Changing the Structures? What +Wright and +Williams seem to be avoiding

We are a global Communion with a post-colonial structure. Lambeth invitations appear to have the same effect on bishops that dominion status has on nations. Which leads one to the uncomfortable conclusion that Archbishop Williams is roughly analogous to the Queen.

The Episcopal Church: Cheap Grace, Cheap Faith, Cheap Good Works. My church has been taken over by Big Lots.

So…the GAFCON thing is a way of counterbalancing Williams’ bad leadership until such time as a more effective leader—from a GAFCON point of view—occupies the See? Then why on earth boycott Lambeth rather than show up in force and compel adjustments in the agenda? The point would be to confront Williams’ bad leadership at every opportunity.

Worse, you will have to prise the power of appointing the ABC from the Crown/overhaul the way the Communion works at the nuts and bolts level. That’s an uphill battle, and boycotting Lambeth does not serve the cause.

Right?

Scotist, the reasons for not going to Lambeth have already been set out. Williams has no intention of disciplining TEC and, ultimately, he is the one that has to do it (or, more accurately, should have done it already). No point having a wonderful statement and discipline if it’s not enacted.

The more I see all this unfold the more I realize that Rome is the only way out!

Which leads one to the uncomfortable conclusion that the Archbishop Williams is roughly analogous to the Queen.

That would explain a lot, Mousestalker. I think the ABC hasn’t acted because, even if he wanted to, he has no real authority to do anything and make it stick.

Suppose GAFCON could not get any cooperation from him at all, as you say.
Why, for a GAFCON supporter, is Williams’ uncooperative attitude relevant? It seems you are saying there is a theological reason for them not to go b/c Williams will not discipline TEC and the ACC, even if they could do some practical good for their cause; i.e. even if they could do good, they would be forbidden by some theological principle to even engage in the effort. Is that right?
It seems they could go and attempt to change the agenda, and failing that stage a walkout or something like a sit down strike that would undermine the meeting’s proceeding at all. failing that they could at least be a presence witnessing to the cause admidst their fellow bishops—and teh rest of the Communion.

He had the power to leave the most assertive of the heterodox off of the Lambeth invitation list - instead, he more heavily penalized geographical “boundary crossers” and set up a meeting where theological and moral boundary crossers would be able to emote and manipulate.

The more I see all this unfold the more I realize that Rome is the only way out! 

Isn’t that where we’re all trying to escape from in the first place?

Sure—but GAFCON has tried to marginalize the office of the ABC. If GAFCON is going to work within the AC in the long term, and not face frustration, the system by which the AC works will have to be changed.

It can only be changed from within.

Rome? What if Williams were considered infallible? Would you be happier then?

I think the ABC hasn’t acted because, even if he wanted to, he has no real authority to do anything and make it stick. 

On the contrary, he had the power of invitation. He acted, just not properly.

It seems they could go and attempt to change the agenda, and failing that stage a walkout or something like a sit down strike that would undermine the meeting’s proceeding at all. failing that they could at least be a presence witnessing to the cause admidst their fellow bishops—and teh rest of the Communion. 

True, and yet they’ve taken the (correct, in my opinion) decision that even to go is to affirm those they don’t want to affirm.

“you will have to prise the power of appointing the ABC from the Crown”
Scotist, are you sure about this?
I always understood that the process goes through the government, and the monarch merely approves the selection.

BTW England hasn’t had an absolute monarchy since the 17th century

Now, I take issue with the notion that we have a “colonial structure”. One legacy that the British left from the Empire was some very effective structures!

David - I agree mostly regarding structures.  I believe that issue is colonial attitudes.  There is a horribly patronising aspect of both the English/British and the American way of dealing with the Global South.  Adequately to deal with attitudes takes a lot longer than setting up structures.

Fo instance - I do not believe that +++Williams has ever wanted to discipline the US as he regards them as equals whereas I do not see the same towards our African colleagues.

Scotist-
Several GS primates went on record a couple years ago that TEC had broken communion with them, and that there were TEC bishops with whom they would not share Holy Communion.  They then issued a joint statement (Road to Lambeth) calling on the ABoC to enforce the clear intent of the Windsor report, and withhold invitations from VGR’s consecrators, Ingham, and all bishops permitting SSBs in their dioceses.  They stated that they could not in conscience receive communion with these people or maintain fellowship with them.  And since these people had rejected the doctrine of the Church, as well as the expressed will of the Communion, that the GS bishops would not attend Lambeth if the others were invited in violation of Dromentine and Windsor.  By all his public statements up to the time he issued the invitations, the ABoC seemed ready to comply with the will of the Primates.  At the time the invitations were issued, several bishops of these provinces were left off the list due to their serving in the US.  The House of Bishops of several provinces took offense at this, and voted unanimously not to attend unless all their bishops received invitations.  The Archbishop invited all the consecrators of VGR, and all the bishops who have permitted, allowed, authorized, encouraged (choose your verb) SSBs, including the US PB.
The bishops who are “boycotting” Lambeth are keeping their word.  Had the ABoC kept his, this would not have happened.

Concerning Rome…“we” were trying to escape from Rome.  While I wouldn’t want Williams to be in the infallibility seat, Benedict is managing the infallibility seat quite well IMHO. 
This gets back to the theme of this thread:  structure for discipline is [only] as good as the one who wields the disciplinary lash.

Thanks, David+, another excellent analysis.

Your reference to Dr. Phil brings to mind my favorite among his comments:  “How is that working for you?”  The answer to that question with respect to the AC depends upon whether you are “orthodox” or “liberal”, using Rev. Dr. Packer’s definitions of those terms.  In my view, the answer is: For the “liberals”, quite well, thank you. For the “orthodox”, not very well.

Your reference to the political situation in the United States and Great Brittan focuses my attention again on the “corporate governance” issue.  In both the U. S. and G. B., when the constituency desires a change of leadership, there is a clearly defined mechanism for achieving it.  I am unable to identify any such mechanism in the AC, past or present.  Perhaps the Gafcon Statement/Jerusalem Declaration offers a glimmer of hope for this in the future.

Your observation that ++Williams had the authority to deal with the issues raised by the actions of ECUSA is questionable, in my view.  ABC has little or no hierarchical authority; he has only moral, spiritual authority, in my view.  First among equals!!!  Again in my view, he forfeited both his moral and spiritual authority some time ago.  I see no authority in the AC which could have “authoritatively” dealt with the issues framed by the actions of ECUSA.  ++Williams having forfeited his only authority, moral and spiritual, he had no hierarchical authority to exercise.  The “power” to decide who is or is not invited to Lambeth is not, in my opinion, an exercise of hierarchical authority.  No votes will be taken at Lambeth.  The only “authority” an ABC would have at Lambeth is moral, spiritual, which, in my view,  ++Williams has forfeited.

I think I see the faint outlines, framework of such a hierarchal authority in the GAFCON Statement and Jerusalem Declaration.  Wishful thinking on my part, perhaps.

Your post helped me sharpen my (often foggy) thoughts on this.  Thanks, David+

tjm,
Were the GAFCON Primates objecting to GC2003 etc compelled to absent themselves from Lambeth by their allegiance to Christ and the Gospel?

If it is just a matter of them keeping their word rather than changing their minds or strategic considerations shifting, then the decision not to go appears relatively trivial. But if absence is forced by right moral response to the Gospel, say, then not going is a much more serious matter.

Scotist,
I agree with you in the sense that I would like to see all the Gafcon bishops at Lambeth.  But, I do see the side of the bishops who will not be attending.  Not the least of it being that the conference is designed to prevent them from doing what they did in 1998- which is to say present a resolution that would be agreed to by over 80% of those present.  And the reason the conference is structured that way this time is specifically and purposely to prevent the orthodox bishops from imposing discipline on TEC and the ACoC for their open violation of Lambeth 1.10, and their open violation of the very principles and theology the ABoC pays homage to in his response.
There are those of us for whom keeping our word is a very important matter.  We tend to respect others who do, and not respect those who do not.  My personal experience with African cultures is limited, but such contact as I have had indicates to me that most African cultures highly value the keeping of promises.  To them, gospel aside, keeping their word is very important.
Be that as it may, why would one attend a synod with a group of people who had intentionally excommunicated themselves?  Why go to a synod organized with the intent not to deal with issues?  Why go to a synod from which some of your own bishops are barred because the people who broke the communion in the first place do not want them there.  Why go to a synod whose resolutions can be ignored without sanction? It would just be a waste of time and money. To date, there has been no discipline for lawsuits, or depositions, or SSBs, or outright heresy, there has only been discipline against those who have tried to do something about the damage to the body of Christ, and none for those who caused it.

those who claim to be evangelical and yet would continue to meet with those that they freely acknowledge are heterodox. Together they are the problem

I’m unclear what you intend or want to effect by suggesting that Bishop Wright “claim[s] to be evangelical”? Any ideas?

I’m unclear what you intend or want to effect by suggesting that Bishop Wright “claim[s] to be evangelical”?

Let me clarify.
I am not the first to suggest (nor is this the first time I have suggested) that +Wright’s claim to be an evangelical is somewhat undermined by his position on, say, Justification in Paul or Women Bishops. This is not a new thing I’m introducing, rather a consistent message from a number of evangelicals.
It saddens us that a man so profoundly brilliant in some areas (so, for example, his defence of the Resurrection, the historical Jesus and his recent work on the afterlife) can also reject those positions that other evangelicals understand to be utterly consistent with Scripture. Again, this is not a new claim - I’d be surprised if this was the first place you heard it.

It is the first time I’ve heard it from an Anglican. I’ve heard some Presbyterians claim he is not Reformed (a claim that, as I understand it, Bishop Wright denies). Is your critique the same as the Presbyterians?

This is the third I have posted my concern about the lack of a firm position against abortion in the Jerusalem Declaration and I have not yet gotten a reply on this issue.

From Christianity Today, Monday,June 30
“An brief update on the GAFCON statement and declaration:
Many GAFCON pilgrims are headed home and I met two of them at Ben Gurion airport disappointed that their efforts to include an explicit affirmation of the prolife cause was left off the statement and declaration. In reality, relatively few changes were made to the GAFCON declaration as the rank and file members fed comments to the drafting committee. Efforts to get prolife language were unsuccessful. But Anglican prolife leaders will try again.”

I am puzzled and very concerned about this. Why wouldn’t a return to orthodox Anglican Christianity be a pro-life position as well?

PLEASE HEAR ME: Many people have wept and sweated and invested many hours and dollars into the renewal and restoration of global Anglicanism. 

If this movement does not protect human life and stand against abortion, I do not believe God can bless this new effort fully and any new Anglican structures and organization will be compromised from the beginning and will eventually erode and return to where it was before.

Why wouldn’t restored/reformed orthodox Anglican Christianity be against abortion and euthanasia?

Oh, COME ON, Floridian!

Can we not just stipulate, as they say in legalese, that ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS WHO BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE are pro-life?
Are you seriously suggesting that you think the GAFCON JD authors are pro-choice?

I don’t get it.

driver8: I’m not sure. Which Presbys? And what is their critique?

This statement:

The structures we currently have are more than adequate and the GAFCON Primates were more than happy to use them.

Appears to be contradicted by the following statements from the “STATEMENT ON THE GLOBAL ANGLICAN FUTURE”:

We can only come to the devastating conclusion that ‘we are a global Communion with a colonial structure’.

While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Building on the above doctrinal foundation of Anglican identity, we hereby publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of our fellowship.

The existing structures are “more than adequate” as long as we set our expectations so low that we do not expect any actual decisions to be made!  The existing structures are woefully inadequate if one hopes for a mission oriented structure that gets things done.  There is no need to reject the old structures.  They will wither on their own without doing any harm as long as they remain so ineffective.

Structures are not sacred.  But the criteria for participation and the clarity of vision and mission are everything.

Scotist-
To perhaps answer more directly your question on the Gospel (I realize I was off on a bit of a rant in my last reply)- I would suggest to you that the view of many Evangelicals of my acquaintance- that Scripture requires that one separate oneself from heresy- would be sufficient grounds to refuse to participate in a synod with TEC bishops. I would, however, refer you to the Road to Lambeth document, which lays out their reasoning in great detail.

Brothers and sisters in Christ,

You attempted to form a curia from the ACC by adding primates and promoting it as an authoritative body. That didn’t go over so well, did it? The WR suggested an advisory and authoritative counsel to the ABC. That didn’t work, did it?

You now have a curia, as you desired.
I hope it works well for you.

As for me, I will remain a very happy Episcopalian, in communion with Canterbury.

We’ll leave the light on.

Durham states, “In short, my hope and prayer is that the spiritual energy, the sense of celebration, the eagerness for living and preaching the gospel, which were so evident at GAFCON, can and will be brought to the forum where we badly need it, namely, the existing central councils of the Anglican Communion.”

I’m sorry, but I find Durham’s “hope and prayer” here somewhat patronizing and rather Ethereal to say the least. Durham knows, as do we all, that the Global South bishops and primates are indeed “not in communion” with the Episcopal Church in the U.S. nor with the Anglican Church in Canada and as someone earlier stated so eloquently, they are merely honoring their word to not fellowship or be at an Anglican Communion convocation such as Lambeth with folk who say they are one thing and then go about persecuting those who promulgate the gospel and are trying to live lives worth of their proclamation.

Further, Durham states. . .
“I understand only too well the frustration that many have felt at these bodies.”

How may I ask does he understand “the frustration” of being in a jurisdiction where you are not welcome because you want to uphold the teaching and doctrine of the 39 Articles, where you are scorned and derided as a simpleton for even stating that you hold them as the doctrine of the Bible and of the church to which you belong?  Has Durham really experienced this kind of persecution?  I think not. . .and as such, his statement here is disingenuous at best.
He continues:
“But if GAFCON is to join up with the great majority of faithful, joyful Anglicans around the world, rather than to invite them to leave their present allegiance and sign up to a movement which is as yet – to put it mildly – strange in form and uncertain in destination. . .”

Excuse me, good doctor, but Abraham himself was called to a place that he was not sure of at all, when God first called him to leave his country and set out to a place which God had in store for him.  Please, don’t cast aspersions at something which has not been formed by a committee of academics and been poked at for five or ten years before we can endorse it. You may indeed be right, that it is indeed “strange in form and uncertain in destination” but where God calls, you don’t decide to form a committee to see whether you are going to accept His call to you, you merely assent by saying, “nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done”.

Does that smack of mere fideism to the good doctor of Durham?  Well, so be it. . . let God be true, and every man a lier.  I would rather be a doorman in the house of the Lord and d.v., so shall I be, along with the saints of the Global South.  To go against conscience and the Word of God is neither a safe, nor a wise course, and so, here we stand!

He, he - we (TEC) have a curia with knobs on - it’s based in New York. It threatens bishops. It disobeys its own canons. It goes unpunished. Still you’ve made the bed. Now lie in it.

PadreWayne, that light will burn out EONS before any of us in the ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF SAN JOAQUIN ever return to your Church.  In the meantime, we cordially invite YOU to join US….IF you REPENT!

#25 I was thinking of such things as:

The [url=“http://pcaac.org/2007GeneralAssembly/Fed Vision Rept 5-11-07.pdf
“]report[/url] adopted at the 2007 Presbyterian Church in America General Assembly or the resources assembled here.

My link to the PCA Federal Vision report didn’t work. So I hope this one does http://www.federal-vision.com

Here is a link to the report:

http://www.federal-vision.com/pdf/pcafvreport.pdf

An account of its adoption:

http://jollyblogger.typepad.com/jollyblogger/2007/06/pca_adopts_repo.html

For Williams and Wright to assert that structures can’t be changed ‘just like that’ - as they’ve implied GAFCON has proposed - they are by definition asserting that there are rules which govern these structures, and enforcement mechanisms in place to deal with those who disobey the rules. In fact there are not. If there were, then substantive action would have been taken by now against the Episcopal Church.

It makes no sense for one person to say to the other, “If you do thus-and-such, I will sue you,” if there were no laws against doing thus-and-such, and no courts to deal with those who broke those laws. So if indeed there are rules about changing Anglican structures, it follows that there are ways of dealing with - of restraining, punishing, ejecting, etc. - those in clear violation of the structures’ rules.

This is the corner into which Canterbury has painted itself: To the extent it had expectations of its members regarding doctrine and behavior (and whether it did is debatable to say the least… work with me here), it had no rules to deal with members who failed to live up to them. It tried pleading, it tried cajoling, it tried the Windsor Report, it tried primates’ meetings, it tried this that and the other, and nothing worked. Along the way, Rowan Williams subverted every significant attempt, either actively or passively. Nothing brought order to the chaos because in fact there was nothing in place that could, and there was ample evidence that Canterbury lacked the desire in the first place.

For years the Anglican left ran wild, and all +Rowan would do is suggest that they adhere to the guidelines. Now the Anglican right takes a step to ensure its own future, and +Rowan wants to talk about rules and structures.

I’m sure if either one really existed, we’d all love to listen.

Floridian,

Regarding your post #23…I doubt there have been many responses to your concern because no one can seriously believe that the GAFCON movement would be anything but pro-life.  However, it would be nice to see it in writing in order that your concerns could be allayed.

How funny that Padre Wayne used the slogan for a cheap motel in applauding TEC! Or was it a metaphor for a church stripped of beauty, inspiration and grace in favor of being merely functional? Hmmmm.

Anyhoo, I puzzle about this, too, Anglican Scotist #9:

Sure—but GAFCON has tried to marginalize the office of the ABC. If GAFCON is going to work within the AC in the long term, and not face frustration, the system by which the AC works will have to be changed.

It can only be changed from within.

I really don’t get it. How can folks who, in the recent past, have flat out refused to comment when the ABC asks for comments and who criticize the inefficacy of Lambeth when they won’t attend Lambeth demand that the system be changed? Wouldn’t the system work better for them, for all of us, if everyone WHOLEHEARTEDLY AND STRIDENTLY participated?!

The people who staged the coup and accomplished their ends worked the canons and the system to their benefit. So, obviously, it DOES work if you manipulate it in the right way! Now, their manipulation took years to accomplish but I do believe that our folks should have been doing an equal or greater amount of manipulation since our numbers are so much greater than theirs! Instead, they said, “we won’t play.”

Sorry, but I don’t get it.

Williams and Wright want, they say, to give existing structures and procedures time to work.  Wright may seriously mean this; I believe Williams’ intent is for time to extinguish the objections to the same-sex agenda.  He seems to think he can have traditional Christianity intact with only that one change.  Of course, he can’t.

But even taking Wright’s position (give it time, work through the structures), he needs to understand that there will be no believers left in TEC by the time, ten years or more from now, when a watered-down Covenant has worked its way through the labyrinth of committees and synods.  TEC is suing dissidents now, and in a quieter way, no priests or bishops will be available to replace the current believing ones.  They won’t be admitted as postulants and they won’t be ordained.  Believing laypeople will be disciplined by draconian new canons if they betray their opinions too clearly.

You may be able, in the UK and elsewhere, to wait, but in the U.S. and Canada, the time is now or never.

Once you understand right from wrong, it comes down to Will. RW lacks it, period.

Katherine,
Quite honestly, I think +++Williams just wants to get through Lambeth and then be out the door. I don’t think he’s buying time for the TEC changes, I think he just wants to avert all-out schism on his watch until he can leave. He’s out of his league and is, no doubt, yearning to return to academia.

And maybe that’s precisely what needs to happen, with an orthodox ABC taking his place. I highly doubt the UK government would choose a liberal to replace him, as this is giving the country headaches and bad press. It would probably take a new ABC to come in and say, “OK, enough’s enough.”

David, and Greg (#34)—-as you say, the structures are there. However, the problem is not so much that there are no rules; it’s that there are rules, but the players get to make them up as they go along. Pass Lambeth 1.10 in 1998, and then Spong et al. immediately announce they will make their own rules, thank you. Ask TEC in 2003 not to tear the fabric of the Communion, and PB Griswold then leads the consecration of VGR just two weeks after signing the Primates Statement, announcing that TEC is following its own dictates; the ACoC does the same with blessings for same-sex unions. Adopt the Windsor Report, and call on those involved with the consecration and same-sex blessings to absent themselves voluntarily from Communion gatherings, but extend Lambeth invitations to them anyway while following the WR strictly about not inviting VGR (and following ++Carey’s precedent in not recognizing the CANA and AMiA bishops). Then watch as the consecrators and blessers snap up their invitations and RSVP instead of voluntarily declining to attend. Give the HoB a deadline in which to respond, and then have a stacked committee (which includes our own PB) find that there was “substantial compliance,” when there was anything but.

In short, the rules keep changing as we go!  Now GAFCON has announced some new rules of their own, which they say they will follow. And all of a sudden those who have been making up the rules as they go along are “concerned” (or, in the case of our own PB, royally miffed)?

Give me a break! It sounds like the club of Calvin and Hobbes:

Hobbes: Why are we the only members of this club?
Calvin: Because those are the rules.
Hobbes: What if we let someone else join?
Calvin: Then we’d have to change the rules, and we can’t do that.
Hobbes: Why not?
Calvin: Because the rules say that we’re the only ones who can join.

Chancellor,

Exactly. When anyone can make up their own rules, there may as well be no rules.

Part of this may be Brits willingness to work within a largely unwritten and inchoate set of rules and structures. These have functioned in a relatively complex and occasionally even incoherent form. This may occur particularly if the unwritten rules are challenged in an unprecedented manner by people who deny that they even exist.

Which is to say, there may be a complex of ways of behaving, rules and structures - largely unwritten - which have historically bound the Communion together but without any written or unwritten agreement on what should be done when the largely unwritten code is is breached.

Thus, there may be rules and ways of behaving - unwritten - which the ABC has expected both TEC and the GAFCON folks to follow. TEC have repeatedly not done so - leaving the ABC scrabbling around to create a consenus on how to move forward. To his credit IMO he has repeatedly attempted to do so - but no consensus has yet been achieved.

One might say that his evident desire to hold the Communion together and to offer opportunity (time, in other words) for a new consensus to form is self deceiving or worse. I disagree but understand why others may feel differently.

I am not sure I get it. Do you mean that the only power the ABC has is to not invite clergy to once a decade tea party? The TEC doesn’t give a single damn what is done at Lambeth. IF they did, then 1.10 would have stopped thier headlong rush into absolute capitulation to the LGBT agenda. In fact, TEC was not led by the LGBT it was a leader in the movement. And yet all we got from Canterbury was silence, or worse some kind on new age, bureacratic, academic crapulence that only further muddied the water. If the only thing the office of Archbishop can do is to stop a queen from curtseying to THE QUEEnm they the communion is doomed anyway.

I cannot tell you how strongly I disagree with this:

“This is the key issue: the structure by which discipline may be executed already exists in the Anglican Communion. What is lacking is not an adequate structure but any will from the man responsible for their execution to implement discipline.”

Since decisions about Communion membership hinge solely on the whimsical invitational decisions of one man, be he orthodox or not, the system must change. GAFCON has introduced a confessional and conciliar alternative so that the individuals (primates) charged with making decisions are accountable not to some amorphous structure, but to a confessional standard.

The system as it currently exists is NOT good. It must be changed.

lost in Texas,

The power of invitation is extraordinary. It is not merely to lambeth but to the Primates meetings as well. Not to be invited is not to be recognized by canterbury as part of the AC. TEC most assuredly does care to be invited. They have simply known all along that they would be.

We can settle this one.  Easy.  Have Doctors Wright and Williams respond to this question:

In 500 words, maximum, provide with at least 10 plainly worded attestations that Abp. Williams has properly and canonically executed his duties of directing Communion discipline vis a vis the numerous extra-biblical innovations of the progressives/revisionists/heretics.  In the absence of any proof, stand aside for new structures in which the office of AbC is no longer that of primus inter pares.

You have one week to respond.

Of course the solution is not structures in themselves nor is the problem, at its deepest, one of structures. The solution is learning to discipline our desires, thoughts and communities according to the image of Jesus Christ. In other words to take up our crosses and follow.

ISTM that the Covenant is predicated upon a willingness to engage is such a faithful following. Without that, in itself it will achieve little or nothing. If people continue to be willing to lie or deceive then no structure (no Covenant, no Confession, no Bishop or Archbishop) can hold the Communion together.

There is a deeply spiritual reality to our conflict that isn’t always brought out by focusing solely on the ABC and his short comings. It’s not simply about structures or personnel - it’s about our mutual willingness to be disciplined by Christ.

OK, driver8, you begged the question in your last paragraph.  Care to answer what deeply spiritual reality would allow for the contradictory, extra-biblical hogwash from the “progressive” party to continue, unchecked, to sully the Christian witness of the Anglican Communion?  That the AbC has overtly hamstrung the instruments of unity within the AC over the last several months is de facto evidence of his culpability.

May I add one more question to driver8?  So your “solution” would be even more conversation/listening/dithering?

Athanasius Returns (46) - I have been authorized to inform you that your request for a response within one week has been referred to a Task Force for review and recommendation for the Primates Standing Committee.

#39 Teatime, I suspect that you’re right in your appraisal of Rowan Cantuar.

Of course the solution, if such there be, involves more talking and more praying. The deeply spiritual reality is of course our mutual submission in Christ. I am not saying that the ABC has done all things well (and I strongly doubt that he thinks so). Nor do I think that the behaviour of the TEC leadership is acceptable. It’s just that I am willing to be patient and see TEC’s repeated impatience as a destructive vice that has brought us to this point. Of course, being patient doesn’t mean being willing to wait forever.

Since decisions about Communion membership hinge solely on the whimsical invitational decisions of one man, be he orthodox or not, the system must change. GAFCON has introduced a confessional and conciliar alternative so that the individuals (primates) charged with making decisions are accountable not to some amorphous structure, but to a confessional standard.

The system as it currently exists is NOT good. It must be changed. 

Yes, to a large extent I agree. Perhaps a better way I could have said it would be to note that there would be no reason to change the system, flawed as it is, if +++Canterbury had done their job.

David, I am at the gate at Heathrow now and have just a moment.

I still disagree. Even if the ABC were functional, ANY system that hinges on the decisions of one man is flawed and ought to be changed. To some extent the ABC in his current role exercises MORE power than the pope when it comes to determining who is and who is not in-Commmunion. The pope is, at least, required to abide by formerly established dogma as articulated by the Catechism. The ABC can invite or disinvite based on whatever he pleases. It is his party.

This is a systemic problem and the system needs to be changed. I would say the same were Packer+ or Stott+ at the helm because after them who might come?

Thanks Matt, I think I’m happy to go with you on that. Have a great flight.

#54 Have a safe journey home.

I rather agree (though would tend to say that the ABC’s inability to act has been a symptom of our broken Communion rather than its principal cause). I feel encouraged by what has occurred at GAFCON - not because I necessarily agree with every word nor because I am properly Reformed (with a capital “R”) but because the Primates and the churches they lead have not withdrawn (as I understand it) from the Communion. I certainly desire their prayers, their teaching and their continued input into the councils of the Communion.

David Ould wrote:
“One common theme in both their responses did stand out to me”.
How did the Archbishop of Canterbury respond so quickly and with such clarity, as well as having a common theme with the Bishop of Durham?

Google the telltale phrase “all sorts of things” from ABC’s response, together with the initial letters of the New Testament for a surprise.

Correction: “all sorts of ways”

#23 et al on a pro-life plank in the Jerusalem Declaration. As part of the (genuine) listening process at GAFCON, the Statement Committee did received requests from several directions asking for a pro-life statement as part of the Declaration. We decided that it would be difficult to limit the issues that might qualify for special attention. In my opinion, #8 and #10 can be seen to include the basis for a later explication of the pro-life position. I understand that people are working on a “commentary” on the Declaration, and this should be addressed in that commentary.

While I agree with Matt+ and Greg, the current Instruments are inadequate and need to be changed, I’d like to suggest some particular ways this needs to happen.

First, as GAFCON rightly noted, Anglicanism has evolved into a global fellowship, yet we still are stuck with a “colonial” structure, with the highly compromised minority, the European culture churches, still in control.  There simply has to be some way of recognizing that the balance of spiritual power in the AC has shifted to the GS, and the since the overwhelming majority of Anglicans now live in the GS, the institutional power structures of the AC must also be reformed to leave that power concentrated in the hands of GS leaders.  This is not only fair, it’s mandatory.

Second, we desperately need a living magisterium to settle protracted, vexing disputes like this that cripple the AC.  We used to have such a magisterium in the English monarch, who actually was in truth “the Supreme Governor.”  Since the so-called “Glorious Revolution” of 1689, or the English Civil War of the 1640s and the overthrow of the monarchy it entailed, that role has gone unfilled in Anglicanism, creating an intolerable vacuum.  It is high time that this vacuum was filled at last.  We are otherwise left in the miserable situation of sheer anarchy that prevailed in the sad days of the Judges of Israel, when “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).  This cannot and must not be allowed to go on.

Third, as Matt has suggested but I wish to underline and stress much more forcefully, it is absolutely intolerable that the leader of a worldwide fellowship of churches should have an unelectd leader appointed by a secular government in England that’s unaccountable to the Church.  That is truly Colonial and totally unacceptable to me.  It is a blatant sign of how thoroughly Constantinian, Erastian, or Christendom-based we still are.  And that way of selecting Anglicanism’s foremost leader doesn’t need tweaking or fine tuning, that whole system must be scrapped and replaced.

Fourth, as I’ve often argued here at SF in recent months, we simply have to create a system of checks and balances within Anglican polity that will place real limits on the powers of the legislative branch, i.e., the provincial synods.  That is, we desperately need the equivalent of the US Supreme Court that can declare the actions of provincial assemblies null and void because they are “unconstitutional,” since they are contrary to the Holy Scriptures, which are the TRUE constitution of any Christian Church worthy of the name.  We currently don’t have any such judicial branch in Anglicanism that can overrule the legislative actions of bodies such as TEC’s General Convention or Canada’s General Synod.  Let’s start overhauling the out-dated, severly flawed structures of the AC by creating an international Anglican Supreme Court with BINDING, trans-provincial powers.

As it now stands, each Anglican province is truly “autonomous” in the full American sense of fully independent and able to do as it pleases, with no sanctions.  This can’t continue.  It is time to become a GLOBAL CHURCH with regional branch offices, not a hodge podge of independent religious operations that merely share a common name and heritage.

These are the sorts of RADICAL changes in the very structure of Anglicanism that I long to see take place in the near future.  And make no mistake about it.  This isn’t mere “renewal” of the old wineskins of Anglicanism.  This is the creation of new wineskins. 

This is nothing less than a New Reformation, in the full drastic sense of the term.  This is not gradual, incremental, evolutionary change.  This is revolutionary change.  But it is utterly necessary.

+Bob Duncan the Lion-Hearted was absolutely right in his rousing, boldly visionary speech in Jordan almost two weeks ago.  The old “Reformation (or Elizabethan) Settlement” is obsolete and broken down.  It will have to be replaced by a whole new system, a Global POST-COLONIAL Settlement that puts the Global South firmly in the driver’s seat.  Let it be so.  Amen.

David Handy+

A conciliar and confessional foundation would, if enacted, provide the necessary structure that would ameliorate the incursion of heresy.  That’s the next step in the New Reformation.  Even though the current covenant process is flawed, watch that space!  A covenant will emerge from some quarter within the AC, if it (the AC) is to move forward in any meaningful way.

Padre Waynes’ comment about being happily in TEC, and in communion with Canterbury is the PERFECT illustration about what I have been blathering about all along.  They want the BRAND NAME, not the people, but the BRAND NAME of the church.  The vast majority of people know nothing of this, don’t understand it, and could care less what is going on in TEC,or the communion.  They just see the big, old Ep. church on the corner, and all that the real estate, and funny vestments represent, and think “They are Episcopalians.  They look sorta like Catholics.  Their service is like Catholics.  That’s an old, rich, church.”  That is what TEC wants.  That notion is what they want to be in the public.  Not the important stuff.  That way, their wacky ideas, in their mind, carry more “oomph” with the general public.  The thinking is “As long as we are perceived to be legit, then our progressive ideas will gain legitimacy.”

So if the systems of discipline presently in place are adequate, I have to ask, would we be in a better position if N.T. Wright were the ABC?  Would he stand up and be the communion’s disciplinarian?  Much as I love him, I fear the answer is no.
Heck, let’s look back a few years to George Carey.  A wonderful, orthodox man.  But when it came to stamping out heresies, how effective was he?  I don’t want to slander him, but I’m afraid the answer is “not very.”

Interesting responses:
+Rowan: “Be there or be square”
+Wright: “I’m more Gafcon than Gafcon - join me”
It would be good of course [in my personal view] if more people went to Lambeth but at some point rather than the various approaches being taken by the Communion hierachy, the issues raised by the fact that the vast majority of the Communion has signed up to the principles and proposed actions of Gafcon are going to have to be addressed.

Once you understand right from wrong, it comes down to Will. RW lacks it, period.

Close, Once you understand right from wrong, it comes down to mercy.  GAFCON lacks it.

David,
Actually I think the structures ARE at fault.  I agree with most of what you wrote, but the fact that +Canterbury is first among equals and has the authority to declare who is “In Communion” or not and who is invited to Lambeth or not, is a structural problem.  The Jerusalem Declaration envisions a shift from having this control in the colonial structure of +Canterbury toward giving that power to a council of Primates thus spreading Communion decisions among a conciliar body.  +Canterbury undermined the mind of the Communion and the primates.  That he has the authority to do this IS a structural problem and the Jerusalem Declaration is a call to solve that problem as well as many others.

“And so to Jerusalem. As the GAFCON Statement makes clear, they don’t want a new Communion - they just want leadership who will do the job properly and if Williams won’t do it then they will.”

The danger, of course, is that if they try to usurp the role of a key element in the Communion, they say they want, they would act dysfunctionally, and the AC already is threatened by widepsread dysfunction, of acts and activity.

Dear “Looking:”  BINGO….you smacked the nail right square on the head!  You have described it to a “T.”  To them, being a member of “The Episcopal Church” is a status symbol.  You’ve heard, I’m sure, of the phrase “The Church OF the rich, BY the rich, and FOR the rich!”  Well, for far too many Episcopalians in the NYC area and along the Mainline, this is a fact of life, and it has been that way for generations.

(#67 continued)
On the other hand, if they worked to change the role of the ABC or other structures in the AC, that might be less dysfunctional.  It might also be very helpful to the covenant process.

As I always tell my kids, every strength contains within it a weakness and every weakness has some strength.

Democracy is a great thing—but is it so great for a Church?

The Catholic Church is inherently conservative (that is, it cannot readily depart from established tradition) not just because it says it is, or claims be or wants to be, but for the simple reason that it is internally self-perpetuating in a way that Prostantism isn’t.  That is—the Pope appoints the bishops and the cardinals, and the cardinals elect the Pope.  It’s a closed system.  Of course you COULD get one Pope who suddenly started doing all kinds of crazy things and making all kinds of fruitcake appointments, but unless he managed to replace more than half of the whole College of Cardinals in his lifetime, his successor would not be in his mold—further, his successor would then make conservative appointments and the whole thing would tamp out in one generation. It’s a self-righting model.

Now, in Protestantism, the bishops are elected by the laity.  In one generation, the laity can go from being all of X mind to all of Y mind; whereupon all the bishops will shortly be (and stay) all of Y mind. 

This is a great model for assuring that government follows the will of its people, but not so great for a Church. 

To make the problem worse, Anglican’s don’t have a very rigorous “admissions” policy. (Correct me if I’m wrong here.)  Pretty much anybody can walk in and sign up in relatively short order—and VOTE.  I mean, we RCs could form a secret conspiracy and take you over in one generation—we’d just all waltz down and join our local Episcopal parish and totally swamp you with our numbers and pretty soon we’d be calling the shots.

Am I wrong?  [And would you like to hire us??]

How exactly is the existing structure workable?  Robinson was not invited to Lambeth and it really has made no difference.  What does invitation to Lambeth then cash out to?  Not only is the exisiting structure dependent upon the ABC performing his job but also upon each bishop of the Church being a real bishop and not a loony worshipper of the Zeitgeist and their own genitals.  People do fail and that is why a genuine communion has checks and balances.  The Anglican Communion is a voluntary association that is next to meaningless in terms of a meaningful usage of the word “communion”.  A long time ago, many, including myself, believed that this structure better enabled member churches to be the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.  Today, it is precisely the opposite:  it has become communion with heretics else it is seen as no communion at all.  You all are brave to try to do something about it ... to work within for change and I applaud you for that work.  I left about twelve years ago and even then the clergy were preaching an afterlife “for those who believe in that stuff” and basically denying the Resurrection.  I don’t blame so many Episcopalians for losing their faith. Why would anybody center their lives around something so trivial?  Might as well just join the silly old men wearing funny hats and driving little cars in parades (Shriners) ... at least they build burn hospitals - rather than only fund silly old women in trowsers (with no sense of humor even while wearing oven mits on their heads) to travel around the country visiting Gay Pride events, nagging and throwing rocks like a latter day Carrie Nation saint.

The pleas of the ABC and Durham to work with them ring hollow. After at least five years of thwarting the attempts by the Communion to discipline TEC using the Communion’s existing structures, the ABC cannot now complain that reasserters are creating new structures. The ABC is reaping what he has sown. Rowan Williams has destroyed the office of ABC as an instrument of unity. He has no one to blame but himself.

Having said that, I personally think that as many orthodox bishops as possible should go to Lambeth. God never gives up trying to save us as individuals, and I think that God won’t give up trying to reform the Communion’s existing structures, even though it is now necessary also to reform it by creating new structures.

How exactly is the existing structure workable?

It is decidedly not workable, hence the Statement on the Global Anglican Future and the Jerusalem Declaration in response to a Communion sorely wounded by extra-biblical, non-canonical, leftist, doctrinaire, power-hungry, pluralistic, universalist, heretical, manipulative, Machiavellian mush and emotive efflux emanating from our worthy opponents.

OK, let me ask the real bottom-line question - SHOULD WE be in communion with those who:
1.  Deny that Jesus is “...THE way, THE truth and THE life?”.  Isn’t this idolatry?
2.  Elevating homosexualty and other behavior clearly defined in the Word as sin as not being sin, that somehow God is doing a “new thing” through the “Holy Spirit”?  Isn’t this blasphamy?

In Moses’ time, what would have happened to the Hebrews had they made these choices?

Subscribe

“Worse, you will have to prise the power of appointing the ABC from the Crown/overhaul the way the Communion works at the nuts and bolts level. That’s an uphill battle, and boycotting Lambeth does not serve the cause.”

AS, When you think about it, it is absurd to contemplate the fact that the leadership of the Global Communion is elected by the British government and OK’d by the queen.  That may be ok for the See of Canterbury but the British government has no business electing the overlord of the AC to lead the Anglicans in Peru, Uganda, Mexico. SE Asia, Brazil, etc. .......

Furthermore when a goodly number of those welcomed at Lambeth are among those who have precipitated the response coming out of Gafcon, it is hardly unpredictable that the goal of the majority of the world’s Anglicans should want to reform the AC.  Can you think of any reason why they would not, unless you are in sympathy with the revisionist view?

All of you who are worried aout who is or who isn’t attending Lambeth and whether they should or should not consider this: Look at who IS GOING (I don’t have the list in front of me) but they declared early on. I believe there is a plan afoot and look forward to it. Those that are going are not liable to be going to “play nice” and get into “listening groups.”

Why couldn’t the GAFCONians simply brought up much of this dicussion at Lambeth?  I would venture to guess that they would still have the majority position at Lambeth and thus could get these ideas approved by a validly existing Instrument of Communion rather than appearing to create a new one out of thin air.  Since way back at the Windsor Report it was noted that we’d have to wait until Lambeth 2008, why didn’t they wait?

WG - I suspect the “GAFCONians” - as well as many of the rest of us - have come to the conclusion that what happens at Lambeth really has no impact.  So, why wait for it?

These GAFCONians did as you counsel, many times.  There was the last Lambeth Conference - they had the majority position, and they got their stance approved by this validly existing Instrument of Communion.  And what did that do for us?

Then, there was the action of another Instrument of Communion, the Primates, who, starting from and building upon the conclusions of the Windsor Report, gave very clear direction to ECUSA as to what it would have to do to avoid impairing its relations with the Communion.  ECUSA did nothing of the sort, yet it’s going to Lambeth en masse.

We all remember the Primates again meeting together, again with the full participation of the GAFCONians, at Dar es Salaam.  The result was a pretty specific roadmap forward that (in my judgment) would have defused the crisis had it been implemented, as had apparently been agreed.  Of course, scarcely had the ink dried on that communique, when both the HOB and Executive Council were issuing “f you” responses of a kind rarely seen in the genteel circles of Anglicanism.  As punishment, invitations to Lambeth began showing up in the bishops’ mailboxes.

Basically, they did it your way and piled up a track record unblemished by success.  Have you heard the line about insanity meaning doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result?

#78,
You queried, “Why couldn’t the GAFCONians simply brought up much of this discussion at Lambeth?”

Lambeth 2008 has been designed, by the “conference design group”, so that there will be no legislative resolutions.  In other words, a whole lotta nattering, no substance, zero decision making.

Driver 8, post 30,
Are you suggesting that no one can change or be transformed by Christ when you say:

“Still you’ve made the bed. Now lie in it”

Mistakes may have been made in the past and I don’t know who you were referring to with this un-Christian observation but you should not instruct anyone to “lie in a bed” just because they have made it. Jesus preaches forgiveness and your phrase suggests that forgiveness is not possible when in fact it is possible through Christ.
It seems to me that, Gafcon has the potential to lead the Anglican Communion away from Apostasy and towards the tranforming power of Jesus Christ as he was portrayed by the Apostles.

#78. They didn’t wait because they followed the process up to Tanzania. After Tanzania, TEC told the primates to basically get lost and in effect said they would start their own communion and take all the liberal churches with them if Canterbury didn’t change the tone. Canterbury panicked and immediately invited everyone except Gene Robinson to Lambeth {wiping out the only method of discipline}, before the Tanzania deadline for a response, and changed the process to whitewash that response.

He also announced Lambeth would be a listening process structured to ensure no major decisions could be made at the Lambeth conference, and refused to have another primates meeting.

In effect, the primates all agreed discipline was required, and the person responsible for performing that discipline abdicated in his duty to do that, and has instead used the power of his office to circumvent any attempt at discipline.

So they have lost faith in the instruments of communion, as even though they have the majority position, one man, the ABC effectively holds all control, and by his actions has undercut all of their efforts in the last 5 years. So they have wisely agreed to stop fighting a process they can’t win, and instead have laid the foundations for new instruments of communion that are more democratic.

#35, HLP and #59, Dr. Noll,
Thank you very much for your reassurance. 

I will wait (and continue to pray) for a clear articulation of the post-GAFCON orthodox Anglican group’s position on life as well as the other issues that have brought the Communion to this conflict and to its knees to pray and seek His face.

WG,
No one ever said that we would have to wait for Lam08 to raise a flag as GAFCON has done.  It was expected by most that by now, TEC and possibly ACoC would be disciplined and already be in the so called second tier that Rowan proposed and thus not have any voice or vote at Lam08 which is where most expected to sign on to an Anglican Covenant that would be strong enough and have teeth enough to prevent such a thing from happening again.  And them certainly by the end of 09 all member provinces would have ratified the Anglican Covenant and this whole mess would be over and we could get back to building the church.  Presumably, TEC could have repented and signed on as well, but we both know that isn’t going to happen.

#78, Widening Gyre, there is currently no provision for the entire assembly of Anglican Bishops to approve anything. Please take a look at the schedule for Lambeth. The indaba groups are it as far as conversation and decision making go.

If there turn out to be any resolutions voted on at the upcoming Lambeth it will only be because Archbishop Williams has changed his mind.

At the risk of cheesing some folks off, what happened with the instruments of unity was that the last Lambeth conference was grabbed from its organizers by the global south. They voted on a number of resolutions that currently bedevil the Episcopal Church, Anglican Church of Canada and the Church of England.

Subsequently the primates met and decided some things. The Episcopal Church consecrated a gay bishop, after being asked not to by all concerned and after our Presiding Bishop (Griswold) making promises that he wouldn’t allow anything divisive to happen. We then elected a female Presiding Bishop who met with the other primates, promised them some things and reneged.

The primates relied upon the promise of the Archbishop of Canterbury to look into things and discipline the Episcopal Church. Which he did by refusing to invite the Bishop of New Hampshire.

All of this filled the hearts of the Christian primates that they felt it important to define just who was actually a Christian and therefore in communion with them. Hence GAFCON.

I think that they are tired of waiting for the Archbishop of Canterbury to do that which he promised, but which he is manifestly unwilling to do. They also no longer believe anything the Episcopal Church says (which makes certain loyalist accusations of thievery and lying especially risible).

Nor should they. We are called to be as wise as serpents and as innocent as doves. The GAFCON leadership is doing just that. Institutions are all very well, but in the end they break down to the people involved, and in this instance there has been much deception, knavery and outright fraud on the part of the western anglican leadership.

Only a fool at this point would rely upon the assurances of either Archbishop Williams (Whose motivation seems to be to make all the unpleasantness just go away) or Presiding Bishop Schori (Who for all her faults is a True Believer in the Piskie New Thing).

If I have misstated or gotten the facts wrong please let me know, but I think I’m letting the miscreants off lightly.

I don’t know what will come of GAFCON. I hope much good will. I do know that nothing will come from Lambeth. Unless there is a massive change of heart and repentance by the terrible trio of England, the US and Canada, this Lambeth will usher in a transition of those churches from congregations led by curates to museums led by curators.

The Episcopal Church: We blink at reality more than fifteen times a minute.

#24, HeartAfire, I don’t think my concern is unreasonable under the circumstances, so I won’t apologize for my concern or desire for clear statement of orthodox Anglican group’s position on the issues. 

If an inch is given in this day and time, a mile is taken. 

Clear articulation of position and certain consequences for breaking or departure from standards is absolutely essential if there is to be any discipline and stability in the future of the orthodox Anglican group.

#24, HeartAfire, #35, HLP, #59, Dr. Noll,
Not to beat a dead horse, but I’d like to say that a clearly orthodox position on these issues is important because these are the particular places the Western Anglican Church has sinned most grievously and thus is weak.  Genuine and complete repentance and return to orthodoxy is necessary. 

Anglicanism will have no power in the church, in prayer or spiritual warfare or as a witness to Christ in the world if these wrongs are not righted.

Since decisions about Communion membership hinge solely on the whimsical invitational decisions of one man, be he orthodox or not, the system must change. GAFCON has introduced a confessional and conciliar alternative so that the individuals (primates) charged with making decisions are accountable not to some amorphous structure, but to a confessional standard.

This assertion amazes me on many levels, Matt.  Are you really suggesting that GAFCON has assumed (usurped) the role of the four Instruments?  Who charged the GAFCON primates to make Communion-wide decisions based on “confessional standards” that NO PROVINCE has ever been bound to uphold apart from what they themselves may affirm in their own constitutions?  And conciliar?  In what sense?  Your language smacks of an attempted hostile corporate takeover.  Please clarify.

In #78, WG wrote: Why couldn’t the GAFCONians simply brought up much of this dicussion at Lambeth?  I would venture to guess that they would still have the majority position at Lambeth and thus could get these ideas approved by a validly existing Instrument of Communion rather than appearing to create a new one out of thin air.

Forgive me if this is slightly off-topic, but I thought I’d share something I read on the blog of one of the Aussie attendees at GAFCON.  It addresses a side of this question that hasn’t been much discussed.  And as someone who has lived and worked in Africa for most of the last 16 years, I can tell you it rings EXTREMELY true.  This is a real issue for our African brethren.  Here’s the excerpt:

Another helpful insight came when Bishop Joel explained that in his culture, eating with someone (which is actually the very definition of “Enyati” - the people you eat with) means sharing with them and it is assumed that sharing with someone implies that they will influence you. It is for this reason that he felt, culturally, unable to go to Lambeth and was glad he was not in a position where his Archbishop was suggesting he go. This helped me see something of the African cultural perspective on the decision not to attend the Lambeth conference this year. It’s a decision that I’m a bit sorry about because I think it would have been better for everyone to go and make their voices heard, but these African leaders were also grappling with how their actions would play out in their cultural context.

From here:
http://masggafconblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/workshop-on-gospel-and-culture.html

Great thread, all, thanks.

#88, the language Fr. Kennedy uses is far, far from that of a hostile corporate takeover.  You will never hear the terms confessional or conciliar in a takeover context.  And, exactly what do you mean by “NO PROVINCE has ever been bound to uphold apart from what they themselves may affirm in their own constitutions”?  Your verbiage sounds much like the views an 815 advocate would have to the widely misused constitution and canons of TEC. 

There are 2 mutually exclusive faiths vying for the soul of the Anglican communion; the faith of the party that asserts God is doing a new thing where the Bible is just another book, what’s written within it is mere suggestion, parts can be ignored, virtually all the remaining content can be interpreted to mean anything at all; where Jesus is one path among thousands; where tradition is meaningless unless it looks really, really fine; where existential reason is defined by the reigning Zeitgeist - and then there’s the faith of the party that looks to the Bible as authoritative, the creeds as powerful, long-held, tried and tested statements of the apostolic faith once delivered; Jesus is The Way, The Truth, and The Life; and the active ministrations and outpourings of Godly loving fire are consistent with Scripture and historic Christianity.  The 2 “sides” have been talking past each other for years now.

Exactly what would you propose as a resolution? Oh, by the way “conversation” is not an acceptable answer to this question. Reappraisers have called all the shots for long enough now.  They fired the first salvos, now they’re complaining about returned fire!

Remember, there are three conversations going on in worldwide Anglicanism, and it is important to recognize which conversation someone is having….

There are those who think the hospitality all Christians should have toward homosexuals has become a situation so dire, that it is a social justice issue, and there are aspects of that conversation (far short of “go ahead and self-actualize the natural fallen state in which you find yourself) that I agree with.

There are those in the Communion who see the events leading up to and following Gene Robinson’s consecration through the eyes of ecclesiology, i.e. the Windsor Report, +Wright, +++Williams, +++Carey, etc.  There are fewer of these Bishops in TEC, but they are the “Windsor” bishops who are not ACN.  The Church of England is an establishment church, and as such, still has the political magisterium of the monarchy as the head of the church.  This will cause Wright, Williams, and Carey to think a certain way about how the church should organize itself… and incidently, they each have forgotten more than most of us ever knew about the history of ecclesiology, and how theological development should take place in the church according to a “catholic” ecclessiology, with proper deference and humility to the Scriptures, to traditional biblical interpretation, and to the collective reason of the worldwide, Spirit-filled (presumably), Church.

The third conversation has to do with biblical interpretation, and this is the category into which I myself, along with the GAFCON participants, fall… that the violations of Scripture, traditional and historic biblical interpretation, and the collective reason of the worldwide church have been so egregious as to warrant immediate and drastic consideration of those with whom we should be in communion.  And I think Wright would agree, along with Williams (privately), that KJS has wandered off of the Christian reservation of orthodoxy.

Their primary concern is the second of the aforementioned conversations, and this is why the rest of us considers their behavior to resemble fiddling while the Communion burns.  They want TEC to stop what they are doing, (ecclesiology), and for the jurisdictional boundary crossing to stop (ecclesiology), so that we can focus on the proper process for theological development between Provinces that are in spiritual unity, but not canonical unity (ecclesiology).

If those of us who are primarily concerned with the ridiculous misinterpretations of Scripture running rampant through Western Churches are unwilling to have the ecclesiological conversation that Williams and Wright are trying to have with all of us, then the communion is doomed to go the way of the constantly splitting, you-can’t-tell-us-what-to-do Continuing “Catholic” Churches whose “mission” is to constantly accuse themselves of right liturgy and right theology, (and everybody other than themselves as hopelessly wrong) all the while missing the irony of their use of the term “Catholic” while they are in communion with no-one.  The over-focus on the purity of their “Anglicanism” causes them to sacrifice mission on its altar.  In addition, those who are more Reformed may have been bitten with the Protestant American bug that we always have the right, in fact the God-given mandate, to declare independence from anyone who disagrees with us, even in non-essentials which we have elevated to essentials.

The problem of the convoluted nature of the three conversations passing like ships in the night (at best) or turning the whole thing into a storm of the size that only Jesus can calm (Lord come quickly), means that we have to be willing to stop shouting the points we are trying to make and start employing both humility and uncompromising boldness as a strategy, allowing the fruit of the Spirit to be manifested in us while WE HAVE THE OTHER PERSON’S CONVERSATION.

Here endeth my regular offering of my two-bits at 6 month intervals on Stand Firm.

[comment deleted - user banned - average i.q. of stand firm community instantly raised]

[i love the smell of a good banning in the evening]

banned,

Thank you for your interest in Stand Firm, especially for contributing to our pageview count.

One of the problems I see with the existing AC structure is that the ABC comes via political appointment and will probably always be a Brit.  I have nothing against Brits but I think it’s kind of healthy to spread things around. With the RC Church, the See of Rome uses Cardinals to elect someone from any country including Italy. The former Polish Pope and the current German Pope have helped even us (because of their orthodoxy)in the AC to keep the Church on course.  Frequently, when the Bishop of Romes speaks, he speaks for me also.

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.)

Third Mill writes:  “(And pleaed don’t bother accusing me again of being an 815 minion unless you provide an intelligent answer to this question.)” 
What’s got your back up?  If you want respectful answers, provide respectful questions.  Otherwise, you are likely to simply be ignored.  Of course, this is only my take which is basically irrelevant. 

#81 my post at #30 is a response to the post just above it at #28.

Third Mill, I’ll bite at answering your questions.

As I understand GAFCON, all Anglican Provinces are invited to join the new group now forming, provided they agree to the Jerusalem Declaration. The “GAFCON” group is conciliar for its members. It is illogical to claim that a Province, such as TEC, that rejects the Jerusalem Declaration, should join anyway. It is equally illogical to claim that if TEC decides it cannot join GAFCON, TEC’s rejection prevents GAFCON from being conciliar for its own members. The logic of that argument means that a Christian Ecumenical Council is not conciliar unless non-Christians, such as Moslems who reject all the premises of the Church, attend and consent to whatever decisions the council makes.

The foregoing also answers your questions about authority. God invites, but does not force, humans to be in relationship with Him and to receive salvation through the grace of Jesus. Each of us is free to reject Jesus, and God respects that decision. So with GAFCON: no Province is “bound” to accept the 1662 BCP, the 39 Articles, or any other statement of beliefs. GAFCON is for those who agree with those statements and who want to band together.

TEC claims the power not only to receive new, non-Christian “revelations”, but also the power to control whether and how other Anglican Provinces respond, even if they disagree with TEC. The ABC has aided TEC in those efforts. The GAFCON conference simply declares that the rest of the Communion will not be bound by TEC’s imperialism or by the ABC’s political manipulations.

Really, the question for you is: By what authority does TEC claim the right to impose its “new thing” on that portion of the whole Communion that has now considered, and rejected, the “new thing”? In reality, it is TEC and the ABC who are attempoting a power play to impose a monochrome confessional position.

Re: #97
You’re correct, Monologistos.  Going back and reading Athanasius’ entry again (#90), I have to admit that he didn’t actually accuse me of being an 815 advocate, but only suggested that my argument was the same as theirs.  Either way, I don’t like the insinuation, but he wasn’t being rude.  So I apologize for getting my “back up” as you say.

#96,

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?

Thanks for the reply.  The state of theological soundness in the AC is tenuous at best.  It appears time for a confessional standard and conciliar underpinning to promote Scripturally and apostolically faithful doctrine.  This is especially brought to light by those who say the creeds with their fingers crossed (or would have the creeds excised from services altogether) and also by the plethora of highly questionable statements and actions from those in positions of shepherds and leaders.  Revisionism has forced the issue and orthodoxy has responded and will respond until faithfulness is restored.  In the absence of orthodox response chaos would have reared to full horrific height.

As I understand GAFCON, all Anglican Provinces are invited to join the new group now forming, provided they agree to the Jerusalem Declaration. The “GAFCON” group is conciliar for its members. It is illogical to claim that a Province, such as TEC, that rejects the Jerusalem Declaration, should join anyway. It is equally illogical to claim that if TEC decides it cannot join GAFCON, TEC’s rejection prevents GAFCON from being conciliar for its own members. The logic of that argument means that a Christian Ecumenical Council is not conciliar unless non-Christians, such as Moslems who reject all the premises of the Church, attend and consent to whatever decisions the council makes.

There is nothing wrong with being “conciliar” within one’s own membership.  I should hope this to be the case.  The question is how GAFCON is “conciliar” in a Communion-wide sense of the term?  If your answer is that it is conciliar in a Communion-wide sense because it invites all provinces to join them, then I rest my case.  GAFCON is now presuming to define Anglicanism and the nature of communion on its own terms.  Don’t get me wrong, I could handle GAFCON as a special interest group within the Communion.  But that’s not what this is all about, not by a long shot.

Thanks, Athanasius.  I understand where you’re coming from and why you believe this to be the proper way to proceed from here.  However, you didn’t answer my question.  Let’s take a different approach: What binds ANY province to a confessional position apart from what is already stated in its constitution and canons?  For instance, if a province happens to afford the Articles less status, and the 1662 BCP no status in its constitution than does the JS, does this mean (by GAFCON standards and definition) that such a province is NOT Anglican?

My point is simply this: The JS presumes to redefine Anglicanism on a confessional basis for EVERYONE.  They have no right to do so except perhaps among themselves as a special interest group.  But now that this has become the standard by which they will judge other provinces and jurisdictions as “orthodox” and/or “Anglican,” why are we pretending that continuing in the Anglican Communion (as presently constituted) means anything to them?

Third Mill Catholic,

It appears to be your view that GAFCON in and of itself is trying to be both arbiter and victor.  The decider of standards and the beneficiary thereof.  The participants in GAFCON probably were aware of this risk of perception, and therefore appeal to the historic tenets of Christianity as the first order authority.  In this way, there is no beneficiary - all, revisionist and reasserter, end up being measured against the exact same plumbline. 

To use a restaurant metaphor, when it comes to doctrinal matters, one “side” wants a la carte, the other, their “usual”.  It seems likely, in the current context, we’ll - revisionist and reasserter - both end up with a bad case of indigestion.

A house as divided as we are now stands very, very little chance of actually standing without some relief from somewhere.

RE: “The question is how GAFCON is “conciliar” in a Communion-wide sense of the term?”

Hey Third Mill, I haven’t read this thread in entirety, so I may be going down the wrong track, but I don’t see GAFCON claiming to be conciliar in a Communion-wide sense.  I just see that they’re claiming that they’ll make decisions for their group based in a conciliar fashion.

Just to use the metaphor from an article I wrote last week, I see them basically 1) remaining within their family of origin, yet 2) developing a new family that they deem to be healthier and less sick, while 3) maintaining a lessened, and more distant involvement with the family of origin’s structures.

Some family members who are committed to working closely with the family of origin’s structures may decry the commitment of some of the family to establishing a new family.  They may choose not to be involved in that new family—or they may choose to be involved in *both* families.

Captain Yips latest description and analysis of the multiple effects of GAFCON and the Jerusalem Declaration is very helpful.  (http://captainyips.typepad.com/journal/2008/07/whither.html)

My feeling is that the greatest effect of GAFCON and the Declaration is that parishes and dioceses under duress now have a place to send their SOS calls.  There is an organized entity to respond.  They are no longer at the mercy of the ABC RW or false promises, hopes for the (intentionally ineffective) so-called instruments of unity to rescue them and to wait and wait and wait.

Second, another less political, more equitable and spiritually sound authority structure for orthodox Anglican Christianity is being designed and constructed.

Third, the meeting itself was spiritually healing and bonding for the global orthodox community.  Worshipping and praying in the Presence of the One Beautiful Holy Lord Jesus Christ together was key to that bonding process.

Finally, there is nothing the revisionists can do about it.  Sure, they may find a way to claim some properties, but they cannot make us commune with them or listen to their lies or be associated with their heresies.

To state it succinctly:  The orthodox are no longer subjected to their power.  Think July 4, 1776.

Confessing Anglicans are now ruled by the Lord, The Archbishop of archbishops and are are in the process of forming a protective organizational structure and communal fellowship.

Third Mill Catholic:
GAFCON is not determining who is Anglican and who is not…we who were there recognize that many orthodox Provinces may not join GAFCON (West Indes, Southeast Asia, Burundi, etc.).  We hope they will, but do not assume so.  The statement does not declare that GAFCON is out of communion with all who do not sign on to the Jerusalem Declaration.  It simply lays out its own confession for membership in this particular sub-group within the Anglican Communion.  And it makes it clear why it’s members are out of Communion with those Provinces that are the center of this controversy and treating their Sees as vacant.

Thanks, Sarah.  That is a helpful analogy.  But it sounds like one from the past, namely, Methodism.  The “church within a church” model eventually leads to separation via estrangement.  In this instance, John Rodgers was probably the most honest of the GAFCON brainiacs in calling for the separation to take place now (at least that’s what someone told me, it may just be hearsay).  I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: in five years, perhaps ten, there will be two distinct communions, neither of which will be recognizably Anglican (http://www.3rdmillennium.blogspot.com).

Dan

Sarah Hey, Post 105:

They may choose not to be involved in that new family—or they may choose to be involved in *both* families.

Now that GAFCON has made their statement and I see some hope of reform even in the Episcopal Church, I would hope to be involved with both GAFCON and the Episcopal Church for the time being.
I have the good fortune of being in a conservative parish and am in some way shielded from the politics of the Episcopal Church but if TEC continues to make demands of the Anglican Communion and continues to try to revise the Word of God as handed down through Scripture, and continues their unholy alliances with the RCRC and other secular lobbying groups, I think that many of us will be thankful for GAFCON’s offer of protection.

I find it beyond absurdity that Dr. Williams talks about “confidence in Anglican identity” when the very point of GAFCon is that the actions of the North American churches have brought the very nature of such an identity into question—or worse, disrepute and ridicule—in the entire universe of Christianity, while he has steadfastly refrained from taking even the most feeble action to counter this and enforce the legitimate conciliar decisions of the Communion.

Almost equally absurd is +Durham’s invocation of the famous Covenant (the GAFCon statements are a covenant), which over the last year or so we have learned <ul>
<li> will take nearly a generation to ratify, given the 38 Provinces’ synodical processes and comments, committees to incorporate the comments, and more synods;
<li> will—judging from its latest revision—include only the most vague and oblique references to any actual disciplinary possibilities anyway;
<li> will be a childishly easy target for the apostate churches’ well-practiced legalism and pettifoggery; and
<li> will probably no matter what its content be cheerfully signed by TEO, which will then of course proceed to do whatever it wishes in any case—a church which can with such facility interpret Scripture into meaninglessness should be able to do the same to any silly Covenant a dozen times before breakfast, and any Canterbury bureaucracy capable of finessing the clear and unambiguous language of Dromantine and Dar will find a wooly Covenant child’s play. </ul>

Any orthodox Anglican, of whatever churchmanship and whatever reservations he may have about GAFCon’s leadership, should rally to support this movement, if only on the basis of the incredible fatuity it has called forth from “official” Communion structures.

It has been reported that this is the LAST Lambeth anyway.  Perhaps what we all KNEW, the merger of TEC and CoE will be announced and from now on, there will be joint meetings of GenCon and Lambeth as TLF+ has predicted here:
http://northernplainsanglicans.blogspot.com/2008/07/williams-schori-announce-joint-lambeth.html

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. 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.

++Rowan,

If that were true then there might be some structure in the Lambeth conference to come to some definitive statement.  Just now you and others seem a little too busy denying the happenings within the CoE:

What?  No, we have passed no resolutions like the Americans, so we have no priests blessing the same sex relationships of other priests (we are investigating the unlikely reports that such as happen, but really you shouldn’t put too much stock in press or priests accounts), and no Archbishop of Canterbury would ever hold a secret communion service for priests and their same sex partners.  I mean really if the later were true wouldn’t there be a list of attendees.

Hopefully God isn’t looking for even ten in Lambeth.

RSB

Remember that Williams, Wright and presumably Shori, et al, have chosen Brian McLaren, emergent church leader to speak at Lambeth: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/12471

McLaren is ‘undecided’ on homosexuality and prefers permissive pastoring.  http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/01/brian_mclaren_o.html

The word ‘Missional’ that KJS used in her infamous emission is a post-modern emergent church term and *DOES NOT necessarily* mean the same thing as mission or missionary. 

> Different “emergents” may use the term with different nuances and connotations, but the term is used as essentially a postmodern alternative to the ecclesiology and missiology of Evangelical Christians. The practical outworking of emergent “missional living” does not coincide with the emphases on propositional evangelism, teaching, and holiness found in historic Christianity.”
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missional_living)
As an ‘emergent church leader’, McLaren’s definition of missional may mean changing the church to fit the postmodern culture.  As a theologian, he has a BA in English, no theology degree, so is not part of a coherent theological paradigm or tradition.

Rowan williams is and has shown to be incapable of making a decision even when it has been made for him thru any of the gatherings he has called. He will muddle thru and do nothing. As far as Wright, I have never trusted the man, my feeling was that he was the one who leaked the Winsor Report on the continent. He has shown thru the past several years that he is in fact a liberal and will side with TEC whatever may come. He will try to throw a monkey wrench into anything that goes against his own beliefs which again I feel he keeps in the closet.

As far as Wright, I have never trusted the man, my feeling was that he was the one who leaked the Winsor Report on the continent. He has shown thru the past several years that he is in fact a liberal and will side with TEC whatever may come.

NT Wright may not agree with +Jensen and ++Akinola over “boundary crossing” but there is no way in which you can construct his words or actions to be approval of TEC or the TEC leadership agenda.