the fourth century communication was written and copied laboriously by hand, and delivered by foot/boat. A a “dialogue” of two letters between two individuals seperated by just a few hundred miles could take months.  A consensus among leaders could take decades, just because of the logistics. The common man had little independent means of researching God’s word. 

Your hypothesis is very charitable to the ABC. However, his work with the Task Force (finding TEC to be in substantial compliance with Dar), and his preemptory Lambeth invitations clearly revealed where his heart lies in this debate.  I agree that he may be taking the long view, but with the understanding that through the passage of time the revisionsists will become mainstream.

Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.

This statement is only true if “uniqueness” and “evangelism” are defined so broadly as to be devoid of meaning. 

I, like many others, an astonished that Abp Williams is able to respond so quickly and with relative clarity to the GAFCON statement.  If he can do it once, maybe he can do it again - and if he does not, we will have further evidence that he is on the side of the revisionists.

I view this as a pathetic statement from the one institution (Canterbury, and its leader) that bears more responsibility than ECUSA for the crisis.  It could be picked apart in many ways, but here are two:

However, GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are problematic in all sorts of ways … A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion will not pass the test of legitimacy for all in the Communion.

One wonders why Rowan Williams thinks Instruments of Communion whose work is spit on by ECUSA and the ACC – via Williams’ own aiding and abetting, no less – pass a “test of legitimacy” in the Communion.  Does he still, at this late date, not get it?  It’s precisely because the Communion’s structures have shown themselves to have no practical “legitimacy” that we had a GAFCON.

I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case; it is not the experience of millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans in every province.

Again, does he not get it?  As somebody living in ECUSA’s province, with “experience” that extends beyond receiving and cashing its checks made payable to the ACO, I think Williams is living in his own make-believe world.  You know it: the one without Wiccan and Muslim “priests,” the one in which bishops don’t scoff at the Resurrection, the one in which the Presiding Bishop, instead of boasting that her organization offers no answers, only questions, actually proclaims the saving path of Christ – that one.  Sadly, the counters to the examples I list here are torn from the headlines, not Rowan Williams’ dreams.

I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel.

I haven’t heard anyone saying that.

Certainly not the people at GAFCON:

11. We are committed to the unity of all those who know and love Christ and to building authentic ecumenical relationships. We recognise the orders and jurisdiction of those Anglicans who uphold orthodox faith and practice, and we encourage them to join us in this declaration.

But if this is truly the case

The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues.

Then the Jerusalem declaration was either not sufficiently clear or too weak. ``even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues.” Well, if they can approach scripture and the creeds with different emphasises and perspectives, they can do that with the declaration as well.

Sorry #21, Fr. Gross for leaving out that “r”  Great comments

An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.

Huh?  Once more, sir, with clarity?!

Sounds like the AbC is still trying to play an ecclesial version of Red Light/Green Light.  Unless he says Green Light, patience is the only way forward.  Church discipline of any sort whatsoever is not and NEVER will be in Dr. Williams’s repertoire.

Overall, his rather impatient response to the GAFCON communique and Jerusalem Declaration serves to gild the lilly of Abp. William’s self-inflicted marginalization.

The word that comes to mind for the thrust of this statement is “laughable”.  Ladies and Gentlemen, please put the life jackets back in storage, while we continue to discuss the true nature of icebergs, and whether we have truly “hit” one (and how do we define “hit”, anyway?), and whether the “danger” of “sinking” is really a primary issue, or merely of secondary importance . . .

My thumbnail assessment of His Grace over the last few years has come down to this:  he, of scholarly persuasion, has become so enamored of the color gray that he has forgotten that the colors black and white still exist.

This is the response of one who has just received a massive vote of “No Confidence”.

Great comments by Fr. Gross indeed.
Why is it that we didn’t see Rowan appoint another Windsor committee to evaluate what has happened at GAFCON, and to submit a report to be reviewed and untimately punted down the road over the course of several years (at least).

Rather, somehow, when he actually wanted to give correction, he spoke clearly in less than a day.

The ABC, of course, is completely correct in what he writes… In fact, he raises excellent challenges to why the threat of “a schism within a schism” will not work. The serious points that have been underscored by the pilgrims of Gafcon will need to be asserted at Lambeth. And, alas, ++Akinola, and others will not be there, undercutting the very issues at the heart of the document that many here would laud.

It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve.

So far the ABC has done nothing to either renew the existing structure or improvise solutions.  For him, it’s maintain the status quo.

The ABC’s opinions matter only if we let them.
The communique states pretty clearly that we will no longer let them matter.

ultimately, not untimately (my typo from above).

And more great comments. He (ABC) who extolls patience and committees and not speaking rashly lest there be offense in any quarter, has hastily and rashly chosen to chastise the 1200+ traditional leaders at GAFCON as wrong-headed champions of bad order.

“It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve. This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference.”

When Rowan gave TEC a pass at the New Orleans House of Bishop’s meeting, denied the deadline of the Primates,  refused to let the Primates evaluate the response of HOB, and invited all the consecrators of VGR, he lost all right to make the statement above.

But go ahead and show us what you’ve got at Lambeth as you promise here. Show me the money.

P.S. The phone lines between NYC and London must have been hot Sunday.

GAFCON has lit a flame, and now the ABC has two openly dissident fronts: TEC & GAFCON.  Both want change that is incompatible with the other.  The pressure builds for Lambeth.  I wonder how many days it will take before a revised Lambeth Agenda is published. 

If the Lambeth Conference does not speak clearly about who speaks for Anglicanism, and the ABC continues to not enforce communal decisions, others will.  After all if there is no discipline for breaching agreements there can be no issue with other unilateral changes.  Putting it another way: if one province can unilaterally change doctrine why cannot 6 provinces unilaterally change structure?

A few years ago, so many of us would have been crushingly disappointed by this.  Look at the comments.  Now it’s basically, “who cares?”

We begged him to lead.  We begged him to follow.  Now we’re just begging him to get out of the way.

Is the ABC really that out of touch?  Maybe he needs to read Remain Faithful’s position paper to educate himself on the issues uncovered by faithful laity who are tired of all the “discernment” and delays.  If you have not read it- please find it here http://www.remainfaithful.org/  Those in leadership positions with TEC cannot take back quote after quote after quote that came out of their own mouths and actions (or lack thereof in General Convention- failing to uphold Jesus Christ as the Son of God and sole source of salvation- or that the Bible is the revealed word of God that contains all things necessary for salvation and is not open to secular “revisions”.

This is simply the party line: “There is no crisis except that which you Traditionalists keep stirring up, but really it’s only a tempest in a teacup and will soon pass.” I’ll wonder if Schori and Beers helped write it?

It certainly convicts the ABC of being out of the loop, failure to grasp the situation, and total irrelevance.
desertpadre

“It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion….”

Does this mean, structures such as the Primates’ Meeting to assess TEC compliance with the DES Communique?  Or does this mean structures such as the Lambeth Conference, which historically has been deliberative, producing resolutions the violation of which, thanks to the ABC, carries no penalty. 

“If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve….”

Improvised solutions?  That sounds to me like issuing early invitations prior to the DES Communique assessment…or maybe this means the improvised JSC review.

This is all so confusing.  Maybe these concerns should be submitted to the Panel of Reference.

“When Rowan gave TEC a pass at the New Orleans House of Bishop’s meeting, denied the deadline of the Primates, refused to let the Primates evaluate the response of HOB, and invited all the consecrators of VGR, he lost all right to make the statement above.”

You forgot, “When Rowan pushed a deceitful assessment of TEC’s Windsor response at Dar-es-Salaam.”

I just posted this on Greg’s analysis.  Fit’s better here:
I just read the ABC’s response to the Jerusalem Declaration.  “Ivory Tower Intellectual” is the NICEST thing I can think to say about the ABC!

  It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve. This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity.

IF they are not working effectively?????????  And what does he think the rest of us have been HOWLING about and trying to do for the last YI-MANY years before we said sauve qui peu???????  And how does he think the “nicey-nicey” proposed format of the upcoming Lambeth WITHOUT ALL THE PARTICIPANTS EVEN BEING INVITED is going to “restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity”?  He’s trying to hold with one hand on the liberals, pulling left, and the other on the orthodox pulling right.  If he doesn’t let go of one, HE will be torn in pieces!  Maybe that last statement should have been made in the past tense!  I didn’t expect him to welcome the Declaration with open arms, but I also didn’t expect the Alice-in-Wonderland “unreality”.

While we “wait for one another” my children are growing older.  When this trouble began my youngest was two.  She is now seven.  I will not raise them in an apostate church.  I am having to catechise them at home.  Pray for the children.

Yep.  That’s the heart of the matter.  While the purple shirted politicians dither, the children are growing older, and need to be taught the Christian Faith, not some New Thing.

There is a line in one of P.D. James’S mysteries: “A politician is expected to listen to humbug, speak humbug, and condone humbug”. Obviously the ABC, more politician than Christian cleric, espouses this “theology”.

It is not worth the time analysing his atatement. He says (albeit craftily) nothing other than things are fine just as they are!

In #51 Desert Padre wonders if Schori and Beers helped write the AbC’s response.  That might explain how he was able to respond so quickly!

Ruth Gledhill has just posted on this. She quotes Bishop Chane responding to the Archbishop’s response, as follows. Do not drink a beverage while reading the below:

Bishop Chane tells The Times in response:

“The archbishop’s thoughtful letter is helpful, and his defense of the Communion’s structures is persuasive. I am particularly grateful to hear him say that “the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.” This slanderous bit of boilerplate has been repeated frequently by the opponents of the Episcopal Church, and it is heartening to know that the archbishop realizes that it false.

‘I am quite concerned however that Archbishop Williams seems not to understand that there are primates, bishops, and others in the Communion who are actively seeking to undermine his office. He says that we should not “input selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces.” But there is no doubt that extending such oversight is an effort to foment discord, and punish those who argue on behalf of the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of our Communion. Peter Akinola is unwilling to articulate a simple condemnation of violence against homosexuals. What more does he have to do to persuade the archbishop that his views are dangerous, malicious and un-Christian?’ 

driver8, your suggestion about the length of the Arian controversy is charitable to the Archbishop.  But I also have read that large numbers of laity in many Christian areas separated themselves from their bishops and would have nothing to do with them until the apostolic faith was restored.  Neither Scripture nor Tradition advocate just going along with heretical leaders.  And that’s what the issue is in the U.S. and Canada.  What are individual believers to do?  Continue to attend church and put money on the plate, while telling the children that they shouldn’t believe what they hear there?  The Archbishop either fails to understand the situation in the U.S. and Canada, or he doesn’t want to understand.

Who is Rowan Williams?

Bishop Chane (Washington D.C.) issues howler re R. William’s statement.
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/06/summer-of-schis.html

Bishop Chane tells The Times in response:

“The archbishop’s thoughtful letter is helpful, and his defense of the Communion’s structures is persuasive. I am particularly grateful to hear him say that “the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.” This slanderous bit of boilerplate has been repeated frequently by the opponents of the Episcopal Church, and it is heartening to know that the archbishop realizes that it false.

‘I am quite concerned however that Archbishop Williams seems not to understand that there are primates, bishops, and others in the Communion who are actively seeking to undermine his office. He says that we should not “input selfish or malicious motives to those who have offered pastoral oversight to congregations in other provinces.” But there is no doubt that extending such oversight is an effort to foment discord, and punish those who argue on behalf of the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of our Communion. Peter Akinola is unwilling to articulate a simple condemnation of violence against homosexuals. What more does he have to do to persuade the archbishop that his views are dangerous, malicious and un-Christian?’ 

Chane: ...blah, [lies] blah, [outrageous lies], blah, [lies] blah, [more outrageous lies]...

Me, to self: Remember “no-freakout zone”...remember “no-freakout zone”...remember “no-freakout zone”...remember “no-freakout zone”...

Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion

Rowan Williams, blinking at reality.

He could not have done worse had he come right out and said, “Never mind me… I am irrelevant, because I have no grasp of the reality in which I exist.”

Boring Bloke—You are quick.

So that the anglo-catholics can relax, Bishop Iker has posted his statement at the Diocese of Ft. Worth website.

This Response is like getting a facebook friend request from someone you haven’t heard from since high school.  Dude, we have MOVED ON.

Note the rather dense population of straw men, e.g.:

“..., not a simple reversal of power.”

So, self governance is a “simple reversal of power?”

“I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel.”

Yet… the Jerusalem Statement itself invites other primates to join.

Oh well - unfortunate that.  However, I look forward to the fisking:

“However, GAFCON’s proposals for the way ahead are problematic <strike>for me</strike> in all sorts of <strike>painfull</strike> ways, and I urge those <strike>Neanderthalls</strike> who have outlined these to <strike>over react and leave already</strike> think very carefully <strike>, like me,</strike> about the risks <strike>to my legacy</strike> entailed.”

Matthew 13. 23-29

He put before them another parable: ‘The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. And the slaves of the householder came and said to him, “Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where, then, did these weeds come from?” He answered, “An enemy has done this.” The slaves said to him, “Then do you want us to go and gather them?” But he replied, “No; for in gathering the weeds you would uproot the wheat along with them.

The ABC is of course referring to this passage from Scripture.

Actually, I think ++Williams has hit a very important nail on the head here.

We can argue about which individual bishops and other members of TEC may have endorsed views that are truly heretical.  (A much ballyhooed book denying the resurrection comes prominently to mind.)  But it is a reach to go from that to declaring a CHURCH heretical unless it has adopted an anti-Nicene statement of faith, does not observe Apostolic succession, or does not recognize the Sacraments.  (For the Eastern Orthodox, of course, the 7 Councils and teachings of the Fathers are also part of the litmus, and Rome adds a bunch of Lateran Councils, but I’m talking about an Anglican notion of orthodoxy.)

My problem with those who endorse universalism, secularism, anti-supernaturalism, and the like is not that their Church has adopted heretical doctrines, but that they are not living and teaching in accordance with the doctrine of their Church, nor with the vows they took in Baptism and ordination. 

Yes, of course I have a problem with the way many “liberals” interpret Scripture, including the question of sexual practice.  But among the “liberals” I talk to, most are enthusiastic proponents of Chicago-Lambeth, and many of evangelism as that has traditionally been understood by the Church.  Indeed, my rector, with whom I disagree on matters of same-sex unions, is also one of the few Episcopal clergy I have heard issue alter calls, and to provide members of our Prayer Team every week for those who wish to receive Christ as Savior and Lord.  I suspect that there are many such people in TEC’s leadership, who are in my opinion mistaken in their ethics and hermeneutics, but who are not “preaching another Gospel”. 

Of course, there also people in the Church whose beliefs are formally heretical.  And there are many of us “conservatives” who would rather re-assert Nicene Orthodoxy than find another polity.  (And some of us are a bit skittish about the 1662 BCP, some of the statements in the Articles, and the exclusions of the Oriental Orthodox Churches at Chalcedon, as well as the standard of the “plain sense” of Scripture, at least if that means just the literal, as opposed to figurative, allegorical, symbolic and spiritual readings.  If the “plain sense” means commitment to young-Earth Creationism and treating the Song of Solomon as just an erotic poem, count me out; but that is hopefully not what the drafters intended…) 

I am concerned when actual apostates, Nicene believers who have questionable views on matters of morals and discipline, and perhaps all members of a polity that has produced some problematic statements and legislation but has never renounced Nicene orthodoxy, are all tarred with the same brush as “preaching another gospel.”  The situation is a lot more complicated than that.

Personally, my hope has been for a “big tent Anglican Orthodoxy” organized around Chicago-Lambeth.  On my initial reading, at least, the Jerusalem Declaration establishes something narrower than that.  That being said, I enthusiastically endorse MOST of its articles, and applaud the authors for being forthright in ways that I don’t find in the St. Andrew’s Draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant, which seems to relegate the definition of ‘orthodoxy’ to the adjudication process spelled out in the Appendix.

The train has departed and ABC was afraid to climb aboard.  There is nothing he could say that is relevant.  No one is listening.

The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues.

Yep, and these ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ are those which matter and therefore any so called Covenant that might eventually come out of Lambeth is irrelevant.

I agree that the Communion needs to be united in its commitments on these matters, and I have no doubt that the Lambeth Conference will wish to affirm all these positive aspects of GAFCON’s deliberations.

Wish all you want, what Lambeth does is irrelevant, and anyway how is Lambeth going to affirm this if there are to be no resolutions?

Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion

Ok really!  What planet is Rowan living on?  Denial is not a river in Egypt.

A ‘Primates’ Council’ which consists only of a self-selected group from among the Primates of the Communion

The primates council is not limited to this self selected group, but to all Anglican primates who are willing to accept the ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ which Rowan concludes should be fine with the vast majority of Anglicans.  So what’s the beef Rowan?

And any claim to be free to operate across provincial boundaries is fraught with difficulties, both theological and practical – theological because of our historic commitments to mutual recognition of ministries in the Communion, practical because of the obvious strain of responsibly exercising episcopal or primatial authority across enormous geographical and cultural divides.

Boundaries are being maintained where boundaries represent legitimate orthodox Anglicans, only the apostate areas are being declared as mission fields.

Two questions arise at once about what has been proposed. By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council?

Well I suppose all they would need to do is to make a public endorsement of the Jerusalem statement and offer their services to the Confessing Anglican Fellowship.

And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?

There are no overlapping jurisdictions.  There are orthodox jurisdictions and there are mission fields.  Period.

how is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where there are underlying non-theological motivations at work?

Are we not all called to test the spirits?  Are we not all called to use discernment?  I don’t think this will be so difficult a task for one who is an orthodox overseer.  Some errors will be made, after all we don’t believe in infallibility, but with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and not the spirit of this age, I have faith the Lord will bless honest prayerful discernment.

It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve.

Well now I suppose that is exactly what they are doing.  Rowan made himself irrelevant and so they simply renewing the authority of the primates that Rowan undermined.  Rowan still has a chance to be included if he doesn’t get his knickers in a twit.

This challenge is one of the most significant focuses for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference. One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity.

Yes-sir-ee.  Lambeth is going to be all about ‘confidence in Anglican identity’.  Not!

And this task will require all who care as deeply as the authors of the statement say they do about the future of Anglicanism to play their part.

By doing what?  Dialog?  Having a nice tea party?  Or perhaps joining the Lambeth “Love-In”?  (http://www.loveinthemusical.com/)

The language of ‘colonialism’ has been freely used of existing patterns. No-one is likely to look back with complacency to the colonial legacy. But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals, not a simple reversal of power. If those who speak for GAFCON are willing to share in a genuine renewal of all our patterns of reflection and decision-making in the Communion, they are welcome, especially in the shaping of an effective Covenant for our future together.

Ooh!  Now this really shows Rowan is getting his knickers in a twit.

I believe that it is wrong to assume we are now so far apart that all those outside the GAFCON network are simply proclaiming another gospel. This is not the case; it is not the experience of millions of faithful and biblically focused Anglicans in every province. What is true is that, on all sides of our controversies, slogans, misrepresentations and caricatures abound. And they need to be challenged in the name of the respect and patience we owe to each other in Jesus Christ.

GAFCON did not say this.  Actually, they extended an invitation to all Anglicans who hold to orthodox teaching to join them.  Those who cannot uphold the apostolic Gospel will simply choose not to join and they will by their own testimony be seen as proclaiming another gospel.

I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.

It is not impatience when the structures of unity and their self promoted processes have run their course and nothing that was promised has come to pass.  And certainly it is not impatience ‘at all costs’.  GAFCON has not put our ‘clarity at risk’.  It is dithering and dawdling that has done so.  The Jerusalem Statement will serve to bind us together in catholic truths and to move forward in evangelical mission to work the Lord’s fields, to plow up, to sow, to nurture and to reap.  To Him be the glory!

“Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.”

Didn’t the COE just skuttle a motion about this FOR THEIR OWN FREAKING SYNOD?

well if our dear presiding bishop and her , cronies..want to qualify then they will meet the Biblical standards, if not it should be a simple matter, they are out of communion with those of us who still believe that the Bible is the Word and direction of God…of course they don’t want to meet Biblical standards, and it seems that there are enough people who find that just fine .  Seems to me there is a verse about the house divided, or yoked animals?

DoctorSteve wrote:

But it is a reach to go from that to declaring a CHURCH heretical unless it has adopted an anti-Nicene statement of faith, does not observe Apostolic succession, or does not recognize the Sacraments.

So what does twisting the Sacrament of Marriage constitute if not denial? Not to mention all the other distortions and denials…

It is commonly understood that if something is not the same, it is because it has changed form. If TEC changes the form of marriage, how is it the same? Then to offer the Sacrament of Marriage to something that is not marriage? What is that called? Maybe it’s me. I think I’ll go visit with the TEC folks for a while so they can explain it to me.

KJS just wants to “look forward to the opportunities of the Lambeth Conference for constructive conversation, inspired prayer, and relational encounters.”

http://www.ecusa.anglican.org/79901_98450_ENG_HTM.htm

George Hood,

O dear. You have just failed the Gafcon orthodoxy test by describing marriage as a sacrament, contrary to the 39 articles, which contain “the true doctrine of the church” (25?).

“Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.”

RE: “You have just failed the Gafcon orthodoxy test by describing marriage as a sacrament, contrary to the 39 articles, which contain “the true doctrine of the church” (25?).”

Actually he hasn’t at all failed—as he did not describe marriage as a “Sacrament of the Gospel”. 

Maybe a bit more careful reading of the Articles is in order?

One must use the words with the same definitions as the writers of the Articles in order to accuse someone of failing the Gafcon orthodoxy test.

Besides . . . I’m betting that Gafcon will be ranking orthodoxy anyway.  KJS, for instance, would be a MINUS 39 . . .

; > )

Of all the issues in the current crisis that ++Rowan has responded to consistently is the ‘badness’ of cross boundary snatching or invasion. And even there, his response is to buttress up American and Canadian anger and distress. Nothing else has been addressed.  No solution to any other issues such as alternate oversight has been aggressively pursued.  In fact he has actually tried to scuttle responses to orthodox needs.

Today’s letter is no different.  It simply (for the most part) promises more of the same.

Well stated, Paul Stanley.  For now on we should be ever so careful to live up to the Articles and 1662 BCP,  lest we fall afoul of the “Confessing Anglican” Movement and our orders and jurisdiction become null and void (cf. para 13 of the Jerusalem Statement).

#58- we all know for Bishop Chane and Andrus, Bruno, Schori and many, if not most of the HOB, their episcopacies revolve around the promotion of the GLBT agenda and ultimate goal of “marriage for all” first and foremost. They also set up Akinola as their whipping boy at every occasion. It use to anger but like the ABC, it is only an annoyance at this point to the point of being irrelevent, much like GAFCON’s comments about the ABC. Many lay and ordained are ready to move on past them to get on with the true mission of the Church.

And how is effective discipline to be maintained
in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?

Let’s try this question, Your Grace:

And how is effective discipline to be maintained
in a situation of <strike>  overlapping and competing jurisdictions </strike> rampant heresy and total disregard of the mind of the Communion on the subject of human sexuality?

Can anyone imagine the ABC speaking to TEC in anything close to the tone of this response?  Would he risk having the flow of $$$ from 815 being cut off?

in Galatians, the APOSTLE Paul said this (ESV):

1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

Now, if Paul was this heated up over Jewish boundary markers being imposed on a Gentile church, so that he would accuse them of abandoning God Himself, just what should those who have succeeded him be saying about our current gospel distortions?  I dare say, ++ Akinola and J. I. Packer are about the only ones I hear using Pauline language about all of this.  Apostacy!  False gospel!  I think Paul would have added, Accursed!  I seriously doubt, “Wait for one another” would have been Paul’s advice on matters as serious as the uniqueness of our Lord Jesus Christ, salvation through Christ alone, the atonement, repentance, what constitutes grievous sin, the abandonment of the authority of the Scriptures, and the list goes on, all placing souls in peril of eternal judgment.

God bless you and your family today DesertPadre. Things are certainly clear from God’s side of the arguement aren’t they?
Intercessor

He is either uninformed or thinks his audience is and I am guessing the second.  He would be wrong.  Didn’t he recently spend time in Boston?  Did they not show him how they do tea parties there and elsewhere in the colonies?

Paul Stanley:

That’s all right, I also believe in transubstantiation. What does that tell you? I actually think that the AC and the RCC are going to get a lot closer as time goes forward.

I would also like to point out that some of the present problems the Anglican orthodox now face derive from an English King would could not conform to the Church’s Law.

Changing things for the sake of political convenience is a problematic act because it forms an organizational mentality.

I cannot help but believe that what we are seeing nowadays is that same historical mindset turning itself toward the political convenience of affirming social change that does not conform to God’s Law.

I hope that I have not offended you or anyone here. I obviously am just a visitor in someone else’s dispute. Nonetheless, I think that the implications of your fight carry great consequence for just about everyone. In that sense we all stand together. I wish you all well.

I think +Cantuar is spot on. The Communion is messy, and lots of people have done lots of regrettable things. But nothing justifies schism—we can’t say to another Christian, “I have no need of you.”

Some of you have said that you wish Rowan wasn’t reactive, that he had a plan. He does have a plan, and it includes the Lambeth Conference. Sadly, not everyone is availing themselves of the opportunity to participate in the healing of Christ’s body, the Church.

Surely, lots of us wish this could get sorted out sooner. I have noticed that impatience increases as one gets closer to the far right and far left ends of the spectrum, so you see calls for schism from both ends (most visibly on the right, but also on the left).

It will make me sad if some people depart the Anglican Communion, and I will pray for forgiveness on all sides for the sin of schism. I will pray that those who leave find spiritual renewal, even if it is no longer in the Anglican branch of Christianity.

Rowan’s statement gets it right. There are serious problems in the Communion. The way to fix those problems is NOT to create bigger, newer problems.

Lord, have mercy upon us.

Pax,
Scott+

I recognize that all anglo-catholics are not thrilled with the GAFCON statement. Does it mean anything to you that Bishop Iker is in print with his acceptance of the statement?

Rowan Williams asks:
[H]ow is a bishop or primate in another continent able to discriminate effectively between a genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity, and a situation where there are underlying non-theological motivations at work?

I’ll admit, there might be some close calls, but when the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal church cannot bring herself to say that Jesus is the only “path to the divine”, or even that Jesus is the best, or even that Jesus is one of the better paths, well, that looks to me like the makings of a “genuine crisis of pastoral relationship and theological integrity.”

Wolverine

Hey Rowan - your statement might actually mean something, had you actually done ANYTHING AT ALL these past 5 years.  But now we see your lips moving, but all we hear is “blah blah blah”.

You had your chance in 2003, when TEC annointed a bishop who has chosen an active, homosexual lifestyle.  Should have tossed them out of the communion on their ear unless they repented. 

Now, no one believe a word you say.  So just do us all a favor and resign.

Gator- it does me that Bishop Iker is supporting GAFCON’s Jerusalem Declaration.  I think the key is to support the GAFCON statement along with support of CCP provisions for a new North America province.

Scott Gunn—I see by your + that you are a priest. Check your reference books on schism. Schism is dividing the church for no valid cause. The inability of KJS to sustain (on many occasions) a full exposition of the classic Christian gospel and the lack of discipline from her church on this is a cause. The persecution of Christians by lawsuits to drive them from their church homes is a cause. The blessing by the church of homosexual sex is a cause.

The alternate word is “division.”

With regards to:

“It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve.”
+++ Rowan Cantaur

I think we shoud respond:

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

- US Declaration of Independence (Thomas Jefferson)

#60 Jim the Puritan,
I think you noticed the same thing that I did when i read the original. He signed it simply Rowan Williams. Is he subconsciously distancing himself from responsibility, is he, metaphorically, slowly backing away from the proverbial cookie jar? This wasn’t a letter to the electric company. I have never called, thus far, for the Archbishop to be deposed. The honorable thing would be for him to tender his resignation to Her Majesty and to take up fly-fishing in Wales; but that won’t happen just yet. He asks how the foreign Primates knew what was really going on in North America? The answer is rather simple, they took the initiative to reply for pleas for assistance and they checked things out thoroughly with their own eyes and ears, they took the time to listen. That is how they found out! The eleventh hour may well be upon us and yet it is not too late for him to turn around, quite literally to repent. It is time to go or get off the pot!

Let’s be clear.

Those who abandoned Biblical truth and the pleas of the instruments of communion are the ones who declared, “I have no need of you.” 

Those in the GAFCON movement are staying, and offering a way for us to become a true communion rather than devolve into a loose federation.

Their Katharine has now responded.

“Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion.”

So what communion is he talking about?

We look forward to the opportunities of the Lambeth Conference for constructive conversation, inspired prayer, and relational encounters.

The fact that she’s looking forward to it would be reason enough to stay away.  I learned a long time ago in corporate life to avoid meetings in which I was going to be sandbagged. 
I have no idea what my position on GAFCON would be if I were an Anglican (it’s like one of those questions your kids ask you “If you had been born [somebody completely different] how would you feel about x?”  I don’t know how I’d feel—I’d be somebody completely different] but as an amateur student of organizational dynamics, I love it.  It was just the right move.

Oh no! Rowan brought up Mt 13:29 and justice1#82 brought up Gal 1, so I guess the Bible contradicts itself, and we’re free to do whatever we want… or maybe Rowan is taking a passage about individual salvation that has nothing to do with the subject of when to apply church discipline, and is misusing it.

It seems as though Rowan Williams has new staffers.

bb

Upon reading Bishop Williams’ letter, I am saddened that he was not able to put forth a better response.  In fact, my shaky respect for the man has been further weakened.  I believe he has over time lost the confidence of the majority of the Communion excepting only those who desperately want to believe everything will be fine if we just wait and pray about it ... or maybe go to Lourdes for a miracle. This letter falls short of grasping the situation on the ground. Certainly, a leader should not lead blindly nor should he leave the weakened behind.  William’s solution, lacking that vision, is for everyone to lay down on the ground next to the path and wait for the morning to come.  He offers no solace or protection for the children who are being savaged by wild animals in the night.  He offers no light for those who endure the witing without faith like dumn animals…as if Christianity did not offer the Truth.  Yes, GAFCON is dangerous.  So is the path of nonaction Williams has espoused.  So is God. Rowan Williams should resign.  It is time for the Anglican Communion to follow its faithful primates and bishops who are witnesses to the Gospel.The postmodernist New Thing has turned out to resemble C.S. Lewis’ island where dreams (and nightmares) come true in the Voyage of the Dawn Treader.  It is time to trust the white albatross flying overhead, shining in the darkness, and *come out*.  It is not the time to give voice to the besotted enchantments of the Lady of the Green Kirtle of Lewis’ Silver Chair story.  Our beloved Church has been confused with her underground kingdom of night, supported by webs spun of darkness.  It is NOT THE CHURCH. It is the shadow of death. Come out of sexual and spiritual bondage and breath the free air.

Indeed, my rector, with whom I disagree on matters of same-sex unions, is also one of the few Episcopal clergy I have heard issue alter calls, and to provide members of our Prayer Team every week for those who wish to receive Christ as Savior and Lord.

Thus muddying the waters as to the nature of Christian obedience and the Christian life into which altar calls invite people.

Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion
It is a shame that given the GC’s desire to deny just that in their last meeting, the lack of discipline for those bishops and clergy who would deny Christ as God, and the refusal to actively evangelize the heathen with the Gospel that these words don’t mean what they sound like - a solid statement that TEC is outside the common life of the communion.  But then that would require moral leadership wouldn’t it?

I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’.

Interesting and rather subjective re-contextualization of ekdechomai.  I’m not certain Abp. Williams’s rather expansive exegesis of the word applies here.

Let’s see.  “Wait”, the orthodox are admonished.  Wait while revisionists continue unabated and unchecked to abuse the Anglican Communion to promote a false gospel?  With all due respect, Your Grace, No!

++Rowan, Rowan:  “I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.”

We have been patient for more than 40 years! We have been patient while TEC has deteriorated beyond all repair. We have been patient while naive souls have been turned away from Jesus Christ and led into the wilderness. We have been patient in the face of broken promise after broken promise, lie after lie from TEC. We have been patient, and that is perhaps our great sin. Our patience has been read by TEC and the world as acquiescence to, and even approval of, “another gospel.”
God’s patience is limited. Ours should have been just as limited.

Methinks that someone ought to compile all of quotes on record of all of the Anglicans around the world who have publicly denied the uniqueness of Christ and then send the list to Rowan. Perhaps he just doesn’t know. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was that dang oblivious. Not at all.

Someone needs to break through to him that our tradition and our communion is not broad enough to contain those who contradict or openly question such a basic foundational belief. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Even if the problem is fairly contained to the small percentage of the worldwide communion represented by TEC, it is still too much. It is a poison and a contradiction that cannot be accomodated. So it is a problem for us all. It becomes an even greater problem when the primate of an entire province is the one doing the denying. Does Rowan honestly think that open unbelief in foundational tenets of the Gospel is not a problem unless it envelops more than a couple of provinces? Just what exactly is his threshold here before he considers this to be a problem for the whole communion? Just exactly how does the poison of denial not effect the food of belief, of the Gospel?

Who has ever believed upon the witness of someone who doubts the doctrines of their own religion? How does that not harm or halt the spread of the Gospel? How is it not a problem when those from other religions use such statements to prove that Christianity is false? It only takes a few like these to create a major crisis for us all. Will ++Rowan ever realize it?

[#86] Scott Gunn wrote:

But nothing justifies schism—we can’t say to another Christian, “I have no need of you.”

You are correct in this assertion.  And yet you have begged the critical question: “Who is a Christian?”  Paul would never say of the gnostics that they were a part of Body of Christ.  Neither should we say as much of those who preach a false gospel. 

Some of you have said that you wish Rowan wasn’t reactive, that he had a plan. He does have a plan, and it includes the Lambeth Conference.

Yes, RW does have a plan. It is called stasis.  He wants nothing to change, because any change destabilizes the CoE.  Lambeth was never intended to solve anything.  RW wants to ensnare the whole problem in the Molassas Swamp, and then remove all the red cards from the deck. (‘Candyland’ metaphor for those w/o children.)  Process replaces progress.  It has been his method of operation ever since this crisis broke.

carl

#105-

We assembled quotes from TEC leadership- it is here in our position paper which you can download at http://www.remainfaithful.org/.  Pretty stark contrast to Scripture, I can tell you that much!

I recognize that all anglo-catholics are not thrilled with the GAFCON statement. Does it mean anything to you that Bishop Iker is in print with his acceptance of the statement?

If I were a Protestant-minded Anglican in Iker’s diocese, I’d be pleased as punch that my bishop just signed on to a Protestant vision for the future.  But as a catholic, I fear that Bishop Iker has sold his Catholic birthright for a mess of Protestant pottage.

Gator, for what it’s worth, I consider myself Anglo Catholic, and I have no problem with Bishop Iker’s position on the Jerusalem Declaration.

Third Mill Catholic,
+Iker is one of the godliest bishops I know.  Anglicanism has historically upheld the 1662 PB and the 39 articles.  Yet, there has been room for anglo-catholics for 400 years or so.  The Jerusalem Declaration says nothing more than what Anglicans have said all along.  There is still room for anglo-catholics and with +Iker around, you can bet the farm on it! 
(Not that I am suggesting that anyone engage in gambling of course.   )

Well, if I might offer the following as a rebuttal Your Grace, to your understanding that: “The ‘tenets of orthodoxy’ spelled out in the document will be acceptable to and shared by the vast majority of Anglicans in every province, even if there may be differences of emphasis and perspective on some issues.”

“More Light Presbyterians join in celebrating the marriage of the Rev. Susan Craig and the Rev. Bear Ride – possibly the first same-gender Presbyterian clergy to marry since the state of California weighed in on marriage equality.  Bear and Susan were married on June 19 at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, in the presence of family and friends, with the Revs Ed Bacon and George Regas and Rabbi Steven Jacobs officiating.  Craig and Ride’s four adult children served as “Best People,” with Ride’s mother beaming in the front pew.  Elder Michael Adee, Executive Director of More Light Presbyterians, and Martha Juillerat, founder of the Shower of Stoles Project, participated in the joyous celebration, with a number of Presbyterian clergy and friends praying, singing and cheering on. …” ( From The Reformed Pastor at http://reformedpastor.wordpress.com/ posted 28 June 2008)

If we could have your thoughts on this please Your Grace?

#110,
Are you suggesting that Bingo isn’t the eighth Sacrament?

If anyone was tempted to believe I was inventing the quote above the original posting is here http://www.mlp.org/article.php?story=20080627004318152, with pictures.

Stu

Post 30 makes a good point about our children getting older as we wait and wait for something to happen. I experienced much the same thing when my children were growing up in the Roman Catholic Church. I also catechised them at home, because the Church - at least the American Church - wasn’t teaching anything of substance. It was trying not to alienate anyone by making everyone feel good. The religious instruction classes didn’t teach much about articles of faith, or scripture. Mostly they were all about caring and sharing and peace and justice. My 3 children are now grown. One is still a practicing Catholic who believes in the Creed and Scriptures and lives a very moral life. One turned away from God because she blamed Him for not arranging her life as she wanted it to be,and ended up going back to church -a liberal Episcopal parish in Massachusetts. The third is not going to church at all, although he claims to have orthodox beliefs. Many churches, not just the Romans and TEC, have failed in their responsibility toward their members. In today’s society it is so necessary for the churches to be beacons of true faith and pillars of support for young people.

Mormons style themselves as “Christians,” but no Christian of any denomination that I am aware of (with the possible exception of TEC) would agree with them in this; they are, in fact, polytheists. Christian Scientists style themselves as “Christians,” but, again, no Christian can or would agree with them in this; they are, in fact, the most flagrantly gnostic body in the spiritual landscape of America. The very same thing holds true for Jehovah’s Wittnesses and many other examples that I could cite.

Just because somebody SAYS that they are a “Christian” or that their “church” is a Christian does NOT make it so. TEC has, in every imaginable way, removed itself from inclusion in the Body of Christ—they are no more a part of the One Holy and Apostolic Church than are any of the organizations cited above. If the Archbishop of Canterbury cannot see this—he is, after all, supposed to be a trained theologian—then he has rendered himself spiritually irrelevant. GAFCON is simply stating the obvious.

The statements that PB makes are only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. On any given Sunday in countless parishes all over this country, there are countless “priests” who are preaching a “gospel” that is patently beyond the pale of even the most thin and watered-down standards of “orthodoxy.”

My departure from TEC began when I heard a priestess start her “sermon” with these words:
  “We used to believe that the Bible critiqued our sexuality. But NOW we KNOW that it is our sexuality which critiques the Bible…”

<b> 86 - Scott Gunn:<b>

Scott, Rowan hasn’t got a plan - unless it’s ‘wait until everyone dies off or rapture comes’.  It’s been evident since the beginning and continues within the contents of this extremely sad missive.

I am just glad my Primate is one who realizes that The Archbishop does not an Anglican Communion make.  Thanks be to God.

Anglicanism is much more comprehensive than what building belongs to whom OR where you live.  “I tell you there is coming a time that true Believers will not worship here or in Jerusalem but in Spirit and in Truth.” 

Thanks be to God -

Sigh - sorry about the ultra bold there - haven’t posted for awhile…

By what authority…?

I seem to remember another time that question was asked.  Please refer to the answer given previously.

Captain Yips has commented upon the Archbishop of Canterbury’s and the PB’s missives (perhaps she meant to use missive instead of emission?? or was emission a purposeful pejorative?)  Anyway, the Captain’s analysis is great:
http://captainyips.typepad.com/journal/2008/06/rowan-responds.html

“An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents.”

When the weeds take over the pulpit and altar, it’s time to do major pruning. WEEDS can not and DO NOT serve at God’s altar.

The religious instruction classes didn’t teach much about articles of faith, or scripture. Mostly they were all about caring and sharing and peace and justice.

For a year or two I helped teach a church school class for children (back when my church *had* children). The material was so lame and “feel good” - I felt like we were giving the children nothing, not feeding them in any way that mattered. That is a failure so deep - and may be the root of what is happening now.

“Despite the claims of some, the conviction of the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord and God and the absolute imperative of evangelism are not in dispute in the common life of the Communion”...

I beg to differ, sir…

KJS, Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 1/07: 

“Again in its narrow construction, it tends to eliminate other possibilities. In its broader construction, yes, human beings come to relationship with God largely through their experience of holiness in other human beings. Through seeing God at work in other people’s lives. In that sense, yes, I will affirm that statement. But not in the narrow sense, that people can only come to relationship with God through consciously believing in Jesus”.

“Two questions arise at once about what has been proposed. By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council? And how is effective discipline to be maintained in a situation of overlapping and competing jurisdictions?”

Well, why not call for or allow a primates’ meeting and let them hash all this out?  Would anyone else care to tell me what the AB of C even knows about “effective discipline”? So far, he seems to have avoided it at all costs…

“But emerging from the legacy of colonialism must mean a new co-operation of equals”...

Then start treating the African primates like the equals they are.  They should also be highly respected for their successful evangelism for the Church, which is more than we can say for the dismal dwindling numbers exhibited in the C of E, TEC, and AC of C.

“I have in the past quoted to some in the Communion who would call themselves radical the words of the Apostle in I Cor.11.33: ‘wait for one another’. I would say the same to those in whose name this statement has been issued. An impatience at all costs to clear the Lord’s field of the weeds that may appear among the shoots of true life (Matt.13.29) will put at risk our clarity and effectiveness in communicating just those evangelical and catholic truths which the GAFCON statement presents”.

“Be patient”?!! It’s highly possible that God isn’t fond of ditherers, either, who’ve not done much more than sabotage the work of the other Instruments. 

I don’t much care to listen to anything this guy has to say unless he decides to lead with why the DES Communique came to naught…

My departure from TEC began when I heard a priestess start her “sermon” with these words:
“We used to believe that the Bible critiqued our sexuality. But NOW we KNOW that it is our sexuality which critiques the Bible…”

Let me guess, this minister giggled in seminary every time Adam and Eve were mentioned, because they were naked.

My departure from TEC began when I heard a priestess start her “sermon” with these words:
“We used to believe that the Bible critiqued our sexuality. But NOW we KNOW that it is our sexuality which critiques the Bible…”

THIS IS THE WORST I HAVE HEARD YET.  If a tape of this ‘sermon’ is available, please post it here.  It needs to be documented and with names, parishes, dioceses named.

It is not enough to dismiss the existing structures of the Communion. If they are not working effectively, the challenge is to renew them rather than to improvise solutions that may seem to be effective for some in the short term but will continue to create more problems than they solve.

The more I think about it, the more infuriating this statement becomes.
Very well, then, what means are to be used to renew the Communion?
Not the Primates Meeting: You, Archbishop, have not allowed it to meet since Dar es Salaaam, whose intent you have neutered.
Not Lambeth: Again, you have made it a forum where real and hard interaction cannot take place.
The ACC is not really a forum for renewal either.
So where is it supposed to take place?! Tell me that you have not closed the doors to such avenues.

I appreciated Cherie Wetzel’s (GAFCON attendee, Anglicans United blogger) commentary on both ++Rowan’s response and +KJS’ response:

http://www.anglicansunited.com/

Re:  KJS’ Statement, she writes:

[Ed. Note: How very clever of the Presiding Bishop to ruminate through her previous study of Chemistry and call the Gafcon statement an emission (read: hot air or gas). Yes, the argument is all about latitude. How far can you push the boundaries before you are no longer either Christian or Anglican? Cheryl M. Wetzel]

***************

Re:  ++Rowan’s Statement, she writes:

[Ed. Note: The Archbishop of Canterbury’s reaction to the GAFCON statement is helpful and valuable, if for no other reason, he states that the centrality of Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture are the ‘convictions’ of the Communion. The subsequent arguments with the Gafcon paper lie in the understanding of the church catholic: one bishop for one locale so that there is but one voice. This argument has not applied in the past in stated cases of heresy. If the Archbisho or his council had the ability to discipline based on this assumption, we would not be in the pickle we find ourselves in today. Cheryl M. Wetzel]

we can’t say to another Christian, “I have no need of you.”

Funny how Mrs. Canon Breaker can easily say that to the only legitimate Standing committee members of Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin.
Why is that???
Shalom,
Intercessor

George Hood wrote…

<blockquote>But it is a reach to go from that to declaring a CHURCH heretical unless it has adopted an anti-Nicene statement of faith, does not observe Apostolic succession, or does not recognize the Sacraments.

So what does twisting the Sacrament of Marriage constitute if not denial? Not to mention all the other distortions and denials…

It is commonly understood that if something is not the same, it is because it has changed form. If TEC changes the form of marriage, how is it the same? Then to offer the Sacrament of Marriage to something that is not marriage? What is that called? Maybe it’s me. I think I’ll go visit with the TEC folks for a while so they can explain it to me.</blockquote>

My objection was not to the word ‘denial’ but specifically denial of the Gospel.  I hold to traditional Christian teaching on sexuality, and believe it to be important and clearly implied by Scripture.  I have voted against legislation that goes against such teaching.  But I do not regard having “revisionist” views on sexuality as itself constituting “denial of the Gospel”.  I regard it as an error on matters of morals, and some people doubtless make this error because they are apostate or heretical, or because they ranked their own reasoning above Scripture.  But…and this was something I did not realize 10 years ago, and only came to puzzle out through conversations with people whose theology was clearly orthodox but whose views on sexuality struck me as bizarre…someone can accept Christ and be doing his or her best to discern His will, and still make errors on this or many other matters.  Were this not so, we would either all agree or else it would mean that almost no one was orthodox. 

I have little doubt that most of us, starting with myself, have some erroneous views on both theology and morals.  (Though Anglicanism’s doctrinal minimalism is a good safeguard against believing falsehoods!) I trust that the Holy Spirit will guide us to truth in this life or the Resurrection, as we are led “from glory unto glory,” but to my mind a Christian is someone for whom Jesus is Savior and Lord, and an orthodox Christian is one who understands this within the Nicene statement of the faith and Apostolic Succession.  A “conservative” is one who, when his/her best understanding of Scripture is at odds with his/her best understanding of reason, tradition, or experience, gives precedence to Scripture.  But when a Nicene Christian who is committed to discerning and obeying Christ differs with me on interpretation of Scripture, I feel obliged to honor our differences, even if I think their reasoning is without merit.

I commend Your Grace for, if nothing else, giving the most clear and tangible statement during your tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury, in place of your more common statements of ambiguity, existentialism and theory, which to be fair are much preferred in the world of academia in which you have, for better or worse, lived the vast majority of your life.

This time, perhaps, you felt a bit on the defensive, and thus the need for a more concrete, and less elusive, response.

Regardless, you are a brilliant scholar, and I do not doubt your sincerity as a man of God. Even if I wanted to, which I do not, it is not my right or place. Moreover, I mean with all sincerity, despite my chosen user-name on this blog, that I haven’t the slightest desire to walk in your shoes. I do not envy you, and you are in my prayers with the enormous burden you carry during this most difficult time. I would wish it on no man.

Dear Archbishop, I do have to ask you a few things though.

Prior to the consecration of Gene Robinson, the Primates, one of the four Instruments of Unity within the Communion, UNANIMOUSLY asked the United States NOT to consecrate him, further stating that if said consecration were to take place, it would create a tear in the fabric of the Communion. Presiding Bishop of TEC, Frank Griswold, was one of the Primates who unanimously voted for that statement. He then hypocritically acted as Chief Consecrator for Robinson.
Following that, Primate after Primate, quickly building to well over half of the Communion, and eventually over half of the Primates, said they were not in communion with the consecrators of Gene Robinson. A study was ordered, which resulted in the Windsor Report. The findings of the Windsor Report were accepted by the majority of the Primates. 
When the Primates met in 2007, they unanimously stated that the House of Bishops in the U. S. be ordered to comply with the Windsor Report by a certain date. The Presiding Bishop of TEC was among those who agreed to that order. So were you.
But when she returned here, as you know, it was business as usual. She and the House of Bishops effectively shot the bird to the entire Anglican Communion. They took no action to comply. Yet no action was taken by you or anyone else.
Well, there was the action of taking your “sabbatical” in Georgetown - a well-renowned destination for sabbaticals and retreats, with a death per capita rate on par with that in Iraq, and not much selection so far as monastic retreats. Oh, but there is easy access to the power-brokers in TEC, who it just so happens were preparing for their big bash in New Orleans!
Moving right along, time for Lambeth approaches. Archbishop, all of the consecrators of Gene Robinson are invited. None of the godly men consecrated by the orthodox Primates, representing the majority of the Communion, and who voted in the cases mentioned above in the vast majority and/or unanimously (and you also voted with them), to shepherd the persecuted orthodox Anglicans in the U.S. are invited to Lambeth.

Archbishop Williams, you have so grossly and hypocritically misused and abused your office, to the extent that you have virtually eliminated the voice and authority of one of the four Instruments of Unity: the Primates Meeting. If we are, as you have said, conciliar, then it is arguably the MOST important. If we do not, as you have said, desire a pope, then it is the MOST important.

But you have changed your stripes as suited your purposes in each situation.

In saying there was nothing you could do when the American heretics were ignoring the edicts of the Primates, you were either spineless or you were in support of them. And this is true because later, when it suited your purposes to suddenly have authority, you have no trouble whatsoever in flexing your muscle, telling the Primates what groups they will and will not form, telling the Primates which of their Bishops may not attend Lambeth, telling the Americans who blatantly ignored the edicts of the Primates that they are welcome at Lambeth, telling the Primates and Bishops at GAFCON that they are out of line.

You have that most convenient of all positions on earth: you are a self-appointed Pope with optional involvement, and with lack of accountability. Who wouldn’t love such a position?!? At least for now, that is. Accountability always comes home to roost sooner or later.

Archbishop, I plead with you, please, before it is too late, please wake up, and with a fair hand, help save the Anglican Communion. I do not ask that you join in with the orthodox for some plot. I merely ask that you set aside all agendas, and be the man you are called to be. It’s not too late.

#128—

There is no valid or sustainable position between right and wrong which is to say there is no “gray” area.

“Conservative” and “revisionist” as well as most of the other descriptors are meaningless. What matters is submission to God…and “yes, one can be conservative and be immoral” (we agree on that).

Nonetheless, holding a “revisionist” position on human sexuality is in and of itself a sin. Impure thoughts are sinful. Just thinking about homosexuality or about having relations with your neighbor’s wife is sinful. If you hold a “revisionist” view of the nature of human sexuality, you are already a sinner and would best be off to prayer and penitence real soon.

A great sadness is that so much of this debate has gotten down to “hippies” and “revisionists” fighting it out with “rednecks” and “conservatives” for control of the Church.

The fight is not about the politics. It truly is about the Word and the Word is Law. It’s that simple.

The strength is in the Word. That is where victory lay. If this battle is to be won, it will be won by a return to the fundamentals.

Finally, that is what the GAFCON statement is about.

Okay, friends. I need the Jerusalem Declaration and +++Rowan’s response in Spanish.  After several hours search I still can’t find them.  HELP!!! Thanks, Lejos

Lejos, My guess is that no one has created one yet. Parece que tendra que esperar, posiblemente hasta que miembros del Cono Sur tienen tiempo de hacerlo. Que lastima!

Geesh! So much has been said and I cannot offer anything more that hasn’t already been said except:
+Rowan is clueless and the Emperor has no clothes!
Onward Christian GAFCON Soldiers!

#128
For me, the issue re denial of the Gospel comes down to whether the gospel we proclaim is one of transformation, or affirmation. Do we say to the sinner, in whatever besotting sin we may find ourselves in, Christ accepts you as you are, go live that way. Or, Christ welcomes you as you are, and offers to transform your life so that it is more like his? That, to me, is where the denial of the gospel is.
Having experienced his transforming power in my life, I’m sticking with the latter.
Jim+

Yeah, sure, whatever, ++Rowan.  Enjoy the remainder of Wimbledon… It’s the last good week you’re going to have.

Let’s see if I have this right about Rowan.  The CofE is crumbling. SA is way down and soon it will be replaced as England’s #1 religion, 1300 clergy and several bishops may leave over women elevated to bishop in CofE issue, VGR will steal the Lambeth spotlight. Rowan does nothing.  Baseball managers get fired for less.

#134—comoxpastor

The problem is that most of the folks who are pro-gay (or for that matter, pro any other form of sexual sin) believe that they are “good” people and that “Jesus loves them” as they are. They truly do not seek transformation or they believe that such a transformation is mystical, that is, it just happens; all you have to do is walk into a church and give yourself to Jesus.

That is why you have “Sunday” Christians who sin all week with no concern and then come to church and ask forgiveness never thinking about changing their behavior.

This point of view represents a failure in teaching. God, of course, cares for all of His creatures but He also calls us to live according to the Law. I would point out that Jesus told the adulteress, after saving her from the stoning, not to sin anymore. He didn’t tell her: “I love you and I accept you as you are. Go and do more of the same”.

Part of giving yourself to God is submitting to Him. You make the effort and He helps you. If you don’t believe that you are a sinner, then you are not submitting and He will not listen to you. In other words, the transforming power is there for the taking but you have to go along with it. You can’t walk into a church, say “I’m gay and God loves me and I’m not going to change; now I’d like to marry my partner” and find God’s transforming power.

In fact, making such statements and taking such a position constitute defiance of God. It is not God’s failure. He does not disappoint. It is the sinner’s failure to take that first step.

The failure in teaching, and this is a pastoral failure that is much broader than the Episcopal Church, is that folks are being taught a very one sided picture of God: “God is love”. No one wants to deal with requirements like the Commandments or with those of a pious life.

I actually believe that there are many ordained members in TEC that suffer from this erroneous theology. It’s a short step from not asking a sinner to change to affirmation of sin.

I welcome the GAFCON initiative and statement because it seeks a return to fundamentals.

“By what authority are Primates deemed acceptable or unacceptable members of any new primatial council?”

Is it just me, or is this the very moral relativism we are dealing with today?  Also, ABC wants to use the current structures, but at the same time ignores that the structures are failing (and as noted elsewhere, solely because of lack of enforcement and not lack of structures) and that he is doing little to lead to create a unified communion.  Ignoring the real issues at Lambeth and focusing on more conversations (while good priests are getting deposed) is not leadership and will not satisfy the Communion.  Remember, nature abhors a vacuum.

“By what authority . . . “

There is more than a parallel—there is congruence between this question by Rowan and the queries of the Pharisees. 

Perhaps we can see whether there is some reason the GAFCon leaders “taught with authority, and not like the scribes” . . .

Re: #109
Spencer writes:
<blcokquote>Iker is one of the godliest bishops I know.  Anglicanism has historically upheld the 1662 PB and the 39 articles.  Yet, there has been room for anglo-catholics for 400 years or so.  The Jerusalem Declaration says nothing more than what Anglicans have said all along.  There is still room for anglo-catholics and with +Iker around, you can bet the farm on it!</blockquote>

I’m not questioning +Iker’s integrity.  I can’t honestly say that I wouldn’t have done the same thing in his position as the bishop trying to preserve one of the last remaining anti-WO dioceses.  Anglo-Catholics know how to survive in hostile environments, so living in a Prot-universe for a time might not be such a bad thing for his flock.  Where I take issue with your statement is in this remark:

Anglicanism has historically upheld the 1662 PB and the 39 articles.

What precedent is there for American Episcopalians to acknowledge the 1662 BCP as the “true an authoritative standard” for worship?

What if the GAFCON folk also authorized the oldest Scottish book—any problems then? It would certainly cover the US case…

140 - I disagree. As an Anglo-Catholic priest I feel that GAFCON threw the Anglo-Catholics under the bus.  I cannot subscribe to all 39 Articles nor can I use the 1662 BCP more than limited periods. I would much prefer to be subjected to 1549 BCP or the Anglican Missal.  But if GAFCON requires all to subscribe to the 39 Articles, count me out. I am curious how +Fort Worth and +Quincy get around these two, in my mind, major sticking points.

Trey

Go back and look at the GAFCON statement.  Do you not see Common Cause Partnership in the document?  (which has already taken into consideration the issues of Anglo Catholic and Anglo Protestant/evangelical).  What precisely do you have a problem with- be more specific, please.  I have consulted with many anglocatholic Clergy and not one has had an issue with it.  Do you not see the part about “locally adapted” practices as well?  The focus should be on the essentials- Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour and the revealed word of God.  Anglo Catholic and Anglo Protestant have coexisted worshipping their own way for centuries- I am not even trained in a seminary- and it is obvious to me that the reference to the 1662 BCP is due to the African Provinces having been brought up in that book from missionary days.  Let’s focus on the real issue- that of the revisionist theologies of TEC and Canada that have destroyed the Communion- along with the ABC not taking a stand over many, many years- even now pretending there is really no issue as to the belief as Christ as our Saviour and the Bible being the revealed word of God.  Focus on the issues which mean the most, please.  Just my two cents.

For the record- I also am an anglo catholic- as is my rector- and I am in Fort Worth.  Noone threw anyone under and “bus”.  Please choose your words more carefully.  Neither Bishop Iker or Ackerman or Duncan deserve these kinds of accusations.

I too am an Anglo-Catholic in the Dioc. of Ft. Worth.  Upon first reading, I was not completely satisfied and a bit worried.  After reading more, praying a bit, and then seeing +Iker’s response, I have no concerns.  I have also been promised on good authority by someone “several paygrades up” from me that there will be plenty of room for Anglo-Catholics in the new province.

I have read the GAFCON statement. I have no issue with the majority of the statement. But if they’re expecting all Anglo-Catholics to fall in line with the 39 articles and the 1662 BCP it isn’t going to happen. I don’t think any of us would argue against the fact that Jesus Christ is Lord and the only way to salvation is through Christ.  However, telling me (by the 39 articles) about the Sacramental aspect isn’t going to work.  I would think the GAFCON statement would be more palatable if they left those out. Or allowed the Scottish BCP or even the 1549 BCP. 

The problem *I* am having,  and perhaps some of my Anglo-Catholic bretheren, is that we’re having to agree to the 39 articles and the fact that I happen to acknowledge transubstantiation (in the pure Thomistic view) ergo #28 is going to have to go out the window.  I’m not so certain I agree with #22 either. 

I did not mean any disrespect for either +Fort Worth or +Pittsburgh.  But it does seem that the majority of Anglo-Catholics will have an issue if we’re told “You must accept the 39 Articles”. If this works out in some way similar to the idea behind Common Cause where the Anglo-Catholic branch will be allowed to continue on without the 39 Articles- Brilliant!  I will be asking both Bishop Iker and Bishop Ackerman of Quincy how they handle being Anglo-Catholic and having to subscribe to the 39 articles.  I *may* be missing something.

In regards to the 1662 BCP-  Call me a purist, call me a not-so-closeted Papist-  but the style is so out of synch with the Sarum Canon that I’d much prefer 1549 BCP as the “standard for worship” though as some were colonies under the Empire it does make sense that they had that BCP (and heaven knows it is better than Common Worship).

T+

Please go back and look at the langauge one more time- and focus on the formation of the new Province under the auspices of the Common Cause Partnership- which means as a province we can determine such issues- and then you might say the words- Brilliant!

Will we go back to 1928 prayer book? Fine by me.  Will there be adaptations to the 1979 prayer book?  Most I have visited with believe so.

Again- call me a simple lay person.  I can work those issues out if I do not have to be part of a Church that does not believe or teach Jesus Christ is our Lord and Saviour and that the Bible is the revealed word of God.  I think if you look for it- local adaptations and interpretations are allowed for in the document.  As it should be- Nigerian Anglican will use different music than we might- evangelicals might not believe the same as we do about the sacrements- but we can believe in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and the Bible being the revealed word of God.  Given what we have been working with for decades I will invite my evangelical brethren to break bread in Communion any day- though I could not the revisionists.

I will admit my perspective is also influenced by having to try and defend our Faith to my kids and teenage kids and now college age kids- who have had it drummed into their heads by their friends that our “Church” is really not Christian from what TEC espouses!  I do not want any more families to experience that.  I can continue to live as we have for centuries with the differences that are not essential differences.

We believe this is a critical moment when the Primates’ Council will need to put in place structures to lead and support the church. In particular, we believe the time is now ripe for the formation of a province in North America for the federation currently known as Common Cause Partnership to be recognised by the Primates’ Council.

Ok that I understand- maybe what I need explained is how does one reconcile that statement with:

4. We uphold the Thirty-nine Articles as containing the true doctrine of the Church agreeing with God’s Word and as authoritative for Anglicans today.

So if they say “Ok, Common Cause, we know you have some who don’t acknowledge all the articles, but who profess only the Gospel of Jesus Christ, come on in!” I could see that.  And that may, in fact, be the case.  Regardless, I’ll email Bishop Iker in the morning and see what he says.  It just seems like you can’t really do both of the above.  However, with God all things are possible.

T+

I also think that if you heard the level of tolerance from Archbishop Venables when opining about need for local Diocesan interpretation on matters it might be of comfort to you.  As well as these quotes from All Souls, today.

Q: Would all the GAFCON leaders support those who ordain women?

Peter Jensen: We do not ordain women — that is well known. The ordination of women is a different order of things from the presenting issue. Scripture never suggests an ordained woman is in danger of losing her salvation. The continual practice of greed or immorality is clearly a matter of being inside or outside the kingdom of God.

Q: Do you stand with Forward in Faith and Anglo-Catholicism? Can Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics be in one communion?

Peter Jensen: Yes, we have been in one communion. In 2003, one group in the Communion made a terrific blunder breaking through the boundaries. This freed up the rest of us. The Communion will never be the same again. We are one Communion but far looser, and this enables great spiritual movements like GAFCON to arise. The blunder is being turned to good. The Communion is going forward and those who can sign off on something like the Jerusalem statement can work together.

Jim Packer: It is important to know who our friends are. Anglo-Catholics generally believe in Trinity, Scripture, atonement, resurrection, judgement, prayer, etc. A ‘higher’ view of sacraments and priesthood seems secondary in the light of those primary correspondences. I can be friends with Anglo-Catholics. Modern Anglo-Catholicism has a different agenda from in the past. I can, with qualifications, be friends with Anglo-Catholics. I have good will towards Forward in Faith. Liberals are different, denying many of the aforementioned. We have let Liberals get away with too much with regard to leadership in the past.

That coming from leaders of GAFCON in their post GAFCON conference in London works for me.

One of its major stated aims is to restore and deepen confidence in our Anglican identity.

The problem is—quite obviously—not some lack of confidence in “Anglican identity”, it is a fundamental and irreconcilable disagreement about what constitutes “Anglican identity.”  ++Dr Williams is here being either incredibly naive or tactful to the point of mendacity.

I find it endlessly amusing, in a black sort of way, that both the ABC and +Wright go on and on about the Covenant as a solution, when a) it has been clearly said that what with 38 Provincial synods providing comments, committee meetings, and more comments, approval of any Covenant is nearly a generation away; b) the latest draft of the Covenant makes only the wooliest and most oblique references to any sort of discipline or commitment, and even that feeble commitment is purely to consult rather than to any sort of coherent Scriptural theology; and c) TEO has shown again and again that it will cheerfully sign anything and then proceed to disregard it in an arrogant blizzard of self-righteous pettifoggery.

For years the ABC has been maintaining (correctly) that authority in Anglicanism is conciliar, but again and again he has shown his willingness to completely undermine any truly conciliar decisions by the other Instruments of the Communion.  His protestations here ring quite hollow.
<hr width=40%>Trey #146—Go read <a >Tract 90</a>, especially Section 8 on Transubstantiation.

I’ll be glad to settle for 1662, though I would have preferred the US 1928 or the Canadian 1962.

it has been clearly said that what with 38 Provincial synods providing comments, committee meetings, and more comments, approval of any Covenant is nearly a generation away

I must have missed this. The I recall hearing the Covenant Design Group were working towards was 2012 or 2013.

I find it endlessly amusing, in a black sort of way, that both the ABC and +Wright go on and on about the Covenant as a solution…

It is a solution…to ensure that the TEC dogma will never be reversed. Please go away Messrs. Steitz, Radner and ++Gomez as well. Time has just passed you by.
Intercessor

#151 It’s clearly the case in the US that relationships of trust and affection have been built up during the struggle of the past decade and more, than run across the evangelical/catholic Anglican divide. Yet I think it is only the US that such relationships seem to exist in quite that way. I note in England the GAFCON speakers and venue were strongly identified with the evangelical wing of the CofE. The same seems to be the case in Australia.

For GAFCON to be the resource across the communion that it perhaps can be be, ISTM that serious efforts need to be undertaken to bind in Anglo Catholics who don’t look to Bishops Iker or Duncan (etc.) but rather look to the PEVs (“Flying Bishops”) in England or Bishops in Australia etc…

Thus the issue of the “plain meaning” of the 39 Articles raised in the Way, the Truth and the Life (which I took to be an implicit critique of Tractarian “inventiveness”) and the sense of some in GAFCON that Anglo Catholicism has been as much as problem as liberalism, needs somehow to be addressed. Not necessarily by first by statements but by patiently building relationships of trust between evangelicals and catholic Anglicans outside the US.

Thus “launching” GAFCON in England without a catholic Anglican presence seems to me regrettable.

#151 He did also has “restore”. I think that does go beyond a confidence building exercise.

Isn’t the truth that the Instruments have not achieved a consensus at any point in the last five years - even the Primates - and we see a hint of that in the non participation of various Global South figures in GAFCON. In the absence of anything like consensus or the repeated presence of folks who say one thing and do another (and I include in various ways the ABC, the PB and a good few others in that category - I want to be charitable and say they change their minds) then Archbishop Rowan’s room for manoeuvre has been limited.

Athanasius (#90): Simply because Matt uses terms you happen to like (i.e., confessional and conciliar) doesn’t negate the implication of his remarks.  Obviously, what GAFCON proposes is “confessional.”  But, pray tell, how in the world is the GAFCON solution “conciliar” (in a Communion-wide sense) when the only ones invited to the table are fellow-GAFONites?  If I’m reading Matt correctly (again, I invite him to clarify his meaning), it would seem that he is suggesting that the only body within the Communion that has authority anymore in all matters pertaining what is truly “orthodox” or what is genuinely “Anglican” is GAFCON (or FOCA or CAF or whatever they will end up calling themselves). 

Finally, I ask this again: What authority binds ANY province of the Anglican Communion to affirm a certain status for the 39 Articles and the 1662 BCP above whatever status a particular province may possibly afford to these formularies in its own constitution and canons?  Has the Anglican Communion ever insisted on a monochrome confessional position from its constituent members…EVER?  So then what right or authority does GAFCON have to insist that Anglican “orthodoxy” will for henceforth be judged by this litmus test? (And please don’t bother accusing me again of being an 815 minion unless you provide an intelligent answer to this question.)

Sorry folks.  The last entry was meant for a different thread.  Posted by mistake.

DoctorSteve wrote [69]

some of us are a bit skittish about the 1662 BCP

and
yohanelejos asked [141]

What if the GAFCON folk also authorized the oldest Scottish book—any problems then?

Where can I get more information about the differences between 1662 and the oldest Scottish BCP and the relation of both to the US BCP (1928 & earlier)?

DoctorSteve, what is it that makes you skittish about 1662?

There’s a comment on this thread at In Hoc Signo Vinces, one of the blogs linked on “Around the Web”. It’s the second comment, by “Tregonsee”, and if the information is accurate it would explain a lot.  Has anyone seen the reports referred to in Tregonsee’s comment?

THANK YOU, Carl and NBS for some of the funniest comments yet, regarding RW’s response to the JD (and both of you are among my favorite commenters)—-“A cheerful heart is good medicine” indeed!

Carl:
“RW wants to ensnare the whole problem in the Molassas Swamp, and then remove all the red cards from the deck.”

NBS (66):
“This Response is like getting a facebook friend request from someone you haven’t heard from since high school.  Dude, we have MOVED ON.”

Perhaps we need a thread for the topic of Anglo-Catholicism so that those *current* concerns (illustrated by Packer’s talk where he mentions liberals and Anglo-Catholics as problems) from both spectra can be addressed.  I wasn’t aware that Thomism was an essential part of Anglo-Catholicism.  If Transubstantiation and the bit about the priest *becoming* Christ during the celebration of the sacraments even to the extent of saying “I forgive you” during the Confession are vital to ACs, I guess I’m no more interested beyond intellectual curiosity in Anglo-Catholicism than in contemporary Roman Catholicism.  That’s just me of course ... and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Third Mill, conciliar leadership has to do with the college of bishops including all those who have gone before ... as opposed to attempts to resolve differences by authorizing a single primate to have authority over all.  It may be messy but frankly, I don’t see much essential difference between declaring infallible popes and declaring the highest authority that of the individual conscience.  From where I stand, the tendency to elevate a single person to be “the decider” is a Protestant tendency and by that formulation, the centralization of power in a pope is a Protestantism ... as opposed to the conciliar leadership that led the church for the first thousand years.  Certainly, we would hope that individual does not step outside the received tradition but to claim infallibility precisely does this.  Peter was not infallible ... Paul was correct in rejecting the Judaizing tendency.  Look at the Popes of history ... some good men there but infallible, even with regards to the limited realm of infallibility now granted by dogma?  Not by my lights.  Of course, I reject Rome because it departed from conciliar leadership, made innovations apart from the whole church, and thereby fell into error which has been amplified by recent promulgation of dogmas such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary and Papal Infallibility.  It has yet to return to its Patristic foundations from the abberations introduced by medieval Scholasticism (think Transubstantiation, private Masses, Indulgences).  But I grant you that things are getting better on some fronts.

Third Mill, conciliar leadership has to do with the college of bishops including all those who have gone before ... as opposed to attempts to resolve differences by authorizing a single primate to have authority over all.  It may be messy but frankly, I don’t see much essential difference between declaring infallible popes and declaring the highest authority that of the individual conscience.  From where I stand, the tendency to elevate a single person to be “the decider” is a Protestant tendency and by that formulation, the centralization of power in a pope is a Protestantism ... as opposed to the conciliar leadership that led the church for the first thousand years.

Monologistos, I assume you are addressing my entry above that was mis-posted to this thread.  But never mind, I’m glad you chimed in.  Again, I ask, how GAFCON is conciliar (in a Communion-wide sense) when the “college of bishops” are bishops of their own choosing, i.e., those who pass their litmus test of orthodoxy (which includes their implicit declaration that any jurisdiction that doesn’t is vacant).  Are we saying that GAFCON (CAF or FOCA) now calls the shots for the Communion?  Also, this suggestion that “a single primate” makes decisions for all is not grounded in reality, but in the frustration over the Lambeth invitations.  There are four Instruments of Unity, not one, and the current ABC has gone on record that he does NOT wish to have the powers that the Windsor Report had originally envisioned for the office.  The Covenant Process (remember that?) was devised to address the balance of authority and recognition, but in order for the process to work ALL PARTIES must be at the table.  I suspect that one of the objectives of GAFCON is to make certain that all parties are not at the table.  I also suspect that the Jerusalem Statement outlines precisely the content and authority structure that the GAFCON participants wish to see in the would-be Covenant, if the process ever gets underway.  The JS is their party platform (nothing necessarily wrong with that).  The problem is, it comes with the threat of open schism.

#162, there is no functioning Anglican Communion.  The four instruments of unity have proved ineffective or worse.  I think it is a misfire to accuse GAFCON of not being the Anglican Communion.  I think it is pointless to keep asking how eucharistic fellowship and leadership of GAFCON primates and bishops is conciliar ... the answer is clear.  They aren’t claiming to be the Anglican Communion so there is no point in saying that they are not the Anglican Communion ... which doesn’t exist in reality anyway. There is no Anglican Communion; rather, there is a pseudo-table fellowship that is exclusive of Eucharistic fellowship. The Covenant Process offers nothing but delay while an apostate national and often local TEC runs roughshod over the faithful and steals their places of worship.  The Instruments of Unity have been utterly ineffective at preventing this corporate takeover.  GAFCON and its declarations are voluntary.  If the pseudo Communion is threatened by voluntary compliance with conciliar order, it goes to show how bankrupt, how wicked and how fearful they have become.  Yes, there are dangers in actually doing something.  The dangers of doing nothing are already manifest and they are far advanced.  It is probably too late to even save TEC as a Christian church.  So I don’t get why you are riled up about voluntary declarations and confessions.  All Anglican Communion parties have been at the table for years; yet, TEC and increasingly the ACofC have used table fellowship for their own contrary ends.  As far as I can see, your protests simply serve to encourage a pseudo table fellowship for the promulgation of the ongoing advanced schism and apostasy in North America.

For all that Anglo-Catholic bishops for whom I have tremendous respect say that there is no problem with GAFCON’s insistence on the 39 Articles, I simply cannot understand how I am to reconcile my Anglo-Catholic faith with Article XXVIII, which not merely denies Transubstantiation (a word I am not fixated on, although I fully believe that the bread and wine truly become the Body and Blood of Our Lord, which is why He said “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”), but to say that it may not be reserved (which will deny Communion to many homebound and hospitalized believers), or that it may not be worshipped (which is either to deny that it is indeed the Real Presence of Christ, or else that Christ’s Real Presence is not worthy of worship), makes my acceptance of the article simply impossible.  Further, there is enough Biblical support to contradict XXII, for example (given that the Final Judgment hasn’t yet occurred, unless I somehow missed it, just where was the rich man when Lazarus was in the Bosom of Abraham, or Lazarus, for that matter?), that it’s going to push Anglo-Catholics out as well.
  But in any case, I strongly suspect that not even the most evangelical of GAFCON’s supporters <u>really</u> want to see the Articles enforced.  I mean, does anyone—anyone at all—expect the Anglican Communion to revert to the usage demanded by Article XXXV, “Of the Homilies”???  Do we expect the Second Book of Homilies actually to be read from the pulpit on Sundays (with #6:‘Against Excess of Apparel’, for example, to be translated into the local vernacular).  [I know too many parishes, particularly in beach communities, where “excess of apparel” is far from being the problem—bikini tops and flip-flops being more of a concern…]

No, I’m afraid that this Anglo-Catholic priest, at least, is feeling just a tad abandoned by all sides—with the Liberal Americans who’ll believe anything providing it’s ‘cool’ on one side, and the Evangelical GAFCONites pushing conservative Protestantism (with just a touch of congregationalism and even Calvinism-lite tossed in) on the other.

Neither side appears to be particularly interested in the Church Catholic, the historic Faith handed down from the Apostles which for 2000 years has been Christ’s Body on earth, the Church.

CanonZ wrote:

I simply cannot understand how I am to reconcile my Anglo-Catholic faith with Article XXVIII, which not merely denies Transubstantiation (snip), but to say that (the Sacrament) may not be reserved (snip), or that it may not be worshipped (snip), makes my acceptance of the article simply impossible.

I don’t think Article XXVIII prohibits reservation of the Sacrament. What it says is that the sacrament was “not by Christ’s ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshiped”, but that is not the same as being prohibited unless we Anglicans adopt the Regulative Principle of Worship. ISTM the Articles use different and stronger language when referring to prohibited things. For example XVI uses “they are to be condemned…”; XVIII “they also are to be had accursed…”; XX and XXIII “...it is not lawful…”; XXIV “It is repugnant to the Word of God…” and so on. I think the Articles put such things as Reservation in the category of “all may, none must”. Christ did not ordain reservation, lifting up, etc of the Sacrament, and therefore it cannot be required of all Anglicans, but neither is it prohibited. 

Further, there is enough Biblical support to contradict XXII, for example (given that the Final Judgment hasn’t yet occurred, unless I somehow missed it, just where was the rich man when Lazarus was in the Bosom of Abraham, or Lazarus, for that matter?), that it’s going to push Anglo-Catholics out as well.

Article XXII doesn’t prohibit all and every belief in Purgatory, but specifically “the Romish doctrine” of it. I have to confess ignorance here—I don’t know specifically what that doctrine consists of, nor what specific features of it the authors of the Article objected to. Belief in some form of an intermediate state between death and Judgement is established by Scripture (Luke 16:2 & 23:43, 2 Cor 5:8) and required; belief in any specific view about that state is not, unless it also can be established by Scripture (ArticleVI).  It’s similar to the various schools of thought on the Last Times or the Creation days—each may have Scriptural support but individual believers will vary on which one appears to be the most accurate. Anglicans all must believe that God created the universe and everything in it, but exactly how and when is not spelled out. Anglicans all must believe that Christ will return, but need not all agree on exactly when in the prophetic scheme of things that will happen. 

But in any case, I strongly suspect that not even the most evangelical of GAFCON’s supporters really want to see the Articles enforced.  I mean, does anyone—anyone at all—expect the Anglican Communion to revert to the usage demanded by Article XXXV, “Of the Homilies”??? Do we expect the Second Book of Homilies actually to be read from the pulpit on Sundays (with #6:’Against Excess of Apparel’, for example, to be translated into the local vernacular).  [I know too many parishes, particularly in beach communities, where “excess of apparel” is far from being the problem—bikini tops and flip-flops being more of a concern…]

I’ve never read the Homilies, though I attempted one once. I do OK with the language of the ‘28 prayer book, having been brought up with it, but found the even earlier English of the Homilies to be heavy going. It’s been a little over 200 years since GC suspended the order for reading the Homilies until a “revision of them may conveniently be made” to update the language and remove the specifically English references. Somehow I suspect the convenient time never came , but looking at the list of topics I don’t see why the updating shouldn’t be done and teaching on these subjects recommenced in orthodox Anglican parishes. I don’t see in the article that they have to be read from the pulpit, and maybe education hour or Confirmation class would be a more appropriate venue, but really, would it be so terrible if they were read during the service? A little reversion to the old usage might do us all good. Many of the Anglican laity have not had the advantage of thorough and orthodox instruction while we were growing up. My Confirmation classes had far more Freudian psychology than they did even generically Christian doctrine and history, never mind anything that could be called specifically Anglican.

I’m going to hazard a guess (it’s a guess because #6 isn’t the one I tried to read) that what the Homily “Against Excess of Apparel” was objecting to was worldliness—being conformed to the culture rather than to Christ—in one’s manner of dressing. In the sixteenth century, that took the form of costly fabrics, lace, pearls, etc. Nowadays it takes the form of showing the maximum amount of skin. To parallel what C.S. Lewis wrote in <u>The Screwtape Letters</u> about Gluttony of Excess and Gluttony of Delicacy, there are two forms of “Excess” in dress; in one form, the clothes are too sumptuous, and in the other, they are too revealing.

KYounge 165, well said. 

... in one form, the clothes are too sumptuous, and in the other, they are too revealing.

... or both at once.  Have you watched the Oscars recently?

Spinning the Articles to negate the Reformation doctrine behind them is not an honest interpretation.  That was Newman’s folly in Tract 90, which even he in time came to understand.  That’s why the Jerusalem Declaration will, in the end, undermine the Anglo-Catholics who throw their lot in with the new Confessional Anglican Fellowship.  Like the REC, where some presbyters push the Protestant confessional envelope with smells and bells, debates over “catholicity” will be reduced in meaning to eccentric tastes in vestments and arguments over funny hats and sacred trinkets, which amounts to how “high church” one can be and still remain a faithful Protestant!

re: watching the Oscars
I don’t watch the Oscars. Heck, I don’t watch most of the movies!