Baby Blue:  The Rising Of The Perfect Storm

This is an excellent analysis.

I recommend that we honor BabyBlue’s scholarship by taking the discussion to her website and let the discussion roll there.

Hit the “Read it all at the Cafe” link above and post away.

They will do what they have always done—agree to anything and just go on doing what they want to, and who’s to stop them?  Seems some people never catch on—Charlie Brown kicking the football.  SShhhheeeesh!!

I don’t think we in the Church of England are in the least bit interested in bossing anybody about but suspect that like much of the rest of the Commmunion we are fed up to the back teeth with the histrionics from the US church.

Not sure what we have done to upset BabyBlue?

So the ABC has no cannonical authority over TEC bishops?
They are each free to do their own thing?  Then why is Shori suing them? She has no authority over anyone but herself, and she has no diocese to preside over and ruin.
Is Her Squidness using the negative (for TEC) outcome of the Lambeth indaba as an excuse to justify leaving thw Anglican communion and starting the TEC communion living under shoria law?  I’m an amateur blogger so I can’t head over to the Cafe to post away (I don’t know how?). Maybe someone else can copy and paste this for me.
Dumb Sheep.

Some complex thoughts here, and some interesting insights.  My American independent streak objects to being quantified and generalized however, she does have a point.  Culture is playing a role here, one that few of us will realize or fully comprehend before the end of the story is printed in history books for our children.  Stephen Colbert noted how ironic it is that we Anglicans who have rejected the centralized authority of the Pope, want—but would be terrified if it were actually to happen—the ABC to act paternally in this matter… as the Pope would.  I wonder if the Eastern Orthodox Churches have these problems and how they handle them if they do.  Perhaps we need to create something new.  I don’t mean like shedding an old skin, but to be deliberate and purposeful about how we connect ourselves together.  One thing is becoming clearer by the day:  by the time all of this is resolved, nothing and none of us will be the same.  I still have hope for reconciliation and unity, but it will not look like what we have had.  Our innocent trust will never return.  It will be something new.  I pray that as we walk through the coming darkness of the unknown that we will hold fast to one another and to Christ rather than letting fear lead us.  For, if we let fear lead, we will surely stumble and fall.  The analogy is simple; living it is not.

Hmmm.

I enjoyed reading the piece.  And it’s an interesting analysis, although one that I just don’t buy.

One of the many things I think is off is that I think RW is really toying with the idea of granting access directly to dioceses.

I think that’s his trump card for when TEC rejects the Covenant as a Province, and I think that’s why he so emphasizes the “Communion Partners” group . . .

And my sense is that RW was on the verge of going with that publicly at the Lambeth Conference . . . but he didn’t want to spook TEC away from “signing on as a Province” . . .

But I’ve been wrong before, so we’ll see.

Now—whether I’m right or wrong about that, though, I particularly don’t think that the TEC non-leaving bishops are remotely feeling trapped or anxious about the Covenant being left up to the Province to sign. 

Nor do I think there is any sort of envy or anxiety about somehow those who have left the AC having “more direct access” than those on the inside.  Quite honestly, I don’t think that ComCons give that a second thought, or even a first.  I’m not the standard, but I certainly don’t give it a thought.  I think that—for what those who have left TEC want—those outside of TEC have got what they want or will get it.  But it’s not what I want—not by a long shot.  So I have no desire to have whatever it is that is called “more direct access”—nor do I think that that “more direct access” actually exists.  But whatever it is, or whatever it’s called—I simply don’t want much of what the CCP folks seem to want.  And I do want much of what the CCP increasingly seems to not want. 

And I think in *that* small respect, I’m pretty much a normal “ComCon”.

Finally, as I’ve said for some time now, I just don’t buy the whole colonial/bigotry/classism analysis or grid for seeing the Communion conflict.  Heaven knows that if the good old COE were in the forefront of heresy fighting and Uganda or the Middle East were veering off towards paganism, I’d be right with the good old COE.  I think that—like Marxism—the CBC analysis blurs the real picture and takes people off-argument.

But again, I could be wrong and we’ll see, hopefully, if we live long enough.

Sarah ....
isn’t this on the wrong thread? 
Susan

Sarah, what’s a “comcon”?  And, what do you think the CCP folks want and don’t want?  I need some background before I can understand your post.

As to #7’s question, a Comcon is a Communion Conservative, for which Sarah undoubtedly has her own definition.

Here is an excerpt from my draft dictionary that may be of some use:
COMMUNION CONSERVATIVE. Meaning: (1) A 21st century orthodox Anglican, especially in North America, who is committed to working for reformation within the Anglican Communion, that is, in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other instruments of Anglican unity. [Wire] (2) Within the Episcopal Church, one of “those who are conservative on sexual ethics but have a high regard for the ecclesiology and the recommendations of the Windsor Report” and therefore “are keen to hold to the concept of Communion.” [Kings, 6/2006] Acronym: ComCon. Synonyms: (1) Institutionalist. (2) Corporatist.

My #9 should have stated it was in response to #8’s question. Note: The reference of “Kings, 6/2006” is to: Graham Kings. “Shechem, Corinth, and Columbus: ECUSA’s Choices.” Fulcrum Newsletter, June 2006. Posted at http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2006/newsletter08.cfm?doc=114.

There is a lot to digest in this essay, and so I do have a few questions.  Baby Blue explains that, contrary to his letter to +Howe, the ABC is making a move to relate directly to primates rather than diocesan bishops:

The orthodox that have separated indeed have a direct line to Canterbury (much to the Presiding Bishop’s consternation) through the primates offering them sanctuary.

This is a bizarre place to be. So, +Minns does NOT have a direct line of contact with the ABC (being that he was not invited to Lambeth), but those under +Minns’ care DO have a direct line to Lambeth, because they are under Akinola?

Baby Blue also writes:

It seems clear that the historic episcopate of all the bishops (and the over-abundance of American ones) can no longer be the tie that binds us all together. This has caused many to flee to Rome.

I do not see how people are fleeing to Rome because they do NOT elevate the ties of the historic episcopate.

Finally, Baby Blue uses the metaphor of a perfect storm to describe what is going on in the Anglican Communion.  Would this were so.  Storms have a way of pruning trees and washing away debris. Storms can actually CHANGE something.  I think there is a possibility that what we have here is not a perfect storm, but a prolonged whimper.

Nothing much happens with those.

#5 - reconcilation occurs through repentance and forgiveness.  I believe that if TEC were to repent they would be forgiven…but so far no repentance, despite repeated requests to do so.