Interesting Discussions Going On Over at Fulcrum & T19

Over at Fulcrum, Pluralist wrote:

It is that it is time for The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada to get out of the Communion. In this I’d go further and cleaner than Mark Harris.

I remain both mystified and fascinated by the reaction of the Left to the outcome of Lambeth.  To me, the outcome seems little more than RW pressing “rewind” and “play” on the tape recorder.  It’s the same basic scheme he has spent the past two years sabotaging lest it actually produce an outcome. RW may have said some things the Left didn’t like.  But RW has proven he will not act on those words.  So why would liberals throw aside the institutional advantages that they possess?  They could attrit the enemy into defeat simply by continuing to do doing what they have been doing - act and obfuscate.

And yet the sense of betrayal on the left is palpable.  It’s as if they suddenly discovered they had been treacherously denied their birthright. Perhaps their expectations were unreasonable.  Even so, I expect cooler heads to prevail.  It is not in TECs interest to leave the AC. It’s better to be present and influence the course of events.  The Russians learned that lesson the hard way, and TEC will not overlook the lesson.  KJS may bang a shoe on the table to make a point.  But I can not see her (to shift analogies) tipping over the King, and going home.  At least not yet.  She still has too many pieces in play, and too a strong position on the board.

carl

It is hard for me not to see this woe from the left as a bit of play acting. I’m sure that’s not true, but ... what on earth are they so upset about? They didn’t get everything they wanted yesterday and so will have to wait till later today?

I recommend reading all of Ephraim Radner’s post quoted above.

I wonder why there is nothing about the Virginia ruling at T-19? Seems like this is pretty darn important in establishing the notion of parish autonomy…

#3, Ralph Orchard, what has been decided only applies to Virginia. Much like what is done in Vegas stays in Vegas. To my knowledge the Virginia statue in question is unique to Virginia.

In my church no one is ever to blame.

#3 Virginia Anglican Churches Praise Fairfax Judge Ruling on Contracts Clause  Posted August 20, 2008 at 6:56 am.

I’m not sure why you missed it or how it applies to what Sarah is referencing on this thread, follow the link and your heart shall be content.

#4 & 5…thanks…don’t know how I missed it either…I think Sarah’s desciption of things buzzing is what caught my attention…and the law suits are part of the buzz and large part of the way TEO is negotiating these things…which is not to negotiate at all but to anialate.

I do think VA has an impact in that there are similarities in this and other cases, although not exact corollaries…an atmosphere of rulings for parish ownership is certainly important, and then an appeal and acceptance to neutral principles of law and not hierarchical systems is another precedent worth having established.

This is a much larger defeat for TEC than people really understand it to be…and the fact that their legal team is proving to be so inept is a hopeful signs for congregations in hostile dioceses as well.

And all of this plays into the tensions between different conservative perspectives…because it gives credibility to the rights of congregations, not just provinces.

#6 VA would be important if it were not statutory law, instead it really does not undo the blow a FL civil ruling has done. VA law also does not resolve the tension between conservative, for section “A” & “B” deal with both congregational and hierarchical systems (CANA certainly qualified under the hierarchical section to split, which EmilyH was so kind to highlight while she was trying to make another point). So the VA law is very comprehensive in that way.

HOWEVER I could see some of the arguments DioVA used could be VERY useful in cases of diocese separating from TEC.

Sarah,

You write “Some while back now, I pointed out in my analysis of Lambeth just how radical a turn the ABC had practiced for the “non-resolving” Lambeth Conference, and how seriously betrayed the national leaders of TEC must have felt in the final two days of the conference.” But how does one “turn” without action of some kind. As for the A of C, we know his words have so far meant very little, as he intended. Where is the evidence that the Episcopal organization is actually feeling “betrayed”?

... how seriously betrayed the national leaders of TEC must have felt in the final two days of the conference.

What? The issue of homosexuality entered the reception process at this Lambeth Conference. If anything, TEC must be happy, very happy, so happy in fact, that they’re greasing the rail with drool.

Graham Kings wrote:

“The Archbishop lucidly expressed the mind of the Lambeth Conference, drawing on the reflections from the indaba groups, and clearly articulated the central way forward, which is the continuation of the Windsor Process and the Covenant. On the two key subjects of sexual ethics and ecclesiology, he reiterated the vital importance of three moratoria: on the authorisation of same-sex blessings, on the consecration of bishops in same-sex unions and on cross provincial interventions.
These interventions by some conservative Primates from Africa and the Southern Cone of Latin America had been declared by them, from the beginning, to be ‘temporary’ until something officially was set up. Something official has now been announced and is being urgently set up - the Pastoral Forum,...”

With due respect, the “mind of the Lambeth Conference” as unilaterally divined by one instrument - the ABC - is not exactly a concrete and binding procedural step.  Nothing at all has been “officially” set up. 

In reading some pieces of commentary, I feel hopelessly immersed in Monty Python; where is the peasant who will say: “Well, but you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ‘cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!...I mean, if I went ‘round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!”

The AC is in procedural disarray due to the non-conciliar actions of the ABC.  In violation of accepted rules of order, the ABC subverted the deliberative act (DES) of the Primates Meeting to enforce a resolution of Lambeth Conf. 98, when the Lambeth Conf. had authorized the second instrument to do so. 

That is a procedural violation and a breech of trust.  Unilateral acts, unilateral proposals, and unilateral reports do not fix that.  What procedural weight should the LC, the PM, and the ACC give to a unilaterally appointed continuation group that reports to the ABC?  These proposals need to be ratified by the instruments of the communion to become official. 

That is, unless of course, there are “official” instruments (the ABC), and “unofficial” instruments (the others). 

Agree with Carl. If I were a revisionist I would be proceeding with barely concealed glee at the fact that nothing actually happened at Lambeth. This does not, and I am not quite as cynical as others on this point, mean that nothing will ever happen.

It does mean that the gears will be turning at least for the next 5-10 years and that as a revisionist, I have yet to be sanctioned and the longer I remain unsanctioned the greater staying power my innovations carry. My question would be, how many non-celibate homosexual bishops can we consecrate before the Pastoral Forum is up and running…but really the PF would not bother me much either as the most the Forum can do, it seems, is make recommendations to the other instruments who then have to Act. And since the most important of these is the ABC with his powers of invitation, I would again, not exactly be quaking.

A prayer for the GAFCON primates, written by Rick Harris.

The really interesting battle, of which we are only beginning to see the first whiff of shot, is going to be between those who consider themselves liberal (/inclusive/prophetic) first and Anglican second and those whose Anglican identity takes priority.

What changed at Lambeth is this - it’s not that there was a vote which the liberals lost. That they could always have ignored: they did in the past and they would have done again.

It’s that liberal bishops (mainly) from the American churches came face to face, honestly and with Christian charity with bishops from across the world and realised that they are not mindless homophobic bigots; that TEC’s actions really did cause hurt and harm to Anglicans across the globe; and that there is a significant majority within the communion who disagree with them and are prepared to bind themselves within a covenant with or without the American Church in order to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

By forcing the Americans to come face to face with what they’ve done, Rowan Williams has left them no room to hide.

One prediction about the oncoming liberal civil war: A lot of previously liberal bishops will line up on the Communion/Canterbury/covenant side; the other side will be made up of powerful lay figures who (self evidently) did not have the Lambeth Experience.

Marcus,

I think yours is a rather naive view of the matter. I do not think that either the institutionalist or the ideologue revisionist had any illusions about the minority position they take. The idea that coming into relational contact with other bishops enlightened them in any way is strange. I think it is true that the institutionalist believes it necessary to do what it takes to remain within the communion and that Lambeth confirmed his view that it may mean waiting on ssbs and consecrations, but he has always thought so. He thought so at GenCon06, he simply lost the fight to the idealogues. Lambeth did not come as a revelation.

And as for the ideologue, the number or weight of the opposition matters only with regard to tactics. He also knew very well that his was a minority position. Lambeth did nothing to change that. Certainly the rage with which the ideologues have returned from lambeth is NOT due to the all wise and all knowing ABC’s use of the indaba group framework which forced them to face facts about the communion and now they will soon realize it is time to quit or cooperate…that is a fairy tale…they’ve faced that fact for some time. It is probably true that they were angered by intransigence of the various bishops at Lambeth and the indaba groups offered a window into that intransigence but that window did not show them something they did not already know…that the rest of the communion is backwards, narrow, ignorant and reactionary. That always prompts anger in the heart of a revolutionary, often a murderous anger. But it is a mistake in my view to read too much into the anger as I think BB has.

When tempers cool, as I said above, they will realize that Lambeth was a net plus. They have not been officially sanctioned and they have a good number of years before anything resembling sanction has even the possibility (and a small one at that) of coming to pass.  Someone said we have entered a de facto period of reception for ssbs and consecrations and I think that is spot on. Soon, when the anger passes, the revisionists will come to their senses and continue to push forward the revolution.

This is someone named “Celinada”‘s response to my comment above on the Fulcrum forum:

“Thanks to Graham for posting Marcus’ comment from StandFirm.  Sadly, Matt Kennedy’s reply to Marcus has the “only force works” attitude, and some sarcasm directed toward the ABC.  According to Matt, the “liberals” really won because the ABC only asked for moratoria and didn’t take stronger action; “revisionists” will soon realize that, and push for further inroads on orthodoxy.  Patient study and scholarship and their careful expression,  worship, prayer, and real communication, in Matt’s world, don’t work:  only force.”

No Celinda. In a church without discipline grounded in truth, raw power rules. This is why discipline is so vital to any ecclesial body that hopes to remain in the Truth. And, unfortunately, given the ABC’s inaction we are now subject to a power game. It has always been a power game for revisionists in TEC and now it has become a global power game. The ABC could have stopped it short long ago. He did not. So here we are. It is not a pleasant reality but reality often isn’t.

I think Celinda has got the wrong end of the stick.  What is becoming clear is that there is a difference of perception between some in the UK and US as to whether the Lambeth Encounter actually will have broadened the outlook of some TEC bishops in particular as Marcus believes or whether it will have been just water off a duck’s back.

#16 Pageantmaster ,

What I’ve gathered on this side of the pond, the CoE also has a big issue with denial, that there are huge fissures but as long as everything is one ‘big happy family’ then all is well. However, if the votes from Parliament are any indication, then CoE has compromised it’s position to being salt and so soon there may be little to being a “big” happy family. With that institutional status, I believe there is a covering over of cracks.

#13 - Marcus,

I really seriously doubt TEC learned anything from the rest of the Communion, they could have learned that at home. What happen at Lambeth is they were not able to take over, but they certainly did not loose ground and they certainly will not back down from their agenda.

They certainly have no reason to do so. The ABC has managed to kick the ball down the field and not allow any negative consequence to come to TEC, thus their safe to continue down their chosen path without any penalty.

They may have heard things they don’t like, but that’s about it. They’ll actually write off so to come “face to face, honestly and with Christian charity with bishops from across the world” is one thing and to “realised that they are not mindless homophobic bigots,” is another, I believe after Dar es Salaam, KJS’s line was that they were 50 years behind the times and needed to catch-up.

I bet TEC is perfectly willing for Sudan and Egypt to uphold traditional Biblical morality, but TEC does not want any interference in advancing their new thing. Of course their willing to meet face to face with nearly anyone but it’s not going to change their “prophetic” course.

If Christian folks are not willing to be salt then the warning given is the salt is good for nothing but to be trampled under foot.

#17 Hosea6:6
What can you mean?  Of course we are just one big happy family over here.  Problems?  No problems here - only opportunities!

All is Well!™

Matt—I don’t think we have to play TEC’s game in order to witness to the truth.  That is, we don’t have to use “raw power” just because some in TEC leadership may have done so. “Raw power” as used by some conservative leadership, in my opinion, is forcing congregations to take a vote which may destroy them as individual parishes—forcing people in parishes to take sides against each other on whether to leave TEC or stay, on the grounds that since conservatives at present aren’t adequately successful on the national level in their witness to the truth within TEC, they never will be. (The more conservatives leave,of course, the more difficult that will be). “Raw power” is also trying to fore the ABC to take a stance I don’t think is within his power to do.  I understand one interpretation of the Windsor Report is that he can take such a stance, but in my opinion, the report did not (and did not have to power to) equip him to do it.  He can ask for moratoria, but he can’t force it.

Celindascott,

“I don’t think we have to play TEC’s game in order to witness to the truth.  That is, we don’t have to use “raw power” just because some in TEC leadership may have done so.”

Since when is the use of ecclesial authority for the purpose of guarding the deposit of faith and/or discipline of the church (Matt 18; 1 Cor 5; Gal 1; 2nd John 9-11) an exercise of “raw power”? Do you recognize no difference between the exercise of ecclesial authority in guarding the church against false teaching and the use of raw political power? If you do not then you disagree not with me but with most of Christendom not to mention the apostles themselves. Church is serious business. It is not some college coffee house debating society. Souls are at stake. The ABC did not need to resort to raw power, he merely has to exercise the authority of the office he possesses by disinviting those who refuse to adhere to communion teaching.

As for this:

““Raw power” as used by some conservative leadership, in my opinion, is forcing congregations to take a vote which may destroy them as individual parishes—forcing people in parishes to take sides against each other on whether to leave TEC or stay…”

well, that is somewhat of an amusing take. Imagine that a husband brings home a mistress and moves her into the master bedroom. He tells his wife that he cannot understand why the three of them can’t simply share the same bed together and when the wife refuses, he scratches his head and says that he cannot understand why she is being so divisive, breaking up the family and all. When the wife decides that this is probably not a good environment for her and the children and leaves, a third party comes along and accuses her of “forcing the children to choose” between the mistress and her.

Of course the analogy breaks down here because no parishioner is being forced to leave anything or anyone. Those who choose to stay with the mistress may do so, but it is certainly the responsibility of rectors and bishops to protect the souls under their care and that often must mean separating from false teachers.
This also is an interesting take:

“on the grounds that since conservatives at present aren’t adequately successful on the national level in their witness to the truth within TEC, they never will be.”

Speaking personally here, I never expected to be “successful” in persuading TEC to change course. The orthodox in TEC are a tiny minority. So the “failure” to do what I never thought possible in the first place had nothing to do with our decision to leave. More important were the souls in my charge. I do not think I am unique in these considerations.

And finally there is this:

““Raw power” is also trying to fore the ABC to take a stance I don’t think is within his power to do.  I understand one interpretation of the Windsor Report is that he can take such a stance, but in my opinion, the report did not (and did not have to power to) equip him to do it.  He can ask for moratoria, but he can’t force it.”

The idea that the ABC does not have the authority to discipline is utterly unfounded. He is the only one with that authority and it rests in his power of invitation. The ABC could end this crisis tomorrow by simply disinviting the PB to the next primates meeting. He could have ended it last year by disinviting the consecrators of +VGR and those who have permitted ssbs in their dioceses. The ABC has a good deal of authority and power and could very easily end the drama. He simply chooses not too.

Fr. Kennedy (I just found your church online, had not realized you were a priest)—please don’t misunderstand me.  It is terribly important to correct false teaching, especially by doing good teaching in the first place, as I see must be going on at the Church of the Good Shepherd.  How to do so when there are divisions in the church is the problem we are all facing right now.  Yes, the bottom line is peoples’ souls. The question is how best to reach them.
Patient, firm telling of the truth is the way I’ve seen work best.  Finding a way to do that frankly but without hostile confrontation will save more souls in the long run
than breaking up parishes, I believe. I am not saying your parish should not have left TEC; perhaps you were nearly all in agreement.  However, there are parishes where the work of teaching is unfinished, where there was more diversity of opinion in the first place, perhaps—and to disrupt them at this point will diminish Christian witness, not enhance it.

Haven’t seen you for a while celindascott, how are you?  But I am quite surprised you did not know Fr Matt is a priest.  Mind you its hard to remember everything.

However raw power is not what is at issue, although unfortunately many people have been on the receiving end of that including Fr Kennedy from their, well their former church.

What is at issue is of course what should be taught in parishes, and how broad that latitude should be; at what point the teaching becomes unrecognisable for the denomination.  I don’t imagine anyone left their former church lightly or without a great deal of prayer and searching.  Wouldn’t you agree?

Pageantmaster—yes, I would agree about people’s not leaving their church lightly or without a great deal of prayer and searching.  A situation I haven’t seen discussed on this forum, however, different from Fr. Kennedy’s, is a small town parish, pretty evenly divided on the issues, but with kind and firm orthodox clerical leadership accepted by the whole parish. There’s no lack of prayer in any of the three groups—liberal, conservative, and middle—but there is a lot of anxiety, because a vote may have to be taken which will cause us to lose our parish. None of the three “divisions” (for want of a better term, many don’t even know where we differ) would be able to survive on its own, and conservatives—for one—would stop being able to witness to the rest of the parish, as they have been doing peacefully for a number of years along with the rector. If the parish is no longer a viable entity in the community, Christian witness will be diminished, not enhanced, as I said above—and good beginnings will be prematurely cut off.

Is it your parish celindascott?

Well, yes.  I read an article in TLC not many months ago by the rector of a church in a similar situation.  I imagine there are small town parishes like that in many dioceses.  I haven’t seen such parishes discussed on StandFirm—perhaps I just missed it.

Tragic, isn’t is all.  I wouldn’t presume to comment but you all have my prayers.

Celinda, I feel for you.  This is a time of trial and choices, and it won’t be easy.  The cry of “why can’t we all just get along” is just not good enough any more. 

Your “Christian witness” has been diminished by its association with the National church - and by the intrusion of its false doctrine and teachings. Your pledge and plate money support lawsuits and pro-choice organizations.  Our leaders make statements that are decidedly un-Christian, and take actions that are downright heretical. 
Getting along is no longer possible, and choices must be made.  It is so very hard and painful, but unfortunately, it is necessary.

GillianC, I think the time of choice, should it come, is likely to vary from church to church. From what Celinda says, it sounds as if her parish is still functioning in an orthodox way despite the divisions - as she says, the witness of the orthdox church leadership and parishioners may lead those in the other “divisions” onto the right path. Should they simply abandon that effort if there is a possibility of success?

Celinda, prayers for you and your parish.

Pageantmaster, thanks so much. Gillian—it’s not a question of “why don’t we all just get along,” and it’s not a question of being sullied by association with TEC (Presbyterians, Methodists, and Evangelical Lutherans—as opposed to Missouri Synod—are going through the same trials).  It’s a question of quiet, firm witness where you are instead of hostile confrontation and separation.

Celinda, I agree that hostile separation is not the answer, but I do not agree that the witness can be a true one when it is associated with the higher-ups in this national church.  A quiet, firm witness stands true to the Gospel, and how can you proclaim the Gospel and show “how these Christians love one another” when your firm witness is watered down with social agenda and just plain evil actions? To take Fr. Matt’s analogy a step along the road, what if your parish priest announced that Brother So-and-so on the vestry had moved in with his mistress, but was more than welcome to stay as a decision-maker in the parish.  We want to encourage him to follow his heart…this is NO MORE outrageous than the things that the national church, and many dioceses, are asking us to tolerate - nay, embrace.

By all means, if your church wants to discuss this, I think this is the best step.  You said yourself that you are not even sure what your divisions are about, and my impression is that your congregation would separate if the leadership decided to distance itself from the national church.  These are certainly things to bring out, before any decisions are made.  I firmly believe that within the next twenty years, the institution that calls itself the Episcopal Church will be an empty shell of pseudo-Christians, and those who hold orthodox beliefs will be either chased away or silenced. 

That of course, remembering the comment policies, is my own personal opinion.  I know and respect many people who have taken the “stay and fight” or even “stay and do what I can right here in my back yard” stance.  We all do what God calls us to do, and by His grace.

but I do not agree that the witness can be a true one
Individuals can’t give a true witness because of the national church? Is Kendall Harmon’s witness not “true”? Sarah’s? I don’t understand, GillianC.

Oscewicee, read the disclaimer at the end, I mellowed my harshness.  Kendall Harmon, Sarah Hey, and many people that I know and love have taken this stance, and chosen to stay.  I respect their decisions, and am not the general of this army, so I don’t presume to know what He has planned.  I think their battles are following His plan, and I know it is not an easy road - and it is not for everyone.

My impression is that Celinda (correct me if I am wrong) is asking, “Why separate when our (corporate) witness will be diminished or even lost by the separation?”.  My answer is that I believe that the (corporate) witness of the Episcopal church is already diminished.

I also remember Kendall Harmon’s talks last year about differentiation - making it known that you do NOT go along with the party line and you stand in a different corner than the rest - even if you stand within.  I don’t think ANY parish can maintain the status quo these days, and have things be as they have always been.

Gillian, non-realigning conservatives do make it clear that we don’t go along with “the party line” of much of TEC leadership—some speak up in public (like me—blogs, letters to editors, questions on the floor of meetings, letters to bishops, etc.), others do so in a less public way but they do so nevertheless.  Yes, the corporate witness of TEC is diminished (and unlike some other denominations, we have one very visible person—the PB—whose faux pas as one individual resonate more than a group whose faces the whole country does not know),as is the corporate witness of Roman Catholics with their sad scandal, and most churches I can think of for one reason or another. —By the way, Hosea (above) had an intriguing quotation from the PB, that we are “50 years behind and need to catch up.” 50 years ago I heard the preaching of the Rev. Sam Shoemaker and that spoiled me the next 50 years for any parish which did not talk about the power of the Holy Spirit, the importance of evangelism, and the nourishing of the faith in small groups, and of course the centrality of the Eucharist and Holy Scripture. I got to know the Anglo-Catholic witness in another parish (combined with the evangelical)—the rector had gone to Nashotah Seminary.  Perhaps Nashotah, TESM and other scholars could do an analysis of what happened the last 50 years in the American that gave our PB the idea of the church that she must have picked up in seminary.  I am thankful for Bp. N.T. White.  He may not be perfect, but he’s not afraid to use scholarship in the service of the faith.  (Hosea, one of my favorite bishops was +Addison Hosea of the Diocese of Lexington—did you know of him?)

Two things—Gillian, I do know what the divisions in our parish are about, as do others of us and our rector—but that’s partly because—in my case—I’ve been thinking about and studying that kind of thing for the 50 years I mentioned above. Some other parishioners, however, do not understand or even care much about the issues: they worship the Lord, they do charitable work in the parish and in the community, they take care of their families and do their jobs conscientiously, and their faith is simple.  They abhor what they perceive (rightly or wrongly) as politics in religion. —Second thing:  should have referred to N.T.Wright, not White in my post above.

Thank you Celinda, for your gracious reply.  I obviously misunderstood your position personally - and I agree that many folks in many churches just can’t stand the fussing and fighting.  Being a preacher’s kid, I had (and sometimes still have) an almost maniacal aversion to “church politics”, and I’ve seen the really bad side of it. 
I fear for parishes like yours, and what can happen in the next 50 years if the trend keeps going.  Half of me wants to hunker down, and just ignore what is going on - I’ll admit it.  The other half wants to shake things up (and shake people up) and get them as distressed as I am.
::sigh::
Again, thanks.

CelindaScott, I’ve enjoyed this thread.

The latter part of your comments have been about the small to mid-sized, but divided parish.  One of the great lacks, it seems to me, from the “resisters” side has been dealing with that question.  The “leaving” parishes are largely unified, and quite conservative, and led by very strong rectors, plus are in dioceses with bishops who often haven’t done a great job with setting up “protective bulwarks” against the national church.

The truth is—and I’ve stated this endlesssly for years now—unless the laity of the small to mid-sized non-unified parishes undertake a very strategic and steady and long-term vision of discipling, strategic action, community building, and informing several things will happen. 

1) The strongest informed conservatives—in light of the lack of a plan in that parish—will leave Anglicanism [remember, they’re in small towns with no place to go] for other denominations. 

2) The parish most certainly will not leave TEC as a whole. 

3) A large group will not leave the parish and set up an alternate Anglican entity—there is no “large group” in the small parish and in a small town it is nearly impossible to have two Anglican parishes that successful.

So neither ComCons nor FedCons will be gratified in those instances.

My short answer is that I wholeheartedly agree with your latter points in this thread, and note that our side—that is the conservatives—hvae not even remotely addressed those issues.  It’s as if we’re all in denial that the vast majority of parishes are NOT Christ Church, Plano or Fall Church, VA, either in size or in unity or in leadership.  The cries of “leave now” to the churches that you describe are actually cries of “die, you fools” whether they know it or not.

I do disagree with your earlier comments in the thread however, and want to point out some things that I don’t see have been mentioned in the thread.

First, you seem to be stating that it’s wrong to use “raw power”—but I don’t see a definition of “power.” 

Here’s an example of “power”—voting for orthodox candidates for vestry, council, standing committee, and delegates.  That’s power—and is that bad?  No, I don’t think so.

Another example of “power”—deputies voting at General Convention or rectors selecting who will teach Sunday School.  That’s power—and is that bad?  No, I don’t think so.

I think the first thing that I’d like to hear is what is your definition of the sinful “exercise of power,” as opposed to a good exercise of power.  You seem to imply above that the exercise of “raw power” is inherently sinful—but I don’t see any reasons for that, nor a definition of what you think is “raw” either.

Second, your theories about power don’t seem to acknowledge what happens when only the revisionist side exercises “power,” either for the good or bad [I’m not judging their exercise of power as either good or bad for the purposes of this discussion].

You advocate for the conservatives not to exercise power—and if that is to be the case, then of course a “power vacuum” takes place. 

One side—the revisionist side—rightly or wrongly exercises power.  The other side refuses to do so.

So what then happens?  Other than, of course, the revisionists accomplishing precisely what they have accomplished over the past 30 years in TEC—because that is certainly the result of the power/strategy/political/action vacuum that I’ve pointed out endlessly—we have the departure of the conservatives, that’s what happens.

That departure is indeed one of the consequences of a refusal to exercise power.

Let’s say, for example, that we have a parish that is 3/4 conservative and disgusted with TEC, and 1/4 “moderate” to revisionist and uncaring about TEC.  Let’s also say that the rector is a guy just “trying to hold it all together” and keep everybody “focused on mission and ministry”—so he’s definitely not going to leave TEC, and nor will he talk about the issues or how to functionally confront those issues with courage and diligence, even while in TEC.  Let’s throw in that the bishop is the usual in-denial, corporatist who prides himself on being a “centrist” and fancies that of course, all laypeople should and do love being in his diocese.  Given a dire power vacuum—and given that neither the diocese nor the parish [whether rector or lay group] is *differentiating itself* or planning how to establish protective bulwarks—the informed, leading conservatives will leave.

So your wish is granted. 

The rector is not “forcing the congregation to take a vote” or “take sides against each other on whether to leave TEC or stay”—and people leave.  Most likely, if it’s a small parish, those people leave for other denominations.

But let’s say it’s a larger parish—and that the rector is conservative and has tried to talk about the issues, and furthermore feels personally called to leave TEC.  But . . . he decides not to “force the congregation to take a vote” or “take sides against each other on whether to leave TEC or stay”—he just leaves, trots down the street and half the congregation go with him.

Your wish is granted again.

No “raw power”—just gone.

Taking this up several levels, of course the same thing is happening with Rowan Williams and his refusal to exercise the power of his office.

Given a dire power vacuum—and given that the ABC nor the other instruments of the Communion is *differentiating itself* or planning how to establish protective bulwarks—the informed, leading conservatives will distance themselves increasingly over the years, and eventually . . . . leave.

People, parishes, dioceses—and yes, maybe even whole Anglican Communion provinces eventually—say “okay—we can’t force you—goodbye.”

In fact, we are watching now the incredible meltdown of a historic American denomination with people doing just that.

Jefferts Schori is working hard to prevent people from noticing it, to obfuscate it, to deny it, to spin it desperately . . . . but she is presiding over an epic, history-making meltdown—and it is directly relatable to the consequences of doing precisely what you recommend—not exercising power, either in TEC over the past 30 years, in TEC over the past 5 years, nor in the Anglican Communion.

I’ll make a prediction. 

In the absence of exercising strategic power and authority—either at the parochial, diocesan, provincial, or international levels—easily 50% of each and every parish in TEC will undergo a drastic division—not just a few people leaving [and my bet is that every single parish has had people leave in the past five years over TEC corruption and heresy]—but drastic enough to impede and diminish that parish and in the case of small parishes, kill them dead.

And—a similar prediction—every single diocese will have alternate Anglican entities established as well.

All for the lack of exercise of power.  It’s simply the inevitable result.

As I predicted now years ago, liberal TEC will have relatively-speaking thriving parishes on the west coast in urban areas, and in the NE in highly populated urban areas, and one thriving parish in each of the ten major cities in the SE. 

Alternate Anglican entities will be capable of establishing relatively thriving parishes in the large urban areas like Raleigh, Atlanta, etc, and in a few exceptional pockets like Plano, Texas, Falls Church, etc, etc.

The rest of the US, in the rural areas, and in the large patches of fly-over middle America, and in between the two or three massive cities in some industrialized states . . .

A wasteland.

And so far, neither Common Cause nor liberal TEC seem to really grasp that reality.

The only parishes and dioceses within TEC who will be able to resist that nearly overwhelming trend will be parishes that have strong, strategic, lay and clergy leadership focused on renewing and reforming their small patches of blue sky, establishing green isles of sanity, and forming protective bulwarks against the rampant heresy and overweening bullying of the national church.

In short—those who exercise power.

To disentangle this thread a bit, I think we are discussing three interrelated things:

1) How conservatives in the American churches should act. This is something I would not be presumptuous enough to comment on, although I think the bravery of those who stay in a hostile environment to stand their ground should be saluted.

2) Discipline within a church and how “raw power politics” sits with our Christian vocation. Should the American bishops (especially those who consecrated Gene Robinson) have been excluded from Lambeth? This is now water under the bridge. The question is therefore…

3) Where are we now and where are we going? At the risk of incurring more scorn from Matt, I shall copy a post I made over on Titus One Nine, the writing of which helped clarify some of my thoughts:

Perhaps one thing which needs to be teased out a little is the idea that because the Lambeth Fathers didn’t take a vote and there were no set piece debates, the Conference therefore did not decide or determine anything.

There are a number of issues which I think need development.

1) The problems with previous Lambeth Conferences were manifold, but the biggest two seem to have been (a) that people retreated into self-selecting ideological groups and only really interacted in set piece debates when (b) there was a tendency towards thoroughly unchristian behaviour (such as booing and hissing).

What this meant was that people were able to walk away from Lambeth and completely ignore any votes taken or “decisions” made.

Anyway, enough decisions had been made in previous conferences which were then completely ignored for those who disagreed (in whole or in part) with a motion, to continue the habit of disregarding what they don’t like.

2) Decisions are not always made by vote. They might be easier to disseminate to the outside should a vote be taken, but that isn’t the same thing. The way ahead (covenant etc) was mapped out very clearly with everyone accepting that there was a significant majority in favour of going in that direction. The absence of a vote or a resolution doesn’t alter this fact, which is recorded in the reflections document.

3) The Lambeth Fathers didn’t claim to themselves any powers which they didn’t have. They didn’t “pass” the covenant because it isn’t in their remit. What they did do was discuss the current draft, suggest ways of making it more palatable and demonstrate in indaba group after indaba group that the vast majority of the bishops of the Communion wanted to take the process further.

4) The conference removed an awful lot of dissembling from the table, particularly on the liberal side. They simply couldn’t go away and claim that those with theological differences were mindless bigots. Similarly they couldn’t go away claiming that the majority of the rest of the Communion wouldn’t sign up to the Covenant. There was, it seems, significant learning on the other side too - especially about the value of homosexuals as individuals and Christians.

5) In conclusion, while the absence of a vote makes it more difficult for the laity to know exactly where everything stands, what the Lambeth Conference did was decide significantly to move forward with the Covenant process with or without the Americans. It is now up to the various bodies which can actually make decisions on these matters to do so.

These are my thoughts, although they probably need somebody wiser to disentangle them!

I might be being naïve, as Matt says. But I genuinely think that we saw an outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Lambeth, and if there’s one thing He’s good at, it’s melting stubborn hearts and turning people back to Christ. If there was one fanstastic part of the Lambeth design it was turning people away from political motions and towards scripture, prayer, the Sacrament, and fellowship.

In the end, they were turned from facing each other across a debating chamber to facing Christ on the Altar.

Marcus,

In response to your points.

1) “What this meant was that people were able to walk away from Lambeth and completely ignore any votes taken or “decisions” made.”

They can still do that—and have, and will. They are doing it right now, in fact—completely ignore the “consensus” that the ABC claimed for Lambeth.  A same sex blessing occurred the day after Lambeth and more since then.  TEC has and will continue to ignore what the ABC claims was the consensus of the conference.  So in regards to your first point, there is absolutely no difference at all between the outcomes of the two Lambeths.

2) “The way ahead (covenant etc) was mapped out very clearly with everyone accepting that there was a significant majority in favour of going in that direction.”

No, the way ahead was mapped out very clearly by the ABC, with the ABC stating his own desired consensus as the consensus of the entire conference.  We’ll never know what the consensus of the bishop at Lambeth 2008 was since the writers of the document were separate from the “indaba” groups and nothing was ever voted on, and the document was an embarrassing mish-mash of contradictory opinions.

3) “. . . and demonstrate in indaba group after indaba group that the vast majority of the bishops of the Communion wanted to take the process further.”

See #2.  We’ll never know, Marcus, what the bishops of Lambeth wanted, thought, or knew in toto, because RW wanted his plan and his consensus implemented.

4) “Similarly they couldn’t go away claiming that the majority of the rest of the Communion wouldn’t sign up to the Covenant.”

Shockingly for you they’re already claiming it, Marcus—I read a TEC bishop’s reflection just the other day claiming exactly that.

RE: “There was, it seems, significant learning on the other side too - especially about the value of homosexuals as individuals and Christians.” 

That must just be pulled from your hat since the bishops coming in to the conference already knew about “the value of homosexuals as individuals and Christians” and had stated so in numerous documents and speeches and interviews already prior to the conference.  So no change there.

So far, this point #4 in fact reveals that precisely nothing different occurred in the outcome of the conference.  People walked in what a set of views, and they walked out with the same set of views.

5) “. . . what the Lambeth Conference did was decide significantly to move forward with the Covenant process with or without the Americans.”

No, what the ABC did was decide on what he wanted a year ago—and claim his own plan as the consensus in his summing-up argument—and yes, he will “move forward” with the Covenant process, although my guess is that it will be with the Americans and without a good chunk of the GS, thanks in part to this Lambeth Conference, Marcus.

RE: “But I genuinely think that we saw an outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Lambeth, and if there’s one thing He’s good at, it’s melting stubborn hearts and turning people back to Christ.”

No, the divisions were clarified and the stances were hardened at Lambeth, Marcus, as you will see in the months that pass with both TEC and now increasing numbers of formerly “moderate conservative” Global South bishops.

RE: “In the end, they were turned from facing each other across a debating chamber to facing Christ on the Altar.”

Sigh.

That’s certainly a pretty sentiment, Marcus.  And evenly distributed.  And well phrased, with nicely balanced counterpointing elements in it.

I guess you’ll know when you see the fruit of the Lambeth Conference . . . but then of course it will be all everybody else’s fault, rather than the Lambeth Conference’s lousy and tedious and controlling process and Rowan’s desire to have no conflict or resolutions [other than his “consensus” for his plan] which leads to the disastrous outcome of what you will see.  Anything to keep up the illusion of RW as the great healer—even when nobody is healed, you’ll just keep claiming that people were healed!

It’s like a television evangelist over here in the states . . .

I’m certain that you are a nice person, Marcus, and I’m not heaping scorn on you but I am on your ideas.  I can’t figure out whether it’s that you sincerely don’t get it—or that you have a personal need for Rowan to “be successful” and so everything that you think will be all about that.

The only mitigating factor I can come up with is that, just as Americans often don’t get the British, the British often just don’t get the Americans.

At the 2009 GC, Marcus—and in the HOB meetings before that, and in the Executive Council meetings as well—you will see the most amazing demonstrations of hardening of stances and clarifying of divisions that you must have ever seen. 

I hope that you will still be around for that.  If so, I’ll remind you of what you said had happened at the Lambeth Conference.

Blessings to you,

Sarah

Thank you Sarah. I agree wholly with what you have said in #41 making my planned response to Marcus redundant.

I will take issue with one of the points you made in #39 although I agree with most of what you have written there.

You say:
“Alternate Anglican entities will be capable of establishing relatively thriving parishes in the large urban areas like Raleigh, Atlanta, etc, and in a few exceptional pockets like Plano, Texas, Falls Church, etc, etc.

The rest of the US, in the rural areas, and in the large patches of fly-over middle America, and in between the two or three massive cities in some industrialized states . . .

A wasteland.”

I do not think that a small united orthodox parish in “flyover country” beyond TEC is necessarily doomed. Mine, I think, will be fine. I think an “isolated” and unhealthy orthodox parish may be doomed, but not all small departing parishes in flyover country are unhealthy and isolated. A good deal depends on how well the congregation attends to the basics…worship, bible study, fellowship, communication, etc…and how integrated the congregation is with the local (non-Anglican)Christian community. The typical Anglican snobbery toward other denominations will probably doom a place to irrelevancy and isolated death, but a good open healthy attitude toward the community and attendance to the internal basics will allow a church apart from TEC to grow and thrive.

If the leadership and the larger churches in the breakaway organizations realize this and work support smaller churches, then we have the makings of a workable post-TEC national body.

RE: “I do not think that a small united orthodox parish in “flyover country” beyond TEC is necessarily doomed.”

I agree with that statement and didn’t mean to imply otherwise.  But your parish is certainly an exception to the ones that CelindaScott is referring to and that I was referring too.

And remember, I was referring to the sweep of Anglicanism within the US, not simply one parish.  And I made allowances for those smaller parishes that were 1) unified, 2) conservative, and 3) led by strategic and wise laity and clergy, although maybe I didn’t make that clear enough in my response to Celinda.

But just to look at my own diocese—there will be, maybe, one thriving [note my use of the word “thriving”, which also means growing] conservative non-TEC Anglican parish, maximum two at the end of the day.  And those will take place in the two main cities.

In the vast vast vast majority of the small towns—about 40—that have Episcopal parishes, there will be no such thing.  The only thing that will happen will be that the very small Episcopal parishes—[again, this assumes the absence of unified, strategic, wise leadership and there’s always hope for that to occur, of course]—will divide, with the formation of two struggling, non-thriving entities that will eventually die, as they age.

I made the prediction of the two Anglican groups—one TEC and one the CCP province—back in 2006 for ten years from then, and I am watching it happen with my own eyes in my own dioceses, as the small non-unified, non-strategic parishes bleed away conservatives in rural areas.  And as my email box indicates it’s happening around the nation, as conservatives leave the small parishes in rural areas.

I do agree that your parish will be different, Matt.  I just think that it will be the exception that proves the rule, thanks in part at least to who you yourself are, which I think you will grant . . . simply isn’t very common.  ; > )

Sarah,

I agree with you about your diocese with one minor quibble. An awful lot depends upon what the Diocese of South Carolina does (I know you are in Upper South Carolina). An unlikely, but hopeful scenario, would be if SC bolts from TEC. At that point, it would be easier and much more palatable for the small town via media to associate with an alternative Anglicanism as long as it comes from Charleston.

My mother, who is a revisionist in South Carolina, is thoroughly convinced that the diocese is leaving. I am not so convinced. I think they will stay, which would render all this speculation moot.

The problem as I see it with alternative Anglicanism in the USA is the lack of cohesion and authority. There are too many entities and too many guys in purple. A cohesive entity, such as a diocese of Pittsburgh, or Fort Worth or South Carolina to my mind is a more solid base and is much more capable of attracting and retaining disaffected Episcopalians.

The only Sacred Band I want is around my finger.

Fr. Kennedy—you seem to be saying above that if a town isn’t big enough for at least two Anglican churches, one in TEC and one not, it is better for the existing church with a mixed congregation to die, with the congregants joining other denominations.  However, it’s not “typical Anglican snobbery toward other denominations” that makes parishioners unwilling to let that death happen; most other denominations are undergoing the same struggles that we are. It makes more sense to go through those struggles while still being able to worship with the Book of Common Prayer and its full expression of faith, with the Christians with whom we have already built up a part of body of Christ, and with the dedicated and orthodox clergy leadership we already have. Sarah is right in some of her comments above about power; it’s also important within the diocese and the national church to elect people to office who will keep the orthodox faith as expressed in the Book of Common Prayer and defined in TEC’s Constitution and Canons, rather than ignore it or attempt to change it.

Celindascott:

I was not saying that at all. Why would I think it would be good for a congregation to die? I was speaking specifically about a small, united, orthodox anglican parish, perhaps the only one in a town. And I suggested that if such a congregation leaves the wider community of TEC, it is, I think, necessary to find another external community, even if it is non-Anglican and engage with it so that it does not become ingrown and incestuous. Most other churches are NOT going through the throes of this issue. Some “Mainline” churches are. But evangelical, Catholic and Orthodox churches are mostly not. 

In any case, I was not speaking at all about a mixed community which I presume would not make the move to leave, but if it did I would think that the non-tec spinoff would certainly need to be connected to the wider Christian community as well. The TEC entity would already be connected to the diocese and bishop and have an established wider community.

Fr. Kennedy—I’m glad that wasn’t what you were saying; instead, you were referring to an external community for a united orthodox anglican parish.  About other denominations: Lutherans (not Missouri Synod), Methodists, and Presbyterians are (I’m sure you would agree) going through the same struggles we are. Assemblies of God, the Christian Missionary Alliance, some congregations which aren’t affiliated with any national body, and others are not.  None of those denominations, however, use the Book of Common Prayer as a rule in their worship; the full expression of faith as found in our worship services is very important to me and many other Episcopalians.  Mousetalker—I hope SC does NOT leave TEC!  They are a beacon of hope to those of us in my diocese who are non-religning conservatives.  Their bishop is part of Communion Partners, a group which is very important to us
(partly for the political reasons Sarah discusses above).

Celinda Scott, post 47,
Regarding your statement about other denominations:  “None of those denominations, however, use the Book of Common Prayer as a rule in their worship; the full expression of faith as found in our worship services is very important to me and many other Episcopalians.”

The Denominations you named do not use the Book of Common Prayer but “Anglican” churches do use the book of Common Prayer. The “Common Cause Partnership” makes this clear in their Theological Statement which can be found at this site:
http://www.united-anglicans.org/about/theology.html

6. We receive The Book of Common Prayer as set forth by the Church of England in 1662, together with the Ordinal attached to the same, as a standard for Anglican doctrine and discipline, and, with the Books which preceded it, as the standard for the Anglican tradition of worship.

If you are happy in your parish you probably have no reason to leave, but please don’t assume that only Episcopalians use the Book of Common Prayer. I know people who attend the Episcopal Church regularly but also, from time to time, go to an Anglican church in the area and I see nothing wrong with this.
You can find information about Anglican Churches at this site.
http://www.united-anglicans.org/

Betty—thanks. Of course Anglican churches use it, I just didn’t think to list them and they should be listed. Your friends’ solution sounds tenable given very unhappy circumstances. In our situation, I’m afraid, there would be no TEC church OR Anglican church within our community to go to, since no part of our parish would be able to stand alone.  I am still hoping our parish will not have to dissolve.

Sarah:

An awful lot depends upon what the Diocese of South Carolina does (I know you are in Upper South Carolina).

Really, is this true? I always thought you were under DioSC?

Matt+:

“And I suggested that if such a congregation leaves the wider community of TEC, it is, I think, necessary to find another external community, even if it is non-Anglican and engage with it so that it does not become ingrown and incestuous.”

I’d give a hearty AMEN to that! Back in the day, folks in Truro & TFC had hoped for discipline of TEC & renewal from within thus were also AMiA bashing, during which my current pastor was forming relationships with many outside the Anglican tradition. In fact today this parish has much stronger bond outside than within, even those this area is literally chalk full of Jerusalem Declaration parishes (maybe more so than any other area) and AMiA is apart of CCP & FACA, so forget CANA’s ADV, in theory we numerous other partners (Gen. Prayer Request is wisdom for me on how to be just enough pain in the tush to start a grassroots effort of what our bishops are signing up top).

Two observation:

1) I REALLY don’t think Dan+ would have survived without this faithful Christian pastors. I’d full heartedly support your statement because I can see the fruits!

2) Due to the issues that were highlighted on the “faux” thread, maybe it’s almost better to find support from outside the Anglican wars. I think that maybe inside the enemy can be perceived as 815/TEC, where to these PCA/Non-Dom/Brethren friends the enemy is still Satan. I think it’s helpful to find those faithful outside our battles to help us not be consumed by them and see the real enemy and the real Hero.

Celindascott:

I don’t recall us bantering before, so I’m going to presume we know little about one another (please forgive me if I’m wrong and forgetful). A very short summary of my life is that I’ve tried to leave Anglican Communion three time, but discovered I’m not anything but an Anglican and keep coming back (and I’ve met some pretty faithful Non-Doms, Methodist, Pentecostals, Baptist). This last time I gave up on the whole shebang, but I got an invite to try a church, guess what, AMiA! So I’m still in.

What little I know about you from reading above, you seem called to fight inside the context of being an Episcopalian. I truly believe there are those who have such a calling, but it is of Him and like most things He calls us to, often not pleasant (neither was the Cross). Certainly, as with all callings, one that must be discern by constant prayer.

However, there seems a tone that you are isolating yourself from the resource of the rest of the Body, the Church catholic. I love the Prayer Book too, at least enough that if I wanted I could join a good old fashion Prayer Book fight. Don’t let that stop you from drawing on support from those the Lord just might have placed in your path outside the Anglican tradition. I can’t tell you how many time what I wrote Matt+ in #2 is also true in my life where a God fearing Believer gave me prospective, including in times one and two in my walking away or in the midst of the storms inside.

I am still hoping our parish will not have to dissolve.

I pray not as well.

Celindascott,
I hope I did not give you the impression that our parish is in “unhappy circumstances”, our local Episcopal church is not planning to dissolve, we hope to continue as a conservative congregation with conservative Priests.
The point I was trying to make is that some Episcopalians believe that occasional attendance at Anglican churches can enhance our worship and appreciation of the Christian Religion we have in common.
We think of these Anglican congregations as friends, not competitors, and we can learn from each other.

So glad your parish is not dissolving (and if our parish did, it would not be by plan!!)and is continuing in harmony.
Thanks for telling me.  I agree about friendship and mutual worship sometimes with those in Anglican churches, as you describe.  I had not thought of the two churches as competitors, as I know some do.  It’s just that I don’t want to lose what we have in our TEC small town parish, and I am hopeful that we will not.

God will provide.

Betty—thanks for that reminder. Hosea—it just dawned on me that your reference to “isolation from the rest of the body, the church Catholic” might have meant that I didn’t list orthodox or Roman Catholic churches among other churches in our community where one could worship if one lost one’s parish. I’ve thought of them, but there are some problems—for instance, one of the orthodox churches in our community went through a painful split in the last ten years because they didn’t like the teachings of their new priest (infants at communion, for instance, and some other things), one side of the church took the money (and made it impossible for the priest to get his pension) and built a new building, after shopping around for a bishop (turned out to be a Russian orthodox one hundreds of miles away) who would take them. I knew people on both sides of the aisle.  That seems to be part of orthodox practice, at least in this case:  a newly forming congregation can shop around in a wide geographical radius for a bishop they like. The problem with Roman Catholic churches, of course, is their exclusiveness—in the US (but not in many parts of France, I’ve found) the altar is not open to non-RCs, which would have a chilling effect if you wanted to worship with your family and they were not RCs.