Special Press Conference: “they will be held in a sort of holding bay, a safe place” (updating)

Foster parents/prelates? A number of problems occur with such programs. Number one, it might label a parish “rebellious” when in actual fact the problem is poor parents. Now, if they will put some of the parents in the foster homes you might have a good idea.

We have been trying to find analogies: it is like a younger member of the family who is not getting on with parents at the moment or is out of court in the family an aunt or and uncle can take them under the wing and work for reconciliation. They are not out of the family but they are in a safe place.

This is exactly the analogy that His Grace ABP +Orombi has used in regards to the Churches in Uganda in the USA—except of course that he has used much stronger and more accurate language about the children being abused, rather than “just not getting along”.  So what we have currently is exactly what the good Bishop is proposing.  Either (a) he is misinformed about the staus of oversight with CCP Churches in the USA who have found safe haven, or (b) he is suggesting, rather discouragingly, that our current “Aunts and Uncles” in Uganda, Nigeria, Rwanda and the Southern Cone are not really trustworthy or legitimate members of the family!

And that is without even reaching the issues of (a) the intransigence of the TEC HOB in rejecting the Primates call at DES to set up such a pastoral council, and so their unlikelihood to agree to this; (b) the uncertain and unlikely protection one would find under such a body given the past record of the ABC’s Panel of Reference and (c) the spiritual chasm that exists between the CCP Churches who believe in a robust confessional Anglicanism as embodied in the Jerusalem Declaration and the “other Gospel” currently holding TEC in its thrall—and to which neither myself, nor my church, nor many others in CCP would be willing to place ourselves under.

What we need to see before an “escrow” is some repentance by TEC, renunciation of universalism-dressed-up-as- Catholicism, return to the Authority of Scripture, cessation of all litigation (again, as called for by the Primates at DES), and affirmation of the uniqueness and universality of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, per the Jerusalem Declaration.

Then we can talk.

This statement conjures-up images of “protective custody” such as the much-coveted diamonds in The Marathon Man. Can’t you picture the overseas Primates being interrogated at the next Lambeth with “is it safe?”

That term “safe place” used in this context makes me think of the Jewish ghettos in Nazi Germany.  Sounds like these “safe places” will be temporary holding cells for the orthodox Anglicans to think about what they are doing and then choose . . . reconcile with your parents or get on the train to the concentration camps.  I guess I’ve learned to be way too cynical about these things over the last several years.

Reality is - we don’t want a ‘safe place’ - we want real leadership which is completely missing from the Episcopal Church.

So, Lambeth has a choice - give us the opportunity to become a part of the Anglican Communion as an orthodox body or the majority of us are going to leave to other congregations not infested by TEC bishops.  It would be the death knell for any real Anglican Presence in the United States.

I think it could work. It could also be a complete fiasco or even a non-starter. It’s an interesting idea. But my concern is who decides who is in charge of this holding tank? What accountability will they have to the persons, parishes and dioceses that are in it?

The crisis in the Episcopal Church occurred because the gatekeepers abandoned their posts and failed in their jobs. With the result that a significant portion of our bishops have compromised their faith.

I serve the God of Truth. Who do you serve?

Breaches caused by the interventions?

Who would lead this safe place, if not the primates that we in Common Cause already report to?  We are supposed to be banking our money that we currently send off to AMiA or the Southern Cone, or Kenya, etc. to sit in a bank account not helping anyone?  Is it supposed to serve as a “carrot” to TEC that if they reform, they’ll get us and a big check? 

Probably like everyone else, I think that this would be wonderful document if we could trust that those who would now stop the SSBs and consecrations (but not ordinations?) of non-celebate individuals would also profess Jesus as the ONLY way.  I keep reading all these statements and saying - sounds great if I could only trust that the other side of the aisle spoke the same language as we do.

His analogy is terrible - I would reverse it and say that the parents of the family are sick and need to be cured.  Meanwhile the children will be taken care of by foster parents, i.e.: AMiA, Southern Cone, Kenya, CANA, etc.  They should be allowed to remain where they are, their bishops should be full members of the AC and once the problems with the parents (TEC and ACoC) are taken care of (in a few years) to the satifaction of the children, then and only then, will the family be reunited.

A camel is a horse designed by committee…

What we are proposing is a kind of safe place into which these diocese and parishes can come which will not be dependent upon primates or others in other provinces, but they will be held in a sort of holding bay, a safe place that will have a link to that pastoral Forum we spoke of and they can hold there in trust until the day when through dialog they can return to their parent bodies.

Why—doesn’t this perfectly describe the new CCP North American province! We can just stay there “in trust” until the TEC and ACoC return to orthodoxy—and meanwhile remain in communion with the orthodox provinces in the Anglican Communion, including the CoE (until it joins the TEC in apostacy in a decade or so)! Sounds good.

Well said Eclipse,something to warrant our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Matt,
The Emperor has no clothes and from the postings, thus far, we can plainly see this dog ain’t gonna hunt.

This is the big bomb shell we have been waiting for? In taht case someone needs to take a course in explosives!!! Just think, I could have been out improving my golf score.  At least something would have been accomplished.

It also seems that no thought has been given to providing a “safe haven” for faithful parishes that are still within TEC.

I think something has been missed.  I’m pretty sure this “safe place” included NOT “involving the Primates”.  NOW, just who would it involve, some ‘Windsor Bishop”, or perhaps the lord archbishop himself, don’t guess he’s a “primate” ??

Grannis Gloria

The escrow idea is not something that will build and bud but it is a temporary idea to deal with those who are already out. It is not something that should grow. It is meant to be a diminishing body as diocese and parishes return to their homes.

That is interesting. Will this also be true of the other items which are under moratorium? Are provinces with SSBs and actively gay clergy eventually going to stop and return home? Is that the intention?

#6 - mousetalker: I think this could work as well, and I’m encouraged by the news.  In theory it’s a great plan.  However, in practice it will only work to the degree that people are committed to seeing the process through.  And if the comments on this thread are any indication, it ain’t going to fly (or that dog won’t hunt) with a lot of folks.  The naysayers, on both sides, will naysay this one to death even before it has a chance to take its first breath, I fear.

Who approves new Bishops in the holding bay?

Why—doesn’t this perfectly describe the new CCP North American province! We can just stay there “in trust” until the TEC and ACoC return to orthodoxy—and meanwhile remain in communion with the orthodox provinces in the Anglican Communion, including the CoE (until it joins the TEC in apostacy in a decade or so)! Sounds good.

Perfectly describe CCP?  Let’s see: Nigeria, Southern Cone, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya all have primates, right?  The REC has its own general convention and presiding bishop, right? 

I see no similarity between the CCP and this proposal at all.

RE: “In theory it’s a great plan. . . . And if the comments on this thread are any indication, it ain’t going to fly (or that dog won’t hunt) with a lot of folks.”

Well, most of the folks on this thread remember Dar, which almost all of us liked quite a lot.

This plan reminds me of Dar—which is both a good and a bad thing, considering what actually happened to Dar, which was that it was ground into a fine powder by TEC and Rowan Williams did nothing to enforce its decisions.

We’ll see what happens—I’m skeptical of its being implemented, but pleased with the words on the paper.

I simply don’t trust this, the language does seem carefully constructed, and I admit to suspecting sinister motives. We don’t know for sure who had imput, we certainly know who didn’t. The ABofC doesn’t inspire confidence.. and from what little I know of escrow and the ability for something held in trust to be unavailable for even important use, if those overseeing them wish those funds to be denied, I have concerns about the soundness of the proposal. I just am worried that this presents a trap.

My problem with the WCG proposal is that (in addition to the other aforementioned concerns), it neither provides recognition of the very deep chasm of belief that exists in TEC and the Communion, nor proposes a viable way to earnestly address that reality.  How do you reconcile that which is inherently unreconcilable?  Repentance is the only way I can think of and there has been absolutely no evidence that TEC will sincerely engage in such a process, yet alone abide by requests or mandates from any external bodies.

Just about now I would think the Gafcon bishops are getting very thankful they didn’t spend the time and money on this preschool level of solution making.  Let’s see, this chair would look a lot better over there don’t you think?

As a parishoner of a CANA church which is being sued by the Diocese of Va. and TEC, I’m not going back to either. This plan is too little too late.

Perfectly describe CCP?  Let’s see: Nigeria, Southern Cone, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya all have primates, right?

I said the new CCP North American province.  When it is recognized the primates of the above mentioned provinces will cease to be primates of this new province.

“We have been trying to find analogies: it is like a younger member of the family who is not getting on with parents at the moment or is out of court in the family an aunt or and uncle can take them under the wing and work for reconciliation. They are not out of the family but they are in a safe place.”

My contention is that Schori and others are actually the younger members…not only in fact of age and time ordained, but also in matters of faith and order.

WAIT FOR ANOTHER MEETING IN MAY… I have a novel idea, lets blow off all these bishops that started this mess, and let the laity take the church back. LET THEIR VOICES RING.

“The escrow idea is not something that will build and bud but it is a temporary idea to deal with those who are already out. It is not something that should grow. It is meant to be a diminishing body as diocese and parishes return to their homes.”

This would be fine if it were the revisionists being in treatment until they could be returned to orthodoxy…but the implication here is that orthodoxy will diminish while it adherents are held in re-education camps until they can be reconciled with the new thinking…

I’m with Sarah here - the plan - if implemented - sounds like it could be a very promising development.  The question is whether it will ever get implemented or bandied about for years before TEC makes some insincere empty gesture and the ABC declares that the plan is no longer necessary.  That’s why I think it important that GAFCON support this plan and press strongly for its implementation.

As I understand what the WCG to be saying when it says that the departed parishes “not be dependent upon primates or others in other provinces” is that they will remain OUTSIDE of TEC for the time being; that there should be no litigation; and that their status will be protected by the Communion as a WHOLE and (their status) not be dependent soley on the protecting Province.

So take the Diocese of San Joaquin as an example.  The Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin would not need to claim to be part of the Southern Cone in order to remain part of the Communion.  There would be a holding pattern which would allow the ADSJ to continue to operate, without Lamb’s and Schori’s litigation machine, pending TEC’s full compliance on the sexuality issues.

Where I think that Hanford and others are mistaken is where they say this:

The escrow idea is not something that will build and bud but it is a temporary idea to deal with those who are already out. It is not something that should grow. It is meant to be a diminishing body as diocese and parishes return to their homes.

Think of the concept - if I owe you money under a contract, and I put that money into escrow (i.e. not touchable by you till you comply with the contract), but you make it very clear that you will never comply with the contract, then that escrow amount WILL grow.  The very escrow concept makes it clear that TEC should ONLY get the parishes and diocese back IF THEY COMPLY WITH THE SEXUALITY MORATORIA.  This is a big step forward.

And that, folks, is why I think that GAFCON should support this plan and push for its implementation.

JamesW -

I’m with Sarah here

Groupie!

How many of these new proposals from the WCG are really intended to help TEC with its continuing litigations for property?  It is obvious that this is the case in some of the bogus “Canons” about “church property.”  And what would a “holding” structure do to the churches that are winning their property away from TEC?  Wouldn’t they be technically part of TEC again? Truly, some of the implications are very frightening.  I would judge this plan is basically DOA.  It could never satisfy the great majority of those in Gafcon churches, who are complaining about much more fundamental doctrinal differences with TEC than this plan even recognizes.

Escrows do not just work one way.  If the deal does not close, the assets are returned.  So, as soon as TEC breaches the contract, say, by having a SSB, the escrow parishes and diocese get to become their own separate and independent province.  This would happen, oh, I guess, by the weekend after the escrow was signed.  Which is why TEC will never agree to anything like this that really binds them to do anything. 

Oh, and for TEC to reverse all the abandonment of communion depositions and drop the lawsuits, without which any sort of escrow-type thingy would not work, is also very unlikely.

This could work if there are real protections involved and not just an obvious trap for the orthodox.  Are the bishops, largely non-US, at Lambeth who are willing to put such protections in, stronger than the US bishops who are unwilling to give up one iota of their power and property (even that which is not clearly theirs)?

I guess we shall see.

At Dar es Salaam, the Episcopal Church was ordered into receivership.  But now at Lambeth, they are discussing putting the convervatives “in escrow.”

For those who think there is reason for optimism, I frankly don’t see it.  Everyone who wants to be placed in escrow, raise your hands!

I’m thinking of started a conservative blog to counter Lisa Fox’s “Manner of Life.”  I could call it “Held in a Sort of Holding Bay.”

2. We suggested 2 ways of responding: 1. The swift formation of a pastoral Forum. Something like this has been called for by the Windsor Commission, the Primates at Dromantine, and at Dar Es Salaam and we have called for this forum to be appointed by the ABC with a bishop as the chairman working closely with the ABC and the membership which represents the breadth of communion in terns of geography and view.

The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.

Jamessw, but what about the congregations, whose contributions are needed for regular expenditures, they by the same token can not touch what is in escrow. I wouldn’t enter into this unless I saw clear, balanced language that takes realities into consideration. Also, much is dependent on who is the administrator of this. IRL they can do whatever they wish, if they decde it is in the best interest. There tends to be little to no oversight. If TEC has any imput into the decision making process, you could very well expect them to be able to pull the strings on this as well as everything else.

Considering all we’ve seen across the board that have emerged, there is so much ambiguity, and conenient phrasing, that it feels like a trap to me.

Matt,
It popped up on another thread, and I heard it myself listening in on AnglicanTV’s livestream, but I don’t see it here in your liveblog (that’s not a criticism!), that +Clive mentioned “religious communities” (almost as a throwaway line) in regard to the analogies attempting to be brought forward.  Can you follow up on that idea?
It’s obvious the group is struggling with how to simply express the idea of “safe places.”  I’m glad to hear it, even in such rudimentary form; it does have its biblical precedent.

” . . . pending TEC’s full compliance on the sexuality issues.”  But this is so little of the complaint many of us have with TEC!  How did we get locked into this narrow a characterization—always a major flaw in the Windsor Report?  It has set people up for the meager and uninformed, incomplete result we see in this proposal.

jamesw,
I think you are reading too much into the escrow bit.
As Hanford says they do not intend for it to grow, so no more parishes jumping. If that is true and this was implemented it would actually cause an acceleration of schism as parishes jump to be eligible for escrow. I don’t think that is what they want.

I don’t think the escrow is about physical property.  It is an analogy.  The pastoral oversight of diocese is held in “escrow” until this is solved. 

Whatever the pastoral oversight status of parishes, diocese, or province, unless one side gives up their claim to the physical property, the final owner will always be decided by the secular courts.

It is interesting that a document styled “preliminary observations” is being talked about as “THE PLAN,” leaving only its implementation in question.  I would hope some attention would be given to efforts to improve it.

The preliminary document doesn’t spell out clearly enough the mandate that would be given the “forum.”  Given past history, language like “engage theologically and practically with situations of controversy,” “travel, meet and offer pastoral advice and guidelines,”  and “addressing those anomalies of pastoral care” leaves too much unstated or up in the air.  Further, the forum would only offer “guidance” on diminishment of standing and it is unstated to whom the guidance would be given and how it would be implemented.  Choosing to call the group a “forum” tends to work against viewing it as a body with much decisionmaking power.  The concept of holding in trust in anticipation of reconciliation with proper Provinces needs to make clear that a “proper Province” would not include one whose standing had been diminished.

Compare the fuzziness of language here with Ephraim Radner’s first “must” in his July 13 letter to the bishops:  “You must state clearly that the actions of TEC as an official body, and of certain Canadian dioceses, are unacceptable to you as bishops of the Communion.  And you must decide, resolutely, that those bishops from these churches who are in agreement to press forward in ways the Communion has now clearly and consistently repudiated no longer partake in your common councils.”  I hope the bishops will still try to figure out some what to express something like Radner’s statement.  It shouldn’t be left up to the forum to exercise discretion whether to allow the bishops that have demonstrated their determination to press forward in this way to continue to partake in councils of Communion bishops or to drag out the process of their exclusion from those councils.  It should also be made clear that saying membership of the forum must be “representative of the breadth of the life of the Communion as a whole” does not mean it should include those in this category.

Some responses:
1. I think Hanford used “escrow” as a concept, and did not intend for legal papers to be drawn up.  He wants to create a “safe place” to locate parishes until TEC reforms.
2. There is no way that TEC will ever agree to this anyway, so nobody need worry about being forced back into TEC.
3. I realize that sexuality is just the tip of the iceberg with TEC, but understand this - TEC’s liberal will NEVER RETREAT ON SEXUALITY.

Okay, so let’s review.  This plan FOR THE FIRST TIME acknowledges that TEC should have no claim to departed parishes UNLESS they first implement moratoria on sexuality issues.  TEC will never implement such moratoria.  The conclusion will therefore be that the departed parishes will INCREASE their Communion legitimacy, while TEC’s legitimacy will DECREASE.

At least that’s what the plan says.  Sarah is right, the question here is not so much the plan as it is the implementation.

You will find the proposed “holding bay” to be a holding tank.

Just get out.

BTW, I agree with the person who commented on the attempt to put the blame on the Southern Cone, as somehow causing the problem. When the truth is the reached out in the spirit of Christian love and unity after the breach had been caused by TEC’s unChristian actions.

Since Lambeth can’t legislate anything binfing, this smells like a ploy being offered to the middle to have are lifted or GC say,s sorry, we can’t speak to this injustice.

I don’t know about that, Jamessw, in fact it seems that it avoids even holding TEC accountable for it’s actions. It’s even singled out the Southern Cone as having caused the breach. I don’t trust this.

It must be torture for these guys to try and keep TEC “in”, yet throw something to the orthodox.  It will be a bone thrown to the conservatives to keep them on the string for a little while.  Everyone will go home, nothing of any import will be done to facilitate the construction of a “safe-house”.  By the time they get around to building the “safe-house”, the people that were supposed to move into it will have lost interest.

JustOneVoice, I know I have contributed to the confusion, and you are right, I think, that the bishops in Lambeth are thinking of this as a spiritual oversight, but at this point, in the US, the parishes in question are under rectors and bishops who have been deposed, and are being sued by TEC.  No pastoral oversight will work that does not take reality into account and resolves those matters first.  How can a TEC bishop oversee a rector the bishop deposed?  Or oversee a parish whose vestry the bishop is suing personally?  I submit that he or she cannot.  This is much more complicated and much less workable than it would have been had the Archbishop put up a panel of reference years ago, but the facts have changed.  In fact, it is difficult to see how anything less than whatever structure the Primates Council that is coming out of GAFCON would propose to pull the Common Cause together would work, and while I think much of the rest of the world would probably be willing to see that, I suspect that TEC would not.  Anything that would lead to a separate North American province should they cease to do what they are doing is anathema to them.

I am certain TEC is assessing the minimum that it must do for compliance.  The pre-Lambeth spin was that 50% of the provinces held TEC in compliance with Windsor.  In that context and from the WCG press releases, it seems to me that TEC is required to implement a moratorium on consecrations [1] and officially authorized rites of SSB [2].  There is currently no obligation to do anything about VGR [3].  This does not affect unofficial SSBs [4], ordination of priests or deacons, teaching, lobbying the instruments of communion, influencing other provinces, etc. 

Presumably, upon achievement of this minimum, the interventions would be re-incorporated into TEC [5].

.....
[1] ” We are just saying there should not be any more consecrations or same sex blessings.”

[2] Comment number 3, SF Press Release Thread

[3]  “We are not intending to imply that VGR should resign as a result of what we are calling for. We are aware that he was elected bishop as a result of the processes of the Episcopal Church whatever we think of the results of those processes.”
[4] “... public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions…” WCG Preliminary Observations, Part 3.

[5] “Hanford: The escrow idea is not something that will build and bud but it is a temporary idea to deal with those who are already out. It is not something that should grow. It is meant to be a diminishing body as diocese and parishes return to their homes.”

Post 45:

... By the time they get around to building the “safe-house”, the people that were supposed to move into it will have lost interest.

I would change “will have lost interest.” to “will have formed their own Anglican Province recognized by a majority of the Anglican Communion.” (GAFCON-Jerusalem Communion)

PhilAshley said it:
“...we need to see ... repentance by TEC, renunciation of universalism-dressed-up-as- Catholicism, return to the Authority of Scripture, cessation of all litigation ... and affirmation of the uniqueness and universality of the Lordship of Jesus Christ, per the Jerusalem Declaration.
Then we can talk.”

THE ISSUE is the heresy and apostasy of TEC.

These people have focused on the wrong thing.

You know what this is it is a verbal march of “Unity” with as about as much usefulness as the “Poverty” one was -

And what is the main course going to be after the ‘march’?  Meaningful evangelism eaten up for more long years in the garbage disposal of TEC apostasy…

Not worth it.

One question I would like to ask Rowan Williams.

Given the actions of TEC, their statements since and especially in the Indaba groups here at Lambeth, do you still maintain TEC has substantially complied with the WR, DES, etc by their passage of B033 at GC2006?

“Escrow” and “Safe Place”?
Sounds more like “protective custody” to me!
“Protective custody - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaProtective custody is a type of imprisonment (or care) to protect a prisoner (or other person) from harm, either from outside sources or other prisoners. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protective_custody - 20k - Cached - Similar pages”

#46 pendennis88

I agree.  The only way this would be acceptable to reasserters is if they have what they have now, complete autonomy from TEC.  I think a good response by Archbishop Gregory Venables would be to thank the Anglican communion for recognizing his foster care, for the establishment of a Forum that will offer him and the TEC advice, and that he looks forward to the day with TEC repents so he can return those in his care to a safe province.  Then note with regret that if the TEC does not repent soon enough facts on the ground may over take him and a new province will already exist.

Now people, they are only saying that we will make you an ffer you can’t refuse. 

While the minimal outcome I described in [47] may be a bit chilling for those within the intervening missions, consider things from the POV of a liberal bishop in a non-TEC/ACC province.  You may be willing to roll back the appearance of the revolution (”... just wait a bit longer…”) in those provinces in order to keep control of the AC machinery and retain the benefits of having TEC in the AC. 

Importantly, if TEC were to be excommunicated, what would happen to the theological state of the AC?  It would shift to the right - the global south would become even more of a force.  TEC’s current influence is out of proportion. 

For the long run, without the oft reported efforts of TEC to influence the global south through support and liberal missionaries, the AC might continue shifting to the right.   

Contemplation of this must be something of a motivating factor.

“they will be held in a sort of holding bay, a safe place” which can be substituted for, “and they went to the place of departed spirits.” As per instructions in the 1928 BCP relevant to the Apostle’s Creed.

My cynicism coming through: Fort Worth, Pittsburgh and Quincy have important votes coming up. This is just a way to throw a wrench with these votes.

jamesw writes (#40):

This plan FOR THE FIRST TIME acknowledges that TEC should have no claim to departed parishes UNLESS they first implement moratoria on sexuality issues.

It does not say that.  The holding-in-trust concept is recommended as something that could be used.  The question of what response and any diminishment of standing should follow from a failure to observe the moratoria is left as something as to which the forum could offer guidance.

“A sort of holding bay, a safe place”—you mean a “lock box”?

Wolverine

#55 Tired Your wrote: “Importantly, if TEC were to be excommunicated, what would happen to the theological state of the AC?  It would shift to the right - the global south would become even more of a force. ”  Well, yes.

I said the new CCP North American province.  When it is recognized the primates of the above mentioned provinces will cease to be primates of this new province.

At least one CCP “primate” of sorts, Bp. Leonard Riches, Presiding Bishop of the REC, has recently reassured his clergy and dioceses that the CCP will remain a federation of churches/jurisdictions, each retaining its own governance, canons, and distinctive characteristics.  I doubt very much that AMiA or CANA have a desire to separate from their respective provinces, and I suspect that neither Rwanda or Nigeria particularly want to give them up.  So this “new CCP province” just ain’t going to happen as neatly or as quickly as you seem to believe.

Tired, thats rather tired. TEC’s MDivs have little significant impact on the thinking of the GS PhD’s. MP, EP and daily Bible study are where they are challenged, strengthened and inspired. That is the problem TEC can’t get past now or ever.

One sure way to get a better idea is to see TEC’s response to this. If they hold out from making response, you know they had a hand in this.

This was the bombshell?  What has been building up over the last 5 years is layer upon layer upon layer upon layer upon layer upon layer upon layer of bureaucracy now to be topped (or bottomed) by what amounts to a political partition?  Sounds like a declared (by Lambeth, no less) split.  Iron Curtain anyone?

What.  A.  Joke.  And this conference cost PARISHIONERS how much?

Could this be the last Lambeth Conference?

Wake me when it’s over, please.

I just can’t believe how much energy you are putting into trying to interpret a document that is first of all “preliminary” and most important of all, just plain STUPID. It carries no weight at all. It’s just more “words, words, words”.

Haven’t you guys figured it out yet? Words are meaningless without actions. This whole thing totally misses the point. TEC won’t respond to this in the way you might like. Neither with ACOC. I wouldn’t either if I were them. There’s no consequences. There’s no accountability.

Think about it. Those of you who are parents, would this work with your teen aged kids? Heck NO!!!!! They are too smart for that. They’ll just spew it back in your face. They see clearly that you have no spine so they don’t respect you one bit. They will do whatever they want regardless of what you SAY because they know you will never DO anything. That’s just common sense.

The AC needs to DO something. They need to give TEC and ACOC a very strong ultimatum. Either they turn around and follow what the Bible says, or they are just plain out; gone, insignificant, no longer part of the church.

I know the Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t have any “authority” per se, but he needs to just simply say to TEC, ACOC, etc. that he no longer recognizes them as Anglican. Like Archbishop Mouneer Anis said in his speech in New Orleans last fall, the AC no longer recognizes what TEC, ACOC etc. teaches. They are a “different church”. RW needs to drive that very important point home and just tell TEC, ACOC, etc. that they ARE a different church based on what they accept and teach and then excommunicate them from the rest of the AC.

That folks is how simple this whole mess could really be handled. TEC, ACOC, etc. all need a firm SLAP to bring them to attention. It’s like spanking your child for having made a very serious defiance of your authority as a parent that could have put them in serious danger. Something so gravely affecting the life of your child cannot be taken lightly, hence the spanking is much needed. The child is “shocked” by the spanking, since they don’t usually get one, and as a result turns around and pays attention. They start to think, “Wow! Mom and Dad really means this. They are really serious. I can’t mess with them on this one. I better smarten up, or else I’m outa here!”

That’s how I see this whole thing. I left the whole AC a few months ago. My heart left a few years ago when it started to bleed in response to what I was seeing, hearing, etc. My physical body left a few months ago after I felt God just gave me a swift kick in the pants and just said, “What are you waiting for? You know you can’t abide by what this church believes? You know I don’t want you unequally yoked with them. Get out, NOW!” And that’s what I did. Since then I’ve learned so much about Anglicanism in general that really opened my eyes. I truly believe that God wanted me to take that first step and remove myself from the apostate church before He would truly begin to remove the scales from my eyes and allow me to see His truth. His wonderful truth is so well written in His Word.

I pray for you all. I pray that God will bless you and help you realize what he wants you to do. I pray you will come to realize just how fruitless it is to just put out more “words, words, words” and never take any “action” whatsoever. Once you get to that level, you may find some peace.

May God bless you all!

[62] I had in mind this post.

#61 Actually, Nigeria has openly made statements contrary to what you have said here and it might surprise you a bit of the scuttlebutt from AMiA. While I’d agree with “to happen as neatly or as quickly” but probably for very different reasons than I’ve read from your posts.

And there are two altars at Lambeth. Deal with those first and let the Light shine. The meringue is deep.

The naivete shown is truly amazing.  Does anyone really think the San Francisco Parishes are going to pull back on their same sex weddings when they have already been running full page ads trying to market to this group?

Amazing.  I do not want a trade off of being forced to stay with a heretical TEC, myself.

This sounds like the Tanzania communique revisited. Well, nothing has changed, and ECUSA is not going to agree to alternative primatial oversight or a holding tank or any other alternative status unless they can control it—and the Africans are not going to throw the Christians back to the lions. This is not a way out of our present difficulties. The only solution possible is for the ABC to break communion with ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada until they clean up their acts—and that is something that he will never do, because he needs the ECUSA money and privately sympathizes with the revisionists.

We who have left already have a “Safe Haven”; CANA.  And we have an overseer Akinola.  We’re all set.  What we want now is to be recognized as the North American Anglicn Province.  What they’re proposing is treating those of us who left as “problem children.”  The “problem children” are Schori and her crew who continue to defy the Windsor Report.  It’s time to tell the Episcopal Church to either put up or shut up.  If they refuse to abide by the rules, kick them out.  Surely the all mighty American dollar isn’t worth a mans soul.

This whole thing is based on trust, and that is is very short supply.  Just talk plainly would help.

Basser.

NO thanks.

I refuse to be associated with TEC or any group that is. 

They have focused on the wrong thing again. 

They know that boundary crossing is not the issue here and they know we know they know it.

After experiencing the thuggery and canon law breaking of BeerKat and Jerry Lamb please allow me to risk a conjectured response from the Very Right Reverend John-David Schofield Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin….“Ugh…thank you for your kind offer, but no thank you.”
Intercessor

At least one CCP “primate” of sorts, Bp. Leonard Riches, Presiding Bishop of the REC, has recently reassured his clergy and dioceses that the CCP will remain a federation of churches/jurisdictions, each retaining its own governance, canons, and distinctive characteristics.

I know this, having first quoted this.  And he also supports the CCP becoming the North American province of the GAFCON-originated fellowship. The impossibility of a federation like CCP becoming a province, which you seem to believe, is not accepted by CCP members or, (I predict) the GAFCON fellowship’s Primate Council.

I doubt very much that AMiA or CANA have a desire to separate from their respective provinces, and I suspect that neither Rwanda or Nigeria particularly want to give them up.

I should let these folks speak for themsalves, but at least a few members of these groups have indicated otherwise. And it is not as if these African provinces have to be treated as strangers.

So this “new CCP province” just ain’t going to happen as neatly or as quickly as you seem to believe.

Regarding the point that started our discussion, GAFCON being out of compliance with this new group’s rules for border crossing, there’s no hurry. This ‘Pastoral Forum’ won’t be in place for a few years at least.

While they are bringing up “boundary crossing moratoriums- why not have a moratorium on holding heretical services in our Churches in North America and making them focus on Jesus as our Lord and Saviour? 

(wishful thinking I realize!)

Sarah: You go girl!

#73, this “boundary crossing” stuff is only part of a stiff, worldly institution anyway. It’s not of God. The church that Jesus built is ONE family; one BODY with many parts. All parts need to work together to keep the whole organism alive. That’s why He uses the “human” body analogy in Matthew. It helps us understand. You can’t take away a leg without falling over. You can’t take away the eyes without causing blindness. You can’t take away the ears without causing deafness. You can’t take away the “heart” without causing “death”. What is the “heart” of the church that Jesus built? It’s God’s Word!!!! If that is gone, then it’s a DEAD church. It’s not God’s.

Sorry, TEC, but that’s just the way it is.

from Rob Eaton’s comment:

+Clive mentioned “religious communities” (almost as a throwaway line) in regard to the analogies attempting to be brought forward.

“Religious communities” - as opposed to whatever TEO has become, slouching toward GC09 waiting to be born?

#65 So sorry to hear that you felt you had to leave Mugsie 1 - that is the tragedy in all this.

Prayers for your growth in your new church.

God bless.

#80, I’m not sorry I had to leave. It’s been a very big time of growth for me since I left. I was a cradle Anglican, which was why it was so hard to leave, even though I knew I needed to. Now that I’ve actually left, things are much clearer for me. I know I’ll spend the rest of my life discerning what God is telling me in his Word, but at least, by leaving, I’ve been able to see the fruitless methods of Anglicanism for what they really are. That’s why I see this whole “forum” idea for the “nonsense” it truly is. It’s such a total waste of time and money. NOT what God would want us to do with HIS resources, I’m sure. He gave us His Word for correction, guidance, and more.
Zephaniah 3:2
She has not obeyed His voice, She has not received correction; She has not trusted in the LORD, She has not drawn near to her God. (Think of TEC here)

2 Timothy 3:15-17
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (This is wise counsel for all of us.)

All these Scriptures speak to me:
# Proverbs 3:11
My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor detest His correction;

# Proverbs 5:12
And say: “ How I have hated instruction, And my heart despised correction!

# Proverbs 7:22
Immediately he went after her, as an ox goes to the slaughter, Or as a fool to the correction of the stocks,

# Proverbs 10:17
He who keeps instruction is in the way of life, But he who refuses correction goes astray.

# Proverbs 12:1
Whoever loves instruction loves knowledge,But he who hates correction is stupid.

# Proverbs 13:18
Poverty and shame will come to him who disdains correction, But he who regards a rebuke will be honored.

# Proverbs 15:5
A fool despises his father’s instruction, But he who receives correction is prudent.

# Proverbs 15:10
Harsh discipline is for him who forsakes the way, And he who hates correction will die.

# Proverbs 16:22
Understanding is a wellspring of life to him who has it. But the correction of fools is folly.

From the Anglican journal in Canada:

Bishop Michael Ingham, whose diocese – New Westminster –voted to allow same-sex blessings in 2002, reacted strongly to the WCG’s proposals, describing it as “an old-world institutional response to a new-world reality in which people are being set free from hatred and violence.”

In a statement, Bishop Ingham called the WCG document – copies of which were distributed to bishops for discussion – “punitive in tone, setting out penalties and the like, instead of inviting us into deeper communion with one another through mutual understanding in the body of Christ.” He added that the suggestion of a pastoral forum “institutionalizes external incursions into the life of our churches.”

Bishop Ingham also questioned why the Windsor Report was being regarded “as an agreed benchmark from which it is assumed we can move forward. It is not so.”

From Jim Naughton:

Meanwhile, I just ran into Bishop Martin Barahona, the primate of Central America in the café downstairs. I asked him his impressions of this afternoon’s hearings. “The Windsor Report,” he said. “It’s just a report. When did it become like The Bible. The Covenant. Why do we need another covenant? We have the Baptismal Covenant. We have the creeds. What else do we need?”

If the Windsor Report was no big deal then why is there a Windsor Continuation group giving you a report Bishop?
Hilarious.

I’ve been thinking through the preliminary proposal in light of Sarah Hey’s advice (on another thread) that it would be tactically judicious for GAFCON to endorse the “holding” pattern by a Pastoral Forum; then they would be able to help shape it and coordinate it with their own Primates’ Council.  I did not at all like the plan initially, but I am changing my mind.  Couldn’t this “holding” group form the nucleus of a new province in America?  Of course, TEC would never live up to the proposed moratoria.

I say let Schori move on with her plans for her own communion- isn’t it nice how she advertises all these different countries TEC is in- and then yells and screams when we want to align with an orthodox province elsewhere who actually believes in our Lord and Saviour like we do?

Let her go and be done with it.  And let the revisionists in Canada and England go to- and let’s get back to God’s work.

This safe place stuff worked out soooooo well for the traditionalists in the CoE….NOT!  Color me jaded and skeptical.  I’ll just go ahead and put my trust in the Risen Christ and let the chips fall where they may.

BigTex AC

I imagine ++Ingham is annoyed because thot he would be getting in and out of Lambeth utterly scot-free.

He didn’t mention that if +New Westminster or the ACoC were to be suspended from communion with the AC and CoE because of his SSB actions it would be a significant blow to his diocese’s chances in the forthcoming B.C. litigation.

#82, ironically, what Bishop Martin Barahona said touches on a very important truth, but he surely doesn’t realize it.

When did it become like The Bible. The Covenant. Why do we need another covenant?

“When did it become like the Bible?” Good question. When did ANYTHING become like the Bible?

“Why do we need another covenant?” Another good question. We already have a covenant with Jesus; the New Testament. Why do we need another one?

Maybe if he really reflected on his OWN words here, Bishop Martin Barahona might realize a few things.

My view is this-forget about the orthodox for just a moment, and look at this proposal as one that TEC will NEVER accept. NEVER. They are not going back. On Tuesday, on paper, TEC will accept mortoria, on Wednesday, in real life, TEC will reject it. Schori’s word is no good. TEC cannot be trusted.
The consequences for TEC? Up for implementation.
Consequences for the orthodox? More persecution.

#81 Mugsie1, thanks for sharing a truth I found long ago, that getting away from the apostasy enables a faith awakening and a clarifying view of hapless Anglicanism.  Blessing to you in finding the Way, now that you have escaped the “new thing”.

Listen to Mugsie1.  Just get out.

The impossibility of a federation like CCP becoming a province, which you seem to believe, is not accepted by CCP members or, (I predict) the GAFCON fellowship’s Primate Council.

Of course, GAFCON can do whatever they please, so if they want to call a goose and duck, I guess that is their prerogative.  It doesn’t change the fact that the goose remains a goose, or, in this case, a federation will remain a federation and therefore never truly a province. 

And, for the record, I never said that CCP could never become a province, but rather it could not become a province UNTIL the conflicting interests of all the jurisdictions/provinces involved are resolved.

#89, Long Gone Anglo Catholic, bless your heart. Blessings to you in finding your way too. There is only one WAY, and I pray we will both find it.

from Anglican Journal in Canada:

In a statement, Bishop Ingham called the WCG document – copies of which were distributed to bishops for discussion – “punitive in tone, setting out penalties and the like, instead of inviting us into deeper communion with one another through mutual understanding in the body of Christ.”

I suspect that, though +Ingham is in the institution known as the Anglican Church of Canada, he may want to consider prayerfully whether he is in the same body of Christ of which the blood-washed, submitted to Jesus and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of Scripture worshippers I know are a part.  His many public statements and actions over the last 5 years leave me no doubt that he and I share no mutual understanding of any kind, no matter what verbal tent he may try to put up over the both of us.

So if tec repents and wants back into PECUSA then they can rejoin the parent body? Now who is going to be the presiding bishop of PECUSA while tec is in a safe place and working to rejoin the parent body?

And maybe Michael Ingham could actually explain what he means by this:

...instead of inviting us into deeper communion with one another through mutual understanding in the body of Christ.”

“deeper communion” means letting Michael Ingham set all the rules?  Does Michael Ingham even know what “communion” is?  I think Ingham seems to think it is a communal pot-smoke instead of mutually accountable relationships.

Ingham is ticked off because his ridiculous assertion that he had complied with Windsor was shown to be a farce (i.e. that he had complied with the moratorium requirement by not extending SSB permissions beyond the churches currently doing them); and because he would be forced to back down on his Pet Issue or risk losing his Anglican status.

Only in the Anglican Communion is intervention a bad word.

This plan is DOA as far as I am concerned.  Come on folks, do the math…

“there have been calls for moratoria with regard to blessings of same sex relationships, consecration of non-celibate homosexuals and the extra-jurisdictional interventions. And we renew these calls”

That must be the most dysfunctional statement I have ever heard!  It’s nothing more than a permissive parent pleading for the 50th time…  Good Grief!  TEC WILL NEVER GO BACK! Words Words Words!  Talk Talk Talk!  When are you going to actually DO something! (Oh I forgot, Anglican’s don’t!)

And then this:  “The swift formation of a pastoral Forum. Something like this has been called for by the Windsor Commission, the Primates at Dromantine, and at Dar Es Salaam and we have called for this forum to be appointed by the ABC with a bishop as the chairman working closely with the ABC and the membership which represents the breadth of communion in terns of geography and view.”

Now that’s just rich!  But excuse me!!!  We have already had one of these.  They did nothing!  Ask anyone from Connecticut just how much they were helped by such a commission! Oh what a trap this is!

And then this ludicrous statement, “we are proposing is a kind of safe place into which these diocese and parishes can come”.  HELLO!  Why would anyone who has already left wasn’t to come back under the yoke of TEC in any form whatsoever.  Please don’t insult my intelligence!  Furthermore, this so called “safe place” would not provide any safety for the orthodox still in TEC! 

I don’t need to wait for any final version to come out.  This plan is totally DOA and if our conservative leadership falls for this load of @#$% then I will be out of any and all forms of Anglicanism before the dust has time to settle as I shake it off my sandals.

Muggsie, It looks like I am going to be joining you very soon…

I think they have lost sight of the fact that they are talking about free Christians, not church employees, when they prepose the following:

“a kind of safe place into which these diocese and parishes can come which will not be dependent upon primates or others in other provinces, but they will be held in a sort of holding bay, a safe place that will have a link to that pastoral Forum we spoke of and they can hold there in trust until the day when through dialog they can return to their parent bodies.

It would be a good business model IF congregations were employees but they are not, they do not have to follow their companies demands in order to receive a salary, in fact congregations pay for the salaries and they probably would not want to continue to contribute to an organization that would herd them into a “holding bay”, a so-called “safe place” and remove Bishops that they trust.

This is just a means to seperate American congregations from reaffiliating under the Southern Cone, to stem the tide. They do not respect our legitimate concern. It’s an attempt to provide a pretence of dealing with TEC apostacy, but in reality they place the blame on GAFCon, and wish to put lock us up “for our own good”.

The more I think about this, the less I like it. It’s not an honest, sincere attempt at addressing our very legitimate grievances. If Williams expects us to take him seriously, he’s delusional. We didn’t just fall off the turnip truck.

The thing they are not seeing is that people like me are leaving, and not going to other Anglican jurisdictions.  After a long spell of visiting the MS Lutherans, I’m visiting the Baptists (and the Lambeth debacle is making them look more attractive by the day.)  They don’t understand, that as many other posters have noted, the “gay thing” is a symptom and not the disease.  Stopping gay blessings will not get TEC a Presiding Bishop who is an honest person and a real Christian.
I try to think of what it would take to bring me back into the fold, and at this point, I don’t know what it would be. And I suspect I am only one of many.

Lambeth-Dublin Conference 2018 Press Release:  We propose that a study group be formed to try and identify why TEC has refused ten times to accept our moratoriums.  We will give this new study group approximately a year to provide us with a comprehensive statement as to what the apparently insolvable issues are.  Upon reflective study and mediation, a pastoral group will be formed in cohort with a world famous organizational development consulting management firm that will meet with TEC at their headquarters in San Francisco for a team building exercise.  The team building exercise will allow the leaders of TEC to develop insight into their problems and provide a mechanism for them to develop and implement solutions.  We expect these process to be completed within the next 3-5 years.

As a side note, many of you have commented that the moved from England to Dublin for our periodic conference due to Islamic law being implement in England has not been a bad thing all in all ... for one, we no longer have to drink warm beer.

The Right Rev. Rich

If Michael Ingham/ KJS/ all those who run the ACO/ try to sell any plan they like to any faithful Anglican Christians in the US or Canada, it is the spider speaking to the fly to “come on in and trust me.”  This is something we have learned by experience over the last several years, painful and sad as it has been.

Those of us in the CCP will more than likely just choose to follow Jesus, with God’s help, as we have been doing,  through our faithful GS leaders who love Him with their whole hearts, souls and minds.

Ann McCarthy (all the way up in #7) you have it exactly right

Just to continue on this line, from here:

Archbishop Handford was also questioned about the wording of the report, which calls for a moratorium on the “public Rites of Blessing of same-sex unions” and private rites.

“One cannot legislate what happens in an individual parish,” he said.

Schori has made it clear same sex blessings are a priority to her- it is borderline ludicrous to think she would change that position- don’t they realize even if she signs her name to an agreement the signature is worthless?  Pretty apparent to me she is simply building her own communion- let her go and stand up for those of us who stand for Jesus Christ- it is so plain that the laity need to be leading some of our Clergy back to Christ at this point- thankfully, I am not in that camp as I stand beside my faithful clergy united in our Faith.

a federation will remain a federation and therefore never truly a province

There are currently three fully recognized provinces in the Anglican Communion that began as federations: the Church of South India, the Church of North India and the Church of Pakistan.  All were the result of a federation of Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational churches that came together and agreed to operate under the guidelines set forth in the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral, with each group retaining many of its own distinctive practices and liturgies. 

Here’s how it happened. In 1919, talks began in southern India with the goal of uniting Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian, Congregational and Anglican churches.  Full union was acheived in 1947 and additional Baptist and Pentecostal churches joined the union in the 1990’s.  The federation that would become the Church of North India began in 1951 and achieved full structural unity in 1970. The Church of Pakisatn was formed in 1971 and is the only Anglican province that is also a member church of the World Methodist Council.  Their moderators and bishops are recognized as fully Anglican and are presently in Lambeth participating in the indaba groups.

The language quoted as in the title, “they will be held in a sort of holding bay, a safe place”—I think that’s a lot like what my mother said to me about things that were being taken away from me, never to be seen again….

I agree that too much oughtn’t be read into this until the Main Players have a chance to sound off.  I also agree that it looks like more layers of process and that some important issues are not being dealt with (especially a clear statement that border crossings are a response to apostasy and not a power grab.  However, as compared to some of the previous statements we’ve seen, the level of concern about the future of the Communion in the suggestions seems higher—rather than talking about broken relationships within the Communion it seems to acknowledge that the unity of the AC is now at stake.

Note: Main post updated with the rest of Matt’s live-blog. Sorry - it got lost in the shuffle this morning.

There are currently three fully recognized provinces in the Anglican Communion that began as federations: the Church of South India, the Church of North India and the Church of Pakistan.  All were the result of a federation of Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational churches that came together and agreed to operate under the guidelines set forth in the Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral, with each group retaining many of its own distinctive practices and liturgies.

...Which only serves to prove my point.  None of these federations were recognized as provinces until full union was achieved within each of them.  I never said that CCP would/could never become a province.  But to call the CCP a “province” while each partner retains its own primatial head, canons, and ordination integrities, is to run roughshod over catholic ecclesiology.

This proposal does nothing to remove the revisionists from leadership and power in the church or in the offices of Canterbury-centered communion but leaves them in places where they can continue to promulgate their toxic heresies and affect eternal human souls in Jesus’ Holy Name. 

It is not a solution that will heal the church spiritually, but will keep it bogged down in sin, sludge and conflict and compromise forever.

I am disturbed and disappointed that anyone would trust they would find safety under Williams and Canterbury.

I hope the memory of the GAFCON meeting remains with those who were there.

Did it bother anyone that the presiding bishop of TEC was quoted as being primate of a church that included Nicaragua, when Nicaragua is part of the IARCA, the Anglican Church in the Central Region of America?
Rudy+

I tried to post this earlier but it may not have gone through.

“We recommend that the Pastoral Forum develop a scheme in which existing ad hoc jurisdictions could be held “in trust” in preparation for their reconciliation within their proper Provinces.”

The issue is truly one of trust. Those who have rejected the authority of General Convention and sought membership in another Anglican province have lost trust in General Convention and its leaders. Trust once lost is hard to regain.

One biblical model may be St. Paul’s advice to the Corinthians about eating meat sacrificed to idols. The General Convention, its leaders, and others in the Episcopal Church are free to say that they believe in full inclusion, but for the sake of the communion fellowship they agree to refrain from ordaining people in same-sex relationships and from asking God’s blessing on these relationships.

The leaders of General Convention can take some positive steps, and I suggest that such a statement is one of these. There are some others, and other people may want to add to this list.

(1) Drop the lawsuits.  Communion fellowship (koinonia) is more important than property.

(2) Rescind the depositions for abandonment of communion and issue letters dimissory to other provinces when these are requested. See the presence of clergy of many provinces as an opportunity to celebrate our interdependence in koinonia.

(3) Invite all clergy of all Anglican provinces and representatives of congregations of foreign provinces physically located in the area served by an Episcopal diocese to have seat and voice in Episcopal diocesan conventions. Include clergy in clergy meetings, the Church Pension Fund, diocesan medical programs, and any other benefits available to any other clergy in the diocese. Let each bishop with any such clergy resident in the diocese make an effort to know these clergy and listen to them.

(4) Be ready to negotiate honestly and openly with congregations seeking a priest. Concern about maintaining traditional parish standards in times of transition is a big issue, particularly when the sentiment of the parish – or part of it – is different from that of the bishop or the majority of the diocese. .

(5) Recognize that the Windsor proposal is a “both and.” So long as the Episcopal Church refrains from ordaining people in same-sex relationships and asking God’s blessing on them it can ask other provinces of the communion to refrain from beginning new ministries in the area served by Episcopal dioceses. But restoring trust will take a long time.

It can be done, but it will not be easy or quick.

Tom Rightmyer in Asheville, NC

Tom Rightmyer,

Neither the WCG proposals nor yours will remove the revisionists and agendites from positions of power and influence in pulpits, dioceses and seminaries.

What do you propose to do about that?  Can you continue in communion and organizational association with them?

I am very encouraged by the tone of most of the posts here.  Sometimes I worry that our blood cynicism level may become dangerously low due to exhaustion.

A couple of them opined that “it could work.”  Yes, indeed, the Windsor Report’s recommendations—which, by the way, included TEC absenting itself from Communion affairs for a while, something not mentioned by the WCG—could have worked.  The Panel of Reference could have worked.  Dar es Salaam could have worked.  Withholding of Lambeth invitations, even at this late juncture, could have worked.  And we see where we are.  “Could work” and a quarter of a mil may pay your lawyer’s retainer.

Another claimed that TEC would never accept the moratorium on consecrating homosexuals.  Please!  Read the official statements; TEC hasn’t consecrated any since Gene and certainly won’t (until GC09), and of course nowhere do we find “bishops officially authorizing” “public blessings of same-sex unions”—just ask +JJB.

Look carefully at the response of +Hanford to the question about a “safe place” for gays.  We all know that the right answer to that is on the order of, “Well, I’m not aware of any reports of gays being set upon by Evangelicals and beaten to a pulp with Study Bibles, or being severely injured by Anglo-Caths swinging their vicious thuribles, but of course if there is any of this going on it must stop immediately.  If, on the other hand, what you mean is that the Church refuses to cuddle you and tell you your sinful behavior is quite all right and you should indulge in it a dozen times before breakfast, I’m afraid you’ve come to the wrong place looking for ‘safety’.”

But no; +Hanford’s answer is again typical wooly Anglican rhetoric trying to please everyone.  It is simply too damn late in the day for any more of that.

I had some reservations at first, but every day of Lambeth is increasing my enthusiasm for GAFCon.

So, Mugsie #65,78 - where did you go?

I can’t find any references in any Lambeth documents to what Hanford mentions:

“I would say that on page 3 we did under those bullet points: ... we call for all bishops to work with their governments for the decriminalization of any homosexuality…”

What is he talking about re: decriminalization?

Three words: dead on arrival.

-Jim+

A friend of mine just mentioned that “holding places (or pens) are where cattle, sheep and hogs are held just before they are slaughtered..

Just say’n

Grannie G

#114, I haven’t officially joined any church yet since I left Anglicanism. I have been visiting various churches to check them out. In the meantime I’ve been doing a lot of deep study of Scriptures without letting any particular denomination influence me. I’ve looked at the doctrinal beliefs of several mainline denominations. My deepest belief is that the church that Jesus built is not affiliated with any of these totally conflicting denominations. I can’t believe that he would call a church His when there is so much conflict in what is believed to be true. Time will tell me where I’m supposed to go. For now, I’m just certain that God wanted me out of Anglicanism. Watching the goings on from the outside has really unclouded my view of how messy and STUPID things truly are. There’s no way any of that is of God.

Note that the reflections document is online here

Depressing reading how little of substance has been accomplished at least in terms of a final report.

I wondered about that mention of decriminalization.. all I could wonder was whether it was a slap in the face of the Sudanese, demanding that they divert their time from dealing with real atrocities like genocide, hunger and privation, to work instead for homosexual issues.

Observing - was there really much hope that this convoluted process was going to produce a document of any substance or value?

Of course, this can work! Here’s a radical interpretation. (If KJS can wreck parables of Jesus, let’s see what one can do for this document.)
1. Lambeth 1:10 still stands unaltered. However, actions speak louder than words. Let have some actions.
2. All self-avowed, practicing, and unrepentant sinners (including homosexuals) in Holy Orders or positions of lay leadership will be advised to resign. If they do not, they will be summarily removed from office by appropriate due process.
3. Henceforth, no more self-avowed, practicing, and unrepentant sinners (including homosexuals) will be admitted to Holy Orders, or lay leadership. The Bishop of Rome can advise us on how he is bringing this about in the Roman seminaries.
4. There will be no public or private SSB’s or SS “marriages” conducted by anyone in Holy Orders, or on church property. Those who do so will be removed from office.
5. Working with Common Cause and GAFCON, the Anglican Communion will form a separate (and temporary) North American province to shelter and support the orthodox from malevolent bishops (including the current PB of TEC) until 1-4 have been accomplished and those bishops have retired. Then, the African and Southern Cone bishops who have stepped forward will no longer be needed.
6. Those who consecrated VGR, those who have knowingly ordained self-avowed, practicing, and unrepentant sinners (including homosexuals) to Holy Orders, and those who have performed SSBs in private or public will sign letters of recantation, resign, retire, repent.
7. The provinces of the Anglican Communion, including Canada and TEC, will develop and implement ex-gay ministries, making them available to those whom the Holy Spirit would lead to question the decisions that they have made. Pressure groups such as Integrity will be ignored.
8. Anglican theology will be based on Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Ad fontes. That which has been believed by all, in all places, in all times.
9. The biggest controversies at the next Lambeth will be over whether there should be “elevations” at the Eucharist, and whether Prinknash “Basilica” incense is too strong for parish use.
10. Anyone who disagrees with the above can go form their own little play church, pretending that there is universal salvation, cheap grace and that the Bible is antequated historical drivel.

Pretty durned radical, I guess. Won’t happen overnight, will it?

I don’t see ‘decriminalization’ in the ‘Reflections Document.’
Thanks be to God that Rowan Williams wasn’t in charge of any of the Ecumenical Councils.

I don’t get it; who goes into the holding tank, TEC or the orthodox?  Seems to me it is TEC that should be put in Time Out.

But then I’m just a teacher and tend to think in elementary terms.

#121 - No, I guess not. But statements like this:

  There is concern caused by intervention across provinces, by impaired communion and by a perceived lack of restraint and self-limitation.

Show the direction the final report is taking. {Interventions are described as completely wrong, but TEC’s actions are merely perceived to be wrong! }

“1. Faithful to gospel” 

Faithful to what gospel?

122 Ralph:  A WHOPPING BINGO!  You nailed it!

Ralph for AbC.  Ralph for AbC.  Ralph for Abc.

This definitely is Dead on Arrival…

Everyone seems to be missing the point that we are not just talking about rolling things back 5 years.  The Common Cause Partnership has now brought together groups who have been estranged from TEC for close to 30 years.  I do not see that alliance being abandoned to more empty promises.

The Panel of Reference was supposed to be implemented with urgency.  If this is implemented with the same urgency, we won’t see anything for a year or more, and then only some token action.

I don’t see any potential for reconciliation through this proposal.  The lines of trust are broken, and cannot be repaired by more hollow promises.

So many words, so little reality.
In North America there are two distinct communities that deem themselves Anglican.  One is growing under the leadership of those who value the word of God; one is dying as they follow a false gospel. 

Be in a holding pen until TEC says the malcontents are happy?  Been there, done that, got sued.

RALPH ROCKS

Now that’s the kind of clarity I can get behind….

Sigh… This present radical movement is like all others throughout the ages. It will do its (extensive) damage to the Body of Christ, flame out, and go down in the history books for subsequent generations to study, as they make the same mistakes all over again.

If only the sequence of Common Cause (which I think has brought in the Reformed EC, which splintered off about 100 years ago), GAFCON, and Lambeth could go down in history as the beginning of a New Great Awakening, beginning in Anglicanism and spreading throughout Christianity. The faithful, orthodox bishops at Lambeth have the “authority and power” to launch a New Great Awakening, firing the shot heard around the world. We shall see whether they will use it or not. I lament the fact that so many stayed away, but I know they felt that they needed to do so. Hopefully that mass statement won’t go unheard this week.

Each “side” of this whole mess has angered the other to the point that there’s a black and white dichotomy (more accurately, a forced choice between the Light and eternal darkness). At the Lambeth level, I don’t see a Via Media any more. I don’t know how any human could defuse things at this point, with each side being so durned stubborn, and with so many being away. Yet, I know that God is somehow present and active in all this, and that somehow the sun will rise tomorrow, even in England.

#128, Ralphie isn’t one for beards, pointy hats, and tea with Her Majesty. Or, for that matter, preaching at St. Martin’s.

Here’s a golden oldie… wasn’t that long ago that we passed a “safe place” (holding area? escrow?) resolution here in South Dakota.  Greg Griffith was kind enough to archive our Bishop’s response:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1719

OK, so it seems we are all in agreement this won’t fly.

So, I suggest the next step is for orthodox leaders present at Lambeth to ban together and simply walk out in unison and hold an immediate press conference that they have lost confidence in Rowan’s leadership, and therefore will be looking toward realigning with those at GAFCON.

Let’s see now…  Joseph of Arimathea is celebrated on 7/31 (as nice a day for schism as any) so it might be nice if we give up our tombs and bury the deadness of Anglicanism in it on that day and then go to the Jerusalem statement and wait for the Holy Spirit to come in power upon all the assembled in Jerusalem at GAFCON.  Hmmmm…  Has a nice ring to it.

The whole program turned sharply from focus on the theological issues involved in the covenant to the WCG document that is deals with political organizational structures.

Why?

Is this a switch to Plan B - devised by the Western Provinces because they are unwilling to alter their position on sex and theology, but still want to keep their power, positions and properties?

Would the adoption of this document provide some legal framework and advantage for TEC, ACoC (and now CoE) to prevent parishes and dioceses (and property) from leaving?

Is this an attempt to stop the orthodox from setting up the Primates Council as an alternate orthodox governance and authority structure? 

Do they really believe they have any trust or credibility collateral left?

If there was any doubt at all, there is no longer.  GAFCON and GAFCON alone is the miracle God has given to all faithful Anglican Christians as a way forward united in Christ.  Thank You Dear Lord for this wonderful gift You have given to us and all of the faithful leaders through whom You worked to accomplish Your will.  Have mercy on those leaders at Lambeth who do not exhibit the fruit borne of hearts given over to faith in Your Son and lead them out of the darkness that has engulfed them.

  We are working on a time scale that leads up to the ACC meeting in May of next year

We hope it is established speedily and that [the forum] can respond speedily.

So the “speedy” establishment of this forum will be focused on an ACC meeting 10 months from now. And right before GC2009 as well.  Are they kidding?  By the time they get around to actually discussing the form of discussion required to discuss implementation of the committee to discuss the implementation of the forum, TEC will have already capped this proposal at GC2009.  The facts on the ground will already be established.  Why don’t they just shoot this plan in the head right now?  The same outcome will be achieved with less pain and less expense.

carl

The word held, as at gun point, against their will, and so on. Come on, it’s more of the same old crap. Despite ++Williams willingness to believe TEC has agreed to the various questions asked of them indicates he lacks ears to hear and eyes to see or God forbid, he lies. If real action isn’t taken the Communion is finished. The bishops who are absent represent Anglicans who actually actively attend church number 44 million vrs those bishops at Lambeth represent 4 million who actively attend.  Based on this comparison the real Anglican Church met at GAFCON, and Lambeth is irrelevant.

Handford: There is one set of observations divined into 3 parts. We will now as a group take on what we have heard as the response; those things that we have heard from the floor and written observations that have been put to us plus whatever we have heard as conversations. We take them all to the net stage. We are working on a time scale that leads up to the ACC meeting in May of next year

So nothing whatever pertaining to this plan will be valid before May of next year, and what shape the plan will have in the intervening months is unclear.

Meanwhile:  Conservatives need to establish facts on the ground.  That’s the tactic the liberals have been using to great effect for forty years.  Get your diocese into Common Cause.  If you’re still in TEC, work within your diocese and within your parish to get it affiliated in some way with Common Cause and GAFCON.  jamesw is right.  The GAFCON Primates need to respond positively to this proposal.  Getting conservatives organized under a single umbrella to the extent possible can be represented as working towards making this Forum thing effective.  Of course it is extremely unlikely that the American and Canadian church bodies will ever agree to stop the same-sex blessings.  The “provisional holding place” gradually becomes the Province as it becomes more and more clear that TEC won’t play ball.

None of this means that many of you won’t lose your parish properties as the TEC litigation offensive accelerates.  This is unfortunate.  Facts have to be faced.  Put up new buildings that are more energy-efficient and send the savings to the Africans.

I want to reflect on the two forms of organization we’re presented with.  One, the GAFCON Archbishops’ Council, looks at lot like the traditional Christian church through the ages.  Bishops are called to be the shepherds of the faithful.  The other, endless committee meetings and proposals which go to “representative” legislative groups, is deliberately copied from the secular world.  TEC bishops repeatedly hide behind the fig leaf of General Convention approval.  Are they Christian bishops or are they mice?

Even in model #1, the ancient bishop-led model, the laity hold the final say despite what looks like a non-representative structure.  We no longer have kings or emperors to enforce Church decrees (or to demand them).  Today we are a lot closer to the original.  The laity know Jesus.  They know who He is and what He teaches.  If the Primates’ Council steps away from the faith, the laity won’t support it.

“As the Bishop of Nevada, Bishop Schori authorized same sex blessings in her own diocese - she approves of same sex blessings and by her actions of “being left undone” shows that in practice the Episcopal Church, in the office of the Primate (a term that before the current Presiding Bishop was never used), authorizes same sex blessings.

As a friend recently said, “remember half the truth masquerading as the whole truth is an untruth.” Case in point, here’s the “has never happened in my diocese with my permission” video where the Bishop of Los Angeles is confronted, after making this statement at the press conference, that a same sex blessing had occurred over the weekend at at a premier Episcopal Church in Beverly Hills.”
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2008/07/2003-general-convention-authorizes.html

And the Lambeth conference really thinks this fourth time of calling for compliance will really come to some different end?  Are there still Bishops in our Church really that naive?  Come on now….

Someone please tell me what the value is (other than $) of the Episcopal Church to the wider Anglican Communion?  A new Anglican Province full of missional Anglicans, unencumbered by unitarians dressed up like Catholics (to borrow Phil’s fine phrase), will have 800,000 ASA in no time, which is what the Episcopal Church is down to in regular attenders (and 300,000 of those are in Network parishes or Dioceses, which are the people most likely to attend church once a week).  Why can’t we just leave the Episcopal Church to Schori’s pathetic “global” communionito and get on with it?

Katherine, Post 140,
It seems to me that many individual Episcopalians are trying to keep their personal religion pure by insulating themselves from political pressure and relying on the Book of Common Prayer and the Holy Eucharist to guide them, so I don’t think they would respond well to the kind of tactics that the Revisionists use. It seems to me that the important thing for conservatives to do is to support the Common Cause Partners and Gafcon in the hope that they will succeed in planting churches, because when faithful people in TEC really notice and react to the pressure that TEC seems determined to exert, they will look for traditional churches which proclaim the Christian Faith as it has been handed down to us.