Breaking: Katherine Jefferts Schori will be seated at the Primates Meeting

On first blush, it’s probably the civil (and astute) thing to do.  Thinking further, if KJS performs as she has thus far (“Mother Jesus,” “Episcopalians are smarter,” ad nauseum), the primates will have PLENTY of clarity as to what to do.

Amen, Jim

However, given the acute dissension in the Episcopal Church at this point, and the very widespread effects of this in the Communion, I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organised.

So orthodox voices will be represented, though not seated on par with the PB.  And that’s appropriate, given that the structure does not yet exist to warrant such a seating.  Let’s continue to work, pray and give toward an Anglican presence to represent the kingdom of God in North America.

I don’t think this letter is authentic.  It barely sounds like him.  This especially stands out like a sore thumb:

an important and difficult and important encounter

I doubt such an obvious error would find its way even unto a draft of a ++Rowan letter.

I think you are all misreading this, and dramatically so. I am now, officially, a pessimist with regard to the future of the Communion.

She has been, as is acknowledged in this letter, suspended from the councils of communion in keeping with the DC.

The Episcopal Church has thumbed its nose at the entire communion. Now this petulant child is being seated as an equal

AND

This is being done with the full recognition that her invitation and seating will necessarily mean the absence of ++Orombi and many others…as they have already made very clear.

The ABC has chosen to invite KJS knowing this.

This is a horrible turn of events.

Newbie,

I hope you are right. But I think you are wrong

Yawn. I have said all along that ++She would probably be invited to Tanzania. Yawn again. Goody goody! Another “wait until” event. Fortunately, at least IMHO, we are fast running out of “wait until” events. The real story at Tanzania is not going to ++Her presence. It is going to be ++Her reception by a substantial number of the primates. Also, what transpires at Tanzania will have a direct bearing on the invites to Lambeth 08.
CRYSTAL BALL MOMENT: The fur is going to fly at Tanzania. This meeting may well be the one that at last precipitates some drastic action. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

Of course, I could be wrong. I was wrong once before. I told a guy I was mistaken and it turned out I wasn’t.

the snarkster

I don’t doubt the authenticity of the letter.  It sounds like the ABC is hoping that the Windsor bp.s can find a way to keep ecusa a full member of the communion.

Matt, do you think ++Orombi et al will really boycott?  Or will the ABC talk them into a face-to-face sit down with +Schori (where the fur may indeed fly)?

He’s laid his cards on the table.

publicly

If he does not act, he will lose face. That is a huge thing.

The ABC has to know that.

our sole hope and our life, today, tomorrow and for ever

It seems to me that this is the most important quote in this missive.  The other telling statement is the reference to Rome’s expectation.  Its almost as if we are being told, if we expect ecumenical dialogue to progress, we will need to be aware of our decisions and their implication to our relationship with Rome and others.

The quote above is most important as it makes it clear that THIS Anglican communion believe Jesus is the ONLY way.  Mrs Jefferts, are you listening?  Forget about your agenda and start working on your theology and bring it in sync with the rest of the Church’s mind.

The glaring grammatical error rattles me, in terms of the letter’s authenticity.  Nevertheless, mistakes like that do occur. 

Ergo, if you are correct, Matt, I can’t help but wonder if this meeting will be another kick-the-can-down-the-road sort of affair, or the colossal dust-up predicted by the Snarkster. 

In the interim, I’ll stand firm, as it were, on, “Huh?”.

I suspect that ++Orombi and his cohorts will attend but not receive communion and we will have a repeat of Dromatine.  Her presence needs to be confronted and not avoided.
Ian+

If this letter is authentic, what I find most disturbing is that she is seated but +Duncan is not, but is instead treated as a part of a “B” team.

Lets all pray that with the lambeth conferance that all the problems within the spitting of the Church can be somehow resolved and that those walking away will finally see the truth and light and repent. He can make it happen if it is within His will to do so. May God show His mercy and love to all and intervine to help all of us sinners to get back on the narrow path to Him. May God bless and watch over all of us

I’m not at all convinced that Schori will stay at Tanzania. Yes, she will go, but at what point will she go back?? I’ve blogged on this at http://www.peter-ould.net/?p=188.

If Schori’s role is put to a vote, fine. But if not, we have seen that ecusa officials, like Schori, the Griz, and other lesser lights have no shame. Given the opportunity to stay, she will.

I’m with Matt. 

Who’s going to do the eulogy?

There’s also the non-trivial fact that the host province (Tanzania) has said they don’t want her there.

How embarrassing is that.

How’s this for a really peachy scenario: ++She shows up, refuses to be seated in the same room as +Iker, +Duncan, and +Schofield and goes back home in a huff. Hmmmm…..

the snarkster

Assuming the letter is authentic and from the ABC, it is good. It addersses at least four very significant points:
1. Recognition of problems in ECUSA
2. Invitate for representation of those in dissension
3. Appreciation of the Windsor Bishops
4. A desire to move beyond the paralysis posed by ECUSA
These points being in the letter make me question if it is “too good to be true” - from the ABC. The fact that is not signed also makes me wonder, but the points are good.
Chapie+

If this letter is authentic, what I find most disturbing is that she is seated but +Duncan is not, but is instead treated as a part of a “B” team.

But Dr. Schori *is* the Presiding “Bishop” of PECUSA, and Bp. Duncan is only one of many bishops. Of course the ABC is going to act in accord with existing structures.

And since the only thing which gives the “Anglican Communion” any cohesion is not law or faith or practice but these non-binding primatal get-togethers, he’s not going to “disinvite” the ranking “bishop” of a member church on canonical or theological grounds, because that would be to destroy the one thing which holds the Canturbury Club together for the sake of something which doesn’t. Given the facts of the situation, it’s not surprising he acts as he does—the problem is not with the ABC per se, but with the Anglican Communion itself.

All of which has to do with my own belief that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE ANGLICAN COMMUNION—not in any meaningful sense of “communion”.

A blessed Feast of the Nativity to all.

pax,
LP

I agree with Newbie. On first and now second reading, I did not think it sounded like Rowan Williams++.  Also why would he write so openly about these kind of monumental plans to someone in Australia?

Well, it seems that the ABC is capable of making a decision. It doesn’t bother me that Schori will appear in Tanzania - it will bother me a great deal if the Primates end up acting like Anglicans of the Club. Ms Schori does need to hear in great and unrelenting detail the reason why TEC (once known as ECUSA) has no credibility among other Anglican Provinces and why it needs to repent or take steps to form its own cult.

Guys, I can verify this too. It’s authentic

Here is the (one of the) money quotes:
“In other words, questions remain to be considered about the Episcopal Church’s relations with other Provinces (though some Provinces have already made their position clear). I do not think it wise or just to take any action that will appear to bring that consideration and the whole process of our shared discernment to a premature end.”

There are two opposite and equally mistaken judgements to be made about Schori’s invitation to the Primates meeting.  (1) That everything is okay, and see here is evidence that our primate is in the club.  This will be made in spades by the usual suspects.  The opposite mistake is the one prevailing in the comments above, (2) That this is a huge failure of nerve and a step away from conciliar discipline.  But I disagree.  I think it will likely be a step in the very direction of conciliar discipline and discernment that the ABC has long been trying to guide us. 

I don’t think this is a big deal and I don’t think we should be making one of it, frankly.

Peace and have blessed Christmas.

<block quote>If this letter is authentic, what I find most disturbing is that she is seated but +Duncan is not, but is instead treated as a part of a “B” team.</block quote>

Emphasis here on part of the B team. By including representatives of the Camp Allen meeting (which includes, for instance, the liberal bishops of Rhode Island and Alaska) the voice of the leader of the Network and Common Cause gets diminished as one of many diverse voices speaking for Episcopalians. Can you smell the Anglican fudge cooking in the oven?

Primates from a number of provinces have said they will not attend (not just refuse communion but not attend) if KJS is seated. If that holds up, then the GS does not have the numbers necessary to discipline ECUSa or send anyone home. Its as simple as that.

If we can figure this out, do you suppose the ABC knows it too?

1.  Schiori will stay for the entire meeting
2.  She will object to Iker, Duncan and Schofield but this will be meaningless.  The point of inviting them is to down play her importance to that of merely being there to explain her position and to see the beginnings of the consequences of TEC’s actions as the Primates begin the process of creating a new province.  Nothing will have a more “pruning effect” on Schori than to have to sit and witness an event which as the formation of the new province.  I’m sure given the option, she would prefer to leave and not see it but I don’t think they are gonna let her.  They will make her sit and watch the WHOLE event!
3.  There is a greater likelihood that a more centrist bishop will be included as well or in lieu of Schofield.  This is for complying with a “fairness in process” approach.
4.  She will not be invited to Lambeth.
5.  Tanzania will be a gracious host despite any personal feelings.  Any objections and indignation will be reserved for the moment when Schori begins to give glib and relativistic responses.  Righteous indignation will rain from the African plains upon her.

I’m always intrigued by the words that the ABC uses. The sentences seem carefully crafted and chosen: “I have decided not to withhold an invitation to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori …….” Does that mean he seriously considered withholding an invitation?

My reaction was the exact opposite of Matt’s, but everything about this is wierd.
1. Who leaked this?  I would guess London.
2. Why the Friday night of Christmas weekend?  I assume to bury it, so it will be old news when the liberal MSM returns to work after Boxing Day, if then.  This seems to be a familiar tactic for “conservative” developments.
3. Why David Virtue?  To discredit it further?
4.Why ++Aspinall?  Is he the only one to ask, “By the way, Rowan, what are you going to do?”
5. Is this a draft that someone is trying to shoot down?  If so, why?

Matt+ has a very good point. Every effort should be made to persuade every GS primate to attend, if only to give us (the orthodox) enough votes to pass some sort of sanctions on TECusa. They could attend the meeting but not associate with ++Her which would send the same message that non-attendance would.

the snarkster

Game tied. Its the bottom of the 9th, 2 out and bases loaded.  The batter stepping up to the plate will determine the outcome of the game.  I hope the game doesn’t go into extra innings.  Know what I mean?

I agree.  I’d say ‘hold your horses’ until we know that the ABC really means to do this and then weigh consequences.  Personally, since the S. Primates represent much more of the A. C. than Shori and also occupy many more places at the table, I don’t see Rowan Williams doing something like this - it would completely destroy what’s left of the Communion, trivialize the new Anglicans here in America, and alienate most of the members of the communion these Primates represent.

From a political standpoint alone - I don’t buy it.  More likely is she would be allowed on an observer status or something…

Mark,
It wouldn’t surprise me if, assuming this is authentic, it is meant to be leaked so as to begin testing the waters - sorta check how the concept found therein will be received.

Mark McCall: All very good points. I continue to be troubled by the “important and difficult and important” error which is most unusual for a +++RW missive. I expect more will come to light soon. Until then, I will assume Matt+ knows whereof he speaks.

the snarkster

Techical issue only: the grammatical mistake could have been made in the retyping of the letter?

I can’t see the orthodox primates agreeing to “sit with” Schori. Supposedly she is to be allowed to talk before the main portion of the conference. That would allow the orthodox primates to bow out of those meetings without bowing out of the entire conference. But I believe they will make their stand - one way or another.

However, given the acute dissension in the Episcopal Church at this point, and the very widespread effects of this in the Communion, I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organised.

I’ll bet if this letter is genuine, the Primates will vote on her status before the rest of our formal business

Is it possible that the grammatical error is a transcribing error from the original letter which did not contain the error?

This letter is a total fake.

It doesn’t read like Rowan or sound like Lambeth.
Someone either did this to fool us all, distract us, or sent up a trial balloon.
But it is a fake.

I should add that I think the contents may prove to be true…that Schori will be seated…but the letter is a fake.

DHR,

Could you contact me offline
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

DHR: Again, some very good points. However, since it has been verified by a number of different people on both sides of the issue, I will consider it genuine until shown otherwise.

the snarkster

The AoC is no fool.  He knows he cannot put the GS primates in a position where they must publically repudiate their own convictions.  He also knows he cannot willfully subvert this conference.  So I suspect Peter Ould is exactly right - that the pre-meeting will become the de facto real meeting.  That is the only way this meeting can come off.  If so, KJS is going to be in a difficult situation to say the least.  She will be present like a prisoner in the docks, with other orthodox American bishops invited to determine her judgment.  I am not sure sure she would go under these circumstances.

carl

Something to think about that just occurred to me: If DHR is David Roseberry (and I think it is), he may be in a position to know more than us peons. This is seeming stranger and stranger.

the snarkster

carl,

I agree, he is not a fool.

I do wonder whether this pre-meeting is really what you suggest. Here is the section of the letter:

“I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organised.”

Now, he has already indicated that she will be invited to attend the primates meeting. If the real aim is to determine her status at this pre-meeting session then that would be wonderful and I hope you are right, but there is nothing to indicate that this is the case. Nothing at all.

Thanks Carl - sometimes it pays to read things properly. Rowan says exactly what he means.

#1 any priest, let alone a bishop or ABC, has got to know that anything he/she writes can/will eventually be emailed around, and therefore, must assume that any electronic communication of any kind is not in any way confidential. Unless the ABC is writing his mother a handwritten thank you note for the mutton last night, he has got to know it will leak one way or the other. And yes, he (anyone) can use this fact to his/her advantage.
#2 How come I do not hear more desire for KJS to be there? Let the primates make their best points. If she repents (ok, let’s jsut prayerfully consider that), learns some things, changes, whatever, isn’t that an ideal outcome?  And how come I do not hear more confidence that exactly this might happen?  Why so despairing?  If we have the truth, will it not show forth among so many mature and incredible global leaders/men of God? Indeed, how could it NOT happen?
Reality Check

Well, here’s another fact to think about.. The “Progressive Episcopaolians of Pittsburg Dio” (Via Media incognito),  are asking to haul + Duncan into court over his “non-compliance” with the “agreement” they have.

They are especially asking for an “emergency hearing”, in order to precede the Primates Meeting in Feb.. 

Wanna bet, they are trying to stop him from going IF he has also been invited..

Grannie gloria

I encourage everyone to read Peter Ould’s blog (link above) for a very cogent interpretation of ABC’s missive.

Snarkster,
From one peon to another…the reasons why I think it is a fake or a red herring are these:
1.  The letter is too much of a definitive statement by the author to be a Rowan/Lambeth production.  Sentence construction, rambling in para #3, etc.  Lambeth is usually more nuanced, IMHO.  You read the Lambeth writing and often you end up thining…“Huh??”
2. “Decided not to withhold…”.  Lambeth doesn’t think it has the power to withhold invitations anyway.  If the letter is true that it is really good news that the ABC believes that he has the power to invite or not invite…and that his ‘nod’ is a clear indication of who is in and who is out.

DHR (not David Roseberry)

Don’t miss Peter Ould’s take.
http://www.peter-ould.net/?p=188

I do not agree because I think he is reading far too much into this, but he may be right and he certainly makes some very good points.

I’m a bit confused: what, exactly, does it mean “to be seated” with the Primates?

Peter,

Could you provide more insight as to why you see this pre-meeting as the showdown?

I read your article and the letter through again, but what evidence do you have that this is not simply an attempt at some form of reconciliation. Or, perhaps, an attempt to secure KJS’ approval for the seating of an orthorox rep? In other words, who knows what this pre-meeting is going to be about?

Could the dissenters’ representatives include, say, +Minns?  Two or three?  +Duncan, +Minns, +Iker possibly, but surely not +Murphy?

The following is also interestingly worded:

I do not think it wise or just to take any action that will appear to bring that consideration and the whole process of our shared discernment to a premature end.

The words “appear” and “premature” would seem to be encouraging.  In other words, we do not want to make it appear that we are going to end this discernment prematurely, but at the end of the road, regardless, is TECUSA walking apart.  Perhaps what he is suggesting is that he wants to lead TEC on until a bit further down the road, then let them walk apart after he has kept as many in the Anglican fold as possible.

Matt,
My opinion comes from a careful reading of what Rowan has actually said on the subject of sexuality over the past 24 months. In particular we should take great care to note his address to the ACC 18 months ago and his addresses to the General Synod of the Church of England. He has rapidly come to the conclusion that the orthodox position on sexuality is by far the overwhelming majority consensus of the Primates and Bishops of the Communion and that an attempt to go against that would fracture the Communion FAR MORE then disciplining TEC to the fullest extent.
On top of that, my sources close to Lambeth are telling me that personally he has come to the end of his tether with 815. Now, I can’t guarantee that those sources are telling me the truth, but I have no reason to doubt them. In the past the few things I’ve been told have come to pass.
That’s why I think it’s SO important for us all (here on the internet and elsewhere) to do the theological groundwork now on what the ecclesiology of deposing bishops and primate is. If we can sort that out in the next 2 months then the work of protecting orthodox bishops, clergy and layity becomes much easier.
Let the reader understand.

Four things:

1.  I agree with Matt+ and Snarkster.  And I think this could be the ABC trying to manipulate the rest of those not wanting to “sit” with +KJS to attend.  If they don’t go to the meeting….then don’t be surprised as what the meeting comes up with.  Just like the November meeting.  By not attending the Nov. meeting(though all of us certainly understand the futility), +Duncan et al., gave the “rest” of the committee carte blanche to do the will of TEC.

2.

...and the Joint Standing Committee has appointed a sub-group which has been working on a report to develop our thinking as to how we should as a meeting interpret the Episcopal Church’s response so far to the Windsor recommendations.

Who is this group and is it tied to the Sept. and Nov. “meetings”.  If so, I don’t hold out much hope in this area.

3.  Authenticity shouldn’t be based on copy errors.  I think we all have had things go out that should have had another eye on it. 

4.  Lastly and based on 1&2 above, if the primates choose not to attend and defend the Faith at the meeting in Feb., they will be handing the Anglican Communion over to the TEC’s course faster than it took for the TEC to push the rest of us out.  If these primates were a majority, then not attending and providing an alternate meeting/course would provide a way for the future—but that doesn’t appear to be the case from what I’ve heard here.

I tend to agree with Peter. 

While I understand everyone’s pain, frustration, and impatience(because I feel those, too), the bottom line here is that all the hotheaded speculation will not get you anywhere or anything except hypertension and gloating revisionists.  We have to allow this process to unfold.  I plan on giving it until just after Lambeth ‘08.  If I think the solution is not of God, then I will consider other options. 

He may not like it, and he may not like having to act, but I fully believe that Rowan “gets it”.  What he needs is the courage to act and do it right…if he’s smart, he will see that he can draw that from other Primates.  It’s high time to go from being a deep thinker to a battlefield Christian.  Jesus, too, figuratively “came with a sword”.  The AB of C knows what he has to do, he just needs the strength to do it.  That’s where my prayers lie, right next to True, Scripturally-based, Communion unity.

Lakeland Two

The AoC has a better chance of finding life on Mars then he does of manipulating the GS primates into attending a meeting with KJS.  He knows this.  With whom do you suppose the AoC is consulting about this pre-meeting?  I believe he is trying to arrange acceptable terms for the GS primates to come.  Those terms will necessarily preclude any interaction in which KJS is treated as a Primate in good standing.

carl

Jen,

Thanks for the compliment. I’d argue “Let’s do two months of deep thinking, then go to Tanzania and fight like anything”.

Jen, no pain, frustration or hotheadedness here.

I am looking at a letter and cannot seem to find what Peter sees in it. And this is from one who, over the past year or two, has echoed his argument in the first paragraph of his last post.

PS—I don’t have access to sources like Peter does, but I also said in a recent post that I believed Rowan had “had it” with 815. 

Spend a little time with Friedman, everybody—for the moment, it’s a lot like being a machine.  Be a non-anxious presence, keep the Faith, and maintain the Kingdom work.  There are GOOD people, above our pay grades, trying to make sure this gets done right.  Give them, and our Lord, a chance…

What we would like to see is the primates actually tell +KJS/TEC that the only way they would be allowed to stay in the Anglican Communion is to repent of their actions, confess that Jesus Christ is Lord AND the only way to the Father.  In the event they are unwilling to do that (which I suspect will be the case), then the AC should tell +KJS/TEC not to oppose the creation of a new province in the US nor the transfer of any who choose to go, property included…that if TEC files even one lawsuit to retain anything of a congregation or diocese desiring to leave for this new province, TEC is OUT of the Anglican Communion.

Carl, do you know what’s going on in the ABC’s mind exactly?  None of us do.  All we are doing is guessing.  But we all know there are primates who have put their positions out there.  Now the ABC is.  Our hope is that all is being done for God’s purpose.

The letter does not sound authentic at all, but it is not claiming to be from Abp. Williams—it just sounds like it.  It’s not even signed.

Also, Dromantine communique specifically requests that ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada withdraw from Communion meetings until Lambeth 2008.  It’s only a request, but ECUSA complied with it for the ACC meeting in 2005.

If ECUSA attends the Primates’ Meeting, it will not be complying with the Dromantine request.

Guys, once again, from multiple reliable sources, this is an authentic letter

multiple reliable sources

Was the letter sent to all the Primates?

This particular item is a great example of the “christianity” of the majority of posters here.

it contains rank speculation.
people lusting after conflict eagerly anticipating dissention and fomenting it when they can.
childish namecalling
post after post of people setting themselves up as being smarter and more spiritual than others.
the most rank kind of political posturing and hopedfor manipulation.
this is the pattern I have seen in item after item on this blog.
perhaps it is time for a little personal reflection and spiritual housecleaning among yourselves.

Jen - We appreciate and do agree with all that you have said but part of one point:

There are GOOD people, above our pay grades, trying to make sure this gets done right.

While this is indeed true, the sad fact is that many of us did count on those “above our pay grades” to do the work/battle.  And we are two who listened to “we don’t have to worry about THAT here” from our priest…a couple them acutally.  I caution you and anyone who wants to think this way that it is very dangerous.  It is this very mentality that got the TEC in this position in the first place.  I am reminded that we are to be vigilant.  Ever watching.

lwrh,

No one is forcing you to read it.

Lakeland, by no means have I taken “vigilant” out of my own vocabulary.  Just, at the moment, I have no reason not to trust Duncan and co.  Your point is well-taken and I still reserve the right to change my mind on that score, as should everyone. 

Just for kicks, I re-read the original letter again. I believe Matt in his sources and I’m not necessarily questioning its “authenticity”.  But, Matt, consider this:  How many 0-6 and above do you know that always write their own correspondence?  They don’t always write it, correct; it’s just “prepared for their signature”.    To me, this letter reads an awful lot like Kearon trying to sound like Rowan.  The former would not be the first “JO” to color the commentary or fitrep with his/her own wishful thinking, even if such did pass through the filter and end up with the senior’s signature. 

All comments and blogging aside, everywhere, I hope Rowan understands that he has A LOT at stake here, as do many.  As I said, I do agree with Peter but I don’t put much of anything past anybody, especially when the rubber meets the road and anxiety starts to rule.  If Rowan chooses to give TEC a free pass on its nose-thumbing the Windsor Report and offers them some sort of peacenik, left-handed group hug instead of justified discipline, it will do nothing but backfire on him and the whole Communion.  It’s my hope that the theologically astute, gutsy Pope Benedict recently told the AB of C, “get your house in order”, and Rowan listens. 

I wait and watch with interest…

Jen - did not mean to imply that you are not being vigilant, nor that I lack faith in +Duncan, +Iker, +Schofield, etc.  The “above my paygrade” comments I’ve seen posted elsewhere, to me, imply that we should blindly flollow what we’re being told.  Our experience has brought us to the crisis the TEC is in now.  Hopefully, we all are watching and holding our leaders accountable—something we in the past left to those “above my paygrade” who didn’t do it.  That’s all I was trying to say.

Jen,

Kearon could have written it, but Rowan still has to agree to it and then sign it.

If this letter is genuine, I think +++Rowan is making the right call. Since “Mother Bishop” is recently enthroned and hasn’t had the full pleasure of the primates’ collective company, she SHOULD have to come face-to-face with the pain her branch has caused. Moreover, it will give her MUCH less wiggle and spin room as she will be confronted with the issues personally—she can’t claim that info from secondary sources wasn’t really what it appeared.

Secondly, she must share de facto American representation with a conservative delegation. True, they will be meeting in a pre-event conference BUT the fact that a few conservatives were invited gives them the credibility and standing she tries hard to deny exists.  It won’t be lost on onlookers that the movement she vigorously tries to dismiss at a tiny, lunatic fringe is taken seriously by the primates, while her invitation to the meeting was a “decision” and not a certainty. She would get far too much mileage and whine factor if she wasn’t invited. A begrudging invitation to “face the music” is so much better than a snub she could spin into some sense of “martyrdom.” I’m hoping she takes Booth Beers with her so the primates see full American arrogance and litigousness on parade!

Is it possible, too, that +++Rowan wants her there to face any decisions made by the Primates concerning TEC? Could this meeting begin the process of creating a new Anglican presence in the States?

Like everyone else in the world, I wish Rowan Williams could speak or write a clear sentence in the English language.  But after mulling this over during the last of my Christmas preparations, such as they are, I’m somewhat optimistic.  I think Global South primates like Orombi could easily attend this pre-meeting without violating their consciences.  And Dr. Williams may be setting himself up for the very thing he’s trying to avoid.

A hypothetical.  What if, during this pre-meeting, the primates inform Mrs. Schori that TEC’s response to the Windsor Report was completely unacceptable?  What if they then lay down a series of stringent conditions TEC must meet to the letter in order to get back in the good graces of the rest of the Communion?

If Mrs. Schori pleads polity, as she probably will, saying only a General Convention can decide these things, the primates can tell her, that’s fine, we’ll see you in three years and until such time as our conditions are met, we will consider Bishop Duncan over there as being the Anglican primate of the United States.  If she knows that she can’t possibly get the primates demands through a General Convention, she may just decide to leave on her own and get started organizing that liberal Anglican Communion.

If Dr. Williams asks that Mrs. Schori be allowed to stay and that we should all keep prattling some more, the Global South primates can bluntly inform him that you can have the Americans or you can have us but you can no longer have both.  And then it will be my gracious lord of Canterbury who will finally be forced to make a hard decision.

lwrh,

Ditto Matt. Motes and beams.

Matt Kennedy wrote:

Guys, once again, from multiple reliable sources, this is an authentic letter

This article quotes Virtue Online as one source.  It also quotes Daily Episcopalian, which in turn quotes it from Virtue Online.

So far, there appears to be only one source, and that source is not always reliable.

Whether or not the letter is real, important information is missing from its citation here:  To whom it was addressed (Phillip J. Aspinall, Primate of Australia).

It could be authentic—but it sure doesn’t seem authentic to me, unless Abp. Williams suddenly had a change in personality and writing style.

Randy,

I was not at all referring to DV or Daily Episcopalian. I have spoken to others closer to events.

Virtue claims that Iker, Schofield and Duncan will be the other representatives present in Tanzania. I just spoke with +Iker and he said he’s received no invitation.

To be fair to Virtue, he speculates who might be there.

Matt first a joyous and blessed Christmas to you and yours. May the glory of God make light your troubles and increase your hopes.
You write : I think you are all misreading this, and dramatically so. I am now, officially, a pessimist with regard to the future of the Communion..”

I know next to nothing about the political and structural nuances of the Anglican Communion.  I do know of the struggle of the faithful orthodox to keep Christ as the center of that Communion’s face in the US the TEC.  I know that you have received disappoint and setbacks in this struggle.  But when has that ever been untrue for those who declare Christ the way the truth and the life?  When have the faithful ever seen the words of Christ “ remember those who revile you first reviled me” made irrelevant?  What age has not seen Christians sacrificed on the altars of idols?  How many times would it have been simpler to declare failure.  How tempting it is to be pessimistic and how heavily it ladens our hearts.

But we Christians have a hope in the Resurrected Christ who has promised to be with us always.  That hope must sustain the Communion’s faithful in the US.  True the TEC is very quickly going down a path that leads away from the everlasting message of salvation.  It embraces a way of death and forgets that true life is found only in Christ Jesus.    But that does not hold true for faithful Anglicans.    The fact is that these faithful are in their own season of Advent.  An advent that awaits not only the Birth of Christ but the Birth of a Church.  An advent that reminds us of the very deep truth of the Christ advent.  Not only does it anticipate a birth but it looks forward to another mystery.  The mystery of the death and arising of Jesus Christ.  You and others who uphold the faith are looking forward to the resurrection of the Church.  That is what should give you hope and gladness even during these uncertain times.    Christ makes all things new again.  That is a promise.  Yet to do this the old must be swept away.    I believe Christ is doing that with the Anglican Communion.    The new thing is not “ the Holy Spirit doing a new thang”.  It is a renewal and a restoration of God’s promise to His people.  It is the truth rung in by Christmas bells and Easter alleluias.    That the living God has triumphed.  That darkness will be cast aside at the light of Christ.  That evil has lost.  That God loves us and treasures us beyond all measure.
So do not fall to pessimism.  You are God’s own.

And who said it’s always a slow news cycle just before Christmas? 

Based on all appearances (and Mr. Ould’s excellent analysis) this will finally be IT.  And if any of the participants start heming and hawing beforehand, an extremely impatient laity will convince them otherwise, I believe.

Sure hope I don’t offend anyone by stating the obvious. Can’t be too careful of offending revisionist sensitivities.
Anyhow, here it is: Most of us arrogant old Episcopalians will not stand for any further appeasement of the Capo Regime, her consiglieri or any of their odious goodfella foot soldiers.
We have been assured that the Tanzania meeting will resolve the apostacy with which we have been cursed and abused since the days of creation of our very Common Book of Prayer in the 70s. We are absolutley relying on resolving the problem in February. We have reached the end point of our careers and for the most part have the means and uncompromising fidelity to the faith once given to make our positions well known indeed. And, oh yeh, as well as causing stuff to happen. We have spent our lives making stuff happen.
Here’s the deal. We are running out of time, and thus patience. We don’t want to hear any more about 2008. I mean, April 2007 is too late. Got it? Now, I genuinely believe that ABC is just calculating enough to have designed this confrontation with the goal of marginalizing Her Emminence and the others. Great. My exec used to say “make it so.”  What he meant was take out whatever objective he was referencing. Not if it’s convenient, not if it has passed the committee on taking out objectives, not if it doesn’t offend some Berkley sociologist.  Our message to Iker, Duncan, Akinola, and all Windsor Bishops: Make it so. 40 years is long enough in the wilderness.

Paula L,

Thank you for your kind words. I am not at all out of hope. God can do all things. I am not depressed or upset or emotional. I am very calm. My life does not depend on the Anglican Communion.

Its just that the only way to read this letter as something positive is to tell a story that has little or no connection to the text itself. I can do that too.

Many here are speculating that the three representatives invited to the pre-meeting will be orthodox reps. The letter does not say that. Here is what it says:

...I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed, and I am currently consulting as to how this is best organised.

The Episcopal Church is not in any way a monochrome body and we need to be aware of the full range of conviction within it…

This could mean three conservative reps. But, the guest list could just as easily look like this:

1. Bishop Duncan
2. Center right bishop
3. Center left bishop
4. KJS

In fact, I think that sort of lineup would fit the wording of the letter far better than a guest list that included +Duncan, +Schofield, and +Iker. It would be far more representative of…“the full range of conviction…”

So, here’s my story. Why not get these 4 in a room together with a broad range of primates from a similarly full range of conviction and then, at the end of the discussion, ask the assembled 4 US reps whether they thing KJS ought to be seated. And, schocker, three of them do.

So, how can the ABC do anything other than honor the wishes of the representatives from the Episcopal Church?

Dear Stand Firm readers,

I shall now accept apologies from those who doubted the veracity of my reportage.

Jen is right on the mark with this:
Spend a little time with Friedman, everybody—for the moment, it’s a lot like being a machine.  Be a non-anxious presence, keep the Faith, and maintain the Kingdom work.  There are GOOD people, above our pay grades, trying to make sure this gets done right.  Give them, and our Lord, a chance…

I have believed this ever since I’ve heard her comment that the problem with ecusa is that the church is well-defined enough.  This is right out of the Ed Friedman playbook.

This makes no sense:
If Mrs. Schori pleads polity, as she probably will, saying only a General Convention can decide these things, the primates can tell her, that’s fine, we’ll see you in three years and until such time as our conditions are met, we will consider Bishop Duncan over there as being the Anglican primate of the United States.

ecusa was given three years and blown it.  The public comments coming out of GC06 make it clear that ecusa has no desire to turn around.

Matt,
I do not disagree with your take on the letter.  I just wanted to emphasize that our hope is in Christ.  That when the dust clears no matter what happens we know that Christ remains.  That our certainity is based on the both the advent of His birth and His resurrection and His returning.  Any hopes I have for the Communion are not based on the actions of men but on the promises of Christ.   

I wanted most of all to let you know my prayers are with you and all who love and serve Him in all you do.

I have tossed out to Peter the possibility that rather than creating a new province, the Primates may look at a solution using the Aotearoa, New Zealand & Polynesia model where there are three equal Primates.  I first learned of the model reading the bio of the Primates attending the Primates meeting in 2005. 

Such a solution would certainly avoid legal battles and would allow, say Duncan and Schori to be equals meeting the needs of each group within TEC.  Theologically it would be disasterous in the actions of the GC but still, a solution.  I’m not a proponent rather, exploring an option which has not previously been discussed.  Any takes?

I need to agree with Teddy Mak.  The end of the raod is in sight for many in the church today and Lambeth is too far beyond the horizon to even contemplate.  I find parishioners in my diocese are putting the heat on their clergy to fish or cut bait.  The clergy might stand for resolution in 2008 or 2009, but many of the laity will not.  It needs to come to a speedy conclusion and I do hope Dar es Salam provides what we have been hoping for.

Goodness,
I must be doing something right when Matt starts to agree with my perspective! LOL.  He has agreed that the three orthodox bishops is not the likely lineup and that more centrist balance is more likely.

Matt, I understand your unhappiness with the text of the letter. What hope I can muster (other than that in God’s time, all will be well) is that the ABC knows the score, and has shown himself a very able player.

On the surface, he is boxed into a position where he must decide which half of the communion he wishes to keep: He seats ++KJS, and substantial parts of the GS have committed themselves to walk. Or, he holds the most numerically significant branch of the church by rejecting the most culturally significant. I don’t know what alternatives he may have, but I somewhat suspect he will prove more adept than that. Others have suggested some possibilities. A confrontation, almost an “intervention” could occur, such that ++KJS either capitulates or leaves, with the decision then being made by TEC, not the ABC. It could work that with everyone there, censure occurs as a council function, not hierarchical (which authority, I understand +++Rowen to eschew). That, of course, would hinge on getting everyone to show up. There are problems with each of those guesses, but they do point to the kind of thing that could happen.

I doubt if those of us on the outside can see all the dynamics, and all the possibilities. But I expect there is an attempt working to let this resolve in a way that does not require +++ABC to make a ruling that he does not believe is his purview to make.

Lakeland, I don’t believe you were trying to imply anything negative.  I was just clarifying where I stood. 

Peter, with all due respect, how many people do you know that sign things without reading them?  I’ve seen too many do it, especially bosses who occasionally(or frequently, for that matter) put misplaced trust in their underlings. 

To a degree, I’m with Brit—if KJS has to go to a “pre-meeting” and make some half-baked(not the phrase I really want to use) stab at explaining herself, and then becomes a focal point for all the Primates’ anger in the wider meeting, than so be it. Sometimes people eat crow because they should, and/or have to. 

I wouldn’t be surprised if the pre-meeting was some sort of ultimatum. 

Don’t get any overinflated sense of Williams’s power.  I seem to recall the Dromantine agenda getting pulled right off the table.  The Primates are running this show, make no mistake. 

I still believe that if any radical academics or wanna-bes try to play “thread the needle” with their closeted fringie agenda, then they are sounding the Communion’s death knell and it will thoroughly fracture.  It’s all no more than a “Choose this Day” moment for Williams, and it will demonstrate the stuff of which he’s made.

Tony, what do you mean by “the problem with ECUSA is that the church is well-defined enough”?  I don’t think it was me who said that. 

In my view, the problem with ECUSA is that it has long lost the ability to discipline itself, both Doctrinally and otherwise, and it is rotting from within.  Also, the last three PB’s have done nothing but illustrate the Peter Principle in action.  That’s the cleaner version—certain things tend to float, if you get my drift. 

Ed Friedman has a lot to offer us all. 

Again, I watch, wait, and pray.  I also don’t rule out the possibility of feeling the need to swim the Tiber, or otherwise, in the future. 

All blessings,

J.

I say seat KJS no matter who carries her baggage along on the trip,  and Bring It On.
RC

Virtue claims that Iker, Schofield and Duncan will be the other representatives present in Tanzania. I just spoke with +Iker and he said he’s received no invitation.

What David Virtue said was his own opinion…...

VOL believes that the other persons invited include Anglican Network leader, Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, Ft. Worth Bishop Jack Iker and possibly John-David Schofield, Bishop of the San Joaquin, whose dicoese has threatened to leave the Episcopal Church. VOL has obtained no absolute confirmation that these are the persons the Archbishop of Canterbury is referring too.

Let’s try to be accurate when stating what someone says.

Thanks

Kay Lewis

Fr. Matt:
Welcome aboard.  AoC has always been ‘personally’ a revisionist - not to the extent of many in ECUSA, but way left of orthodox.  We’ve known this.  And yes, he has admitted recently that the concencus of the Primates (and laity) world-wide is for Lambeth 1:10.  And we know he can be a schrewd operator.  And we know his desire for not seeing the Communion splinter under his watch.  And all this adds up to a refusal to take a stand.  This lack of action will result in the very split he fears - and one which leaves his position nutured as ECUSA will be the lead of the “liberal” Anglicans and Africa (probably Nigeria) will be the head of the “orthodox” Anglicans. 

Teddy is right on the mark.  Even under a solidly “orthodox” rector in a ‘supposedly’ Windsor diocese (Texas), I was not willing to pledge this year - and I am not alone.  I have increased my monthly giving (and play golf regularly with my Rector - a pastoral saint) but I doubt I’ll be there much longer.  How sad!  Waiting for those “above our pay grade” has provided litle besides confusion.  I only wish we had the votes to follow our brothers from Plano and Truro, etc.

Mea Culpa! Mea Maxima Culpa!

Not surprised wtih the content…just surprised that it is out…

Matt,
Sorry…my apology was directed more toward my sense of total embarrassment.  Gee, I’m sorry that I was wrong after being to right on so many things.
But I am so sorry that I thought you were wrong.  How could I?  You don’t even OWN an eraser.  My humblest of sorrowful apologies.

Excuse my redneck ignorance, but why does anybody care what the apostate COE and the revisionist ABC thinks.  The sun has set on the British Empire and only Masterpiece Theater remains.

I found

Or, he holds the most numerically significant branch of the church by rejecting the most culturally significant.

a little arrogant. Just how do we in the West claim to be the “most culturally significant”?

My take is, IF this letter is genuine (and I still feel my initial gut feeling that it was a hoax) that ABC recognizes that he lacks the authority to deny the PBess access to the meeting, and is calling for a “committee of the whole” prior to the meeting to deal with whether she has voice or vote. If that’s the case, he makes it easy for all the Primates to gather “off the books” and deal with her. Only they have the authority to deny her access to their meeting. I would love to be there for the dust-up.

The make-up of the B team is of little interest. Just the fact that the ABC recognizes the need is crucial. They will have little impact.

Gulfstream et al….

The letter is real. There is no doubt.

I had my doubts initially when only DV and Jim Naughton were reporting it. But when I checked it out with my own very well placed sources, it was unanimously validated. Kendall has now found the same. It is a real, true, authentic letter. I know it is hard for some of you to accept, but nevertheless its the real thing.

I am a little surprised, as I read all the speculation concerning the B team that no one mentioned Bishop Wimberly…the ABC did mention Camp Allen…not that I am real excited to have my Bishop going…but I suppose we could survive it, if Bishop Duncan is on the list.

For the record, I now accept that the letter is genuine unless proven otherwise.  Thanks for investigating this, Matt+.

I found
<blockquote>Or, he holds the most numerically significant branch of the church by rejecting the most culturally significant.

a little arrogant. Just how do we in the West claim to be the “most culturally significant”?

</blockquote>
Gulfstream, I agree with you. That phrase seemed a bit arrogant when I typed it. But there is something which makes the dwindling population of TEC assume a position of importance in relation to the CoE.  I posited cultural and historical ties. Perhaps I should have said “financial significance” ?

Other than that, I agree with the rest of your post as one of the viable possibilities.
I thick strongly that +++ABC wants, if not TEC to deal with this, then for the AC as a whole (either here or at Lambeth), but that discipline NOT be an action of Canterbury.
Even if he agrees with the action (and as Wilkie said, there is some room for doubt), doing it from his office is against his understanding of his role; far too a Roman model.

Matt, I have a great deal of respect for you and have enjoyed your commentary, posts etc…

I do think you need to be open to ++Orombi attending the ‘pre-business’ meeting after which the majority of Archbishops will either leave or be seated without KJS’s chair occupied.

quote from richardc:

I’m always intrigued by the words that the ABC uses. The sentences seem carefully crafted and chosen: “I have decided not to withhold an invitation to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori …….” Does that mean he seriously considered withholding an invitation?

My take is the ABC is fully aware of the negative impact throughout the communion to require an indication that there was strong expectation that Shori would not be invited to this meeting. So the ABC is merely pointing out he is the one to make the decision on who gets invited. I doubt he “seriously considered withholding an invitation.”

I note there are no indications who the other bishops might be. Most assume Duncan, etc. but he may pick from the Camp Allen Fudge Fest. Windsor Bishops indeed! Bologna! MacDonald (Alaska) clearly stated he was only concerned with the process and not the theology. Barf!

Matt,

Without in any way doubting you or your sources, there was one thing in the letter that I found very curious, leading me to question its authenticity.  In Cantuar’s Christmas message, he noted that next year will see the bicentennial of the abolition of the slave trade.  In this letter, it’s given as 1806.  Perhaps a typo, perhaps not.

I meant to say that Schori seems to believe that ecusa is not well-defined enough in the Friedman mode of self-differentiation.

=Tony, what do you mean by “the problem with ECUSA is that the church is well-defined enough”?

we urgently need to create a climate of greater trust within the Communion, and to reinforce institutions and conventions that will serve that general climate in a global way.

I trust Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, the one mediator between God and men, whose sprinkled blood speaks a better word than the blood of Abel (1 Tim 2:5, Heb 12:24).  I trust there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12) and that at His name every knee should bow in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil 2:9-11).  It is because I do trust my Lord that I can no longer trust the teaching and leadership of many within our seminaries and the hierarchy of our beloved church.  It is because I do have faith that I can no longer trust these leaders because their teachings are contradictory to the good deposit entrusted to us.  There will be no trust until there is a restoration of orthodox theology.

RES,

I can readily accept “financially significant”. That would have been much more close to the truth.

In His love

Matt+
Given that the letter is real, is it possible that the headline should be changed to “PB will be invited to the Primates’ Pre-meeting”? Just a thought.

Bravo, Jill! So very well articulated. I know I falter often in the trust department, but yours is a great reminder. I am moved to cut and paste your response into my humongous “Christian Concerns” file and also print it out to put up on the refrigerator for regular “consumption.” God bless you and everyone who may read my note as we celebrate our Lord’s birth very soon now.
Merlena

I note that initially, when there was doubt about the nature of this letter, credit was given to David Virtue for first reporting it.  Of course, the necessary cautions were given.  Now that Kendall has verified it, it seems that the original source is no longer important enough to get the credit.  If fact, the removal of his being the original source seems too embarrassing to keep posted.  Have I assessed this wrong?

This letter is also posted on titisonenine
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=16856
It seems to me that the ABC is ONLY talking about not witholding Schori’s invitation to the February Primates meeting in Tanzinia.

Please join me in a “thought experiment.”

Assume that Abp. Williams:
(1) Earnestly desires to avoid a major schism in either the Church of England or the Anglican Communion.
(2) Cares more about avoiding a major schism—- particularly within the Church of England—- than about whether KJS is in or out.
(3) Does not want to take the lead in teeing up KJS for definitive exclusion nor inclusion.
(4) Recognizes that ECUSA’s GC 2006 cocked a snook (i.e., thumbed its nose) at the Windsor Report.
(5) Recognizes that Global South leaders are running low on patience and that Canterbury is running out of “wait until next time” gambits.

If these assumptions are correct, isn’t the letter quoted above an astute move? (I’m not endorsing the letter, only noting how it reflects a rational strategy.)

Williams creates a forum—- the pre-meeting—- in which the Global South primates can voice and very possibly work their will. Yet he does so without himself becoming her executioner. If the meeting moves towards exclusion, it will be because a self-evident majority demands it. If Williams goes along, he will do so as a neutral chair.

As ECUSA-related pronouncements from Canterbury go, this letter is quite direct and specific. Williams devotes most of the letter to the Anglican Communion’s North American Problem. This directness is consistent with recognizing that ECUSA has defied the Communion and that the Global South will not accept much more temporizing.

In sum, if my five assumptions are correct (as I believe they are), then it’s understandable that Abp. Williams would take the sort of stance reflected in the letter.

What do others think?

Who might the two or three “contributors” to be invited to the pre-meeting of the primates be and why? I would guess: (1) an ACN representative, probably Bp Duncan; (2) a non-ACN Windsor bishop (Camp Allen group); (3) Bp Minns, Anglican District of Va.

For these reasons: (1) The ACN has a lot riding on whether the Windsor process will be allowed to play out to Judgment Day for TEC at Lambeth 08. If the GS primates short circuit that process, which they initiated and subscribed to, where will that leave the ACN dioceses and parishes in the resulting chaos?

(2) The non-ACN Windsor bishops want to remain both faithfully Anglican and in TEC, which they hope will come to its senses and somehow become Windsor compliant over time (unlikely). Having TEC relegated to associate-member status at Lambeth or later, ostensibly to allow time for that to happen, raises other questions by these non-ACN bishops that need to be heard and discussed.

(3) Bp Minns’s parishes are in the vanguard of parishes deciding they can wait no longer for TEC to repent (after all, TEC gave its answer to the primates at GC 2006 in Columbus); these parishes want a new, ongoing Anglican connection NOW. How to accommodate them?

Minns’s presence at the pre-meeting MAY keep GS primates in place in Dar Es Salaam (though in shun-Schori mode)....

r.w.

You may be right Irenaeus. There is part of me that thinks ++ Rowan of the great intellect is playing this like a fiddle, all the politcal maneuvering to get his unstated aim. Another part of me thinks ++ Rowan is in WAY over his wooly fuzzy head, or worse actually sympathizes with apostates like Mrs. Schori or is one himself. The truth will unfold in Tanzania, or maybe Lambeth, or barring that the next GC.

I think Peter has it right. What we have here is a combination of British courtesy and Archbishop Rowan’s desire to have the primates do the casting out as a group and not just him alone, which is probably better. I strongly suspect we will see this as part of a predetermined outcome come February. Archbishop Rowan is, whatever his personal leanings, a pragmatist. He is not going to lose 70% of the Communion no matter how much money TEC has. The difference in the writing reflects that Archbishop Rowan realizes that he can no longer play the waiting game. He must now act, however reluctantly. I suspect he has worked out this “pre-meeting” with the Global South primates ahead of time and it will go much as Peter has outlined. I would not be surprised that Archbishop Rowan is at the end of his patience with TEC. He had things fairly well under control in the Church of England until TEC blew the lid off and I have no doubt he is not a bit happy about TEC fouling up his personal domain. Go look at that picture of him between Griswold and Schori again-he is gritting his teeth and only British courtesy holds him there. I think Schori will be faced in the “pre-meeting” with an ultimatum-repent or leave, for good. No excuses will be accepted. Schori has not the ability to eat that much crow. She would choke to death on it. The “B-team”, or that part of it that does not leave with her, is there to take her place, anticpating that the answer will be leave for good. Do you really think that any centrist bishop (I personally doubt that such exist, but that is another debate) will have the intestinal fortitude to stay when Schori leaves? It would be an uncommonly abrupt way of burning your bridges with TEC, whatever your theology might be, and for a non-orthodox bishop, leaving absolutely nowhere to go. Things will get very, very, very noisy, and Schori will no doubt play the martyr role to the hilt, but it will not matter in the end. I think Peter is right-Schori will go, but she will be using her return ticket a lot sooner than any of the others. Once Schori is gone, I suspect the plan for the new province is in the works already and will probably be functioning by Lambeth 2008. It will not be a 39th province, it will be a replacement 38th one. Actually, in some way, probably through the Network, it will be connected back to TEC as a face-saving measure, so that the new province will be wearing the old guise, with the primates declaring that the revisionists have left the Church. Bishop Duncan may end up as primate yet, if only provisionally until a new convention can be held to formalise matters. TEC will no doubt end up saying “We are well rid of those Neanderthals” and begin assembling their revisionist communion, which will probably last about twenty or thirty years before it disintegrates into a collection of declining and largely irrelevant national denominations. What I would like to see, although the primates would never do it, would be for the primates to revive the ancient excommunication service of the Undivided Church and formally cast out the revisionists-preferably televised worldwide. Some may think this very harsh, even vindictive, but can you think of anything else that would more emphatically draw the line and say to the world, “This is as far as we go, we have had enough of this nonsense”? Can you think of anything else that might better get the attention of the oblivious mass of parishioners sitting in TEC’s pews? Can you think of anything else that might regain just a little of the respect Christianity has lost in the eyes of other religions around the world, especially Islam? Rather than being harsh, it might just save a lot of souls.

cannyscot

Politically, it would be wise for GS primates to attend Tanzania and once there, to refuse to begin the meetings with +Schori present (or some variation on it—to be charitable, they could allow her to make a presentation before it all begins, just like the orthodox representatives).  That would make their point most emphatically.  After all, it is acknowledged fact that ++Rowan does send out the invites to Primates meetings, Lambeth, etc.  So let him invite whom he will.  Let the Primates themselves decide who merits participation.

This is being done with the full recognition that her invitation and seating will necessarily mean the absence of ++Orombi and many others…as they have already made very clear.
The ABC has chosen to invite KJS knowing this.
This is a horrible turn of events. mk

Since when have Orombi and “many others” been in charge of deciding who attends the Primates Meeting or deciding/demanding anything else in the Anglican Communion at the Body of Christ?

These +folks can’t keep social order or solve rampant destructiveness from happening in their own home countries.

I believe self-obsessed “dilitantes” of any sex need to grow up spiritually as well as emotionally and start talking about the REALITY including prejudice of fear, hate, war, starvation, rape, disease and domestic violence and political dishonesty…these are real subjects/sins and Holy concerns to Christians everywhere.

Less will be concealed and “exclusionism” does not to appear to be on most agendas worldwide.

God’s been busy.

I hope Peter Ould is right.  I am inclined to think he is, but it could be wishful thinking on my part.

I confess my frustration with dear ++Rowan.  One thing I never quite got used to after 10 years as a member in good standing of a Church of England Pro-Cathedral is the breezy way that Brits can rhetorically muddle on through.  I would always be called a “brash Yank” by my fellow parishioners when I would speak “plain old ‘merican” about important matters—be it about faith, polity or politics.  It was not in good form.  For better and for worse, the rhetorical universe of Anglicanism does get bogged down in a good deal of fudge. 

So, if Peter is right, what ++Rowan is doing is to appease every long enough to get people to the table; to have differences discussed face-to-face; and to give him deniability that ‘due process’ was granted TEC if and when KJS is given the heave-ho. 

But golly gee willikers, this is sure hard to watch unfold!  What an ugly, circuitous route we do take.

Matt Kennedy wrote:

This is being done with the full recognition that her invitation and seating will necessarily mean the absence of ++Orombi and many others…as they have already made very clear.

Do you know how many Primates have declared that they will boycott if KJS is seated? If they do leave, will there be enough Primates to conduct business, or will enough leave that there isn’t a quorum remaining? Is there a quorum for Primates’ meetings?

Dear Matt,
    ++Rowan Williams is walking a hire wire & doing it well. The ABC must be an honest broker. If it becomes apparent, or even believed by the larger part of a province, that he is not, the Anglican Communion ceases to exist @ at THAT moment. Consider the effect on the rapprochement with the Church of Rome. Benedict as much a told Rowan that Rome will play nice but it can not communicate with some thing that does not exist or is not part of the apostolic tradition. IN inviting other Bishops from TEC to the Primates meeting he is giving the opposition a fantastic chance to make it’s case to the world before the real work of the meeting begins. DO NOT FORGET THE ORTHODOX IN TEC ARE A SMALL MINORITY, 10 to 20%. Cantor can not simply ignore the rest of TEC. You also missed who speaks for the CoE.
Have a blessed CHRISTmas, & a Joyful 2007, ALL
Bob Richenburg, Free Evangelical.

cannyscot wrote:

What I would like to see, although the primates would never do it, would be for the primates to revive the ancient excommunication service of the Undivided Church and formally cast out the revisionists-preferably televised worldwide. Some may think this very harsh, even vindictive, but can you think of anything else…that might better get the attention of the oblivious mass of parishioners sitting in TEC’s pews?

I think the most likely response to a televised excommunication by the currently-oblivious would be hardened hearts and dug-in heels—and Our Worthy Opponents would have a field day creating negative spin in the media. IMO, a written statement from the ABC and the Primates that TEC is no longer in communion with their provinces; that its priests, bishops and primate are no longer recognized by them; that the door is always open for TEC to repent and return to communion; and expressing concern for its members and the decision that they are now faced with (that is, whether to stay in TEC or in communion with the rest of the world’s Anglicans) would be more likely to wake them up and get them started asking questions, without generating a knee-jerk negative reaction.

Gulfstream,

No, because that is not what the letter says. The letter says this:

“This is why I have decided not to withhold an invitation to Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as the elected Primate of the Episcopal Church to attend the forthcoming meeting.”

If this section of the letter had come after his discussion of the pre-meeting then perhaps you could read it in the way you suggest…but it does not.

She is very clearly and unambiguously invited to the primates meeting. I think we need to face reality here.

Whether the pre-meeting is a “come to Jesus” meeting or not, well, that is all speculation and suggestion. That is not in the letter itself. So, I will not change the headline.

richardc,

When Kendall+reported it, Greg changed my original post deleting both DV’s and Jim Naughton’s link. I do not know, but I think he did this becuase Kendall was the first to get an official copy of the letter. Maybe he’ll read this and answer you

Irenaus,

Those are good assumptions. I’ve been operating on some like them since 2003. But now I would amso sure about assumption 2:

“(2) Cares more about avoiding a major schism — particularly within the Church of England — than about whether KJS is in or out.”

I think this is certainly true. the ABC does not want schism. The question is whether he believes a painful parting of some sort is, in fact, avoidable. In that case, the assumption should be altered to read:

“wants to act in such a way that the Communion experiences the least pain.”

I think the ABC has come to the conclusion that the pain of including KJS would be less than the pain involved excluding her.

Hence my response above.

For what it is worth, the reappraising commenters at Fr Jake’s are horrified by this letter.

Irenaeus:
I agree with your “thought experiment” assumptions and your conclusions. It is consistent with Abp William’s public statements. He has been consistent in deferring to the Primate’s meeting for primate-related decisions, rather than making those decisions on his own (reminder, the Primate’s meeting is a separate “Instrument of Unity” from The ABC). Abp Williams has also avoided the “Anglican-Pope” image, he isn’t going there. Also he has responded to the GS Primate’s Kilgalia Communiqué: “Since she cannot represent those dioceses and congregations who are abiding by the teaching of the Communion we propose that another bishop, chosen by these dioceses, be present at the meeting so that we might listen to their voices during our deliberations.” The stage is set. The pre-meeting satisfies all requirements. The ABC will not exclude TEC from the communion (or relegate it to “observer status”), he will provided the opportunity for the rest of the primates to do that officially.

That raises the question, then, about “the other voices.” Back to the Kilgali Communiqué: “We are convinced that the time has now come to take initial steps towards the formation of what will be recognized as a separate ecclesiastical structure of the Anglican Communion in the USA. We have asked the Global South Steering Committee to develop such a proposal in consultation with the appropriate instruments of unity of the Communion.” Subsequent pronouncements from the Global South Steering Committee have made it clear that there will be a proposal for a separate ecclesiastical structure at the Tanzania meeting which is being developed in consultation with Abp Williams and probably Canon Kearon. It has taken time to do properly (much to the frustration of many orthodox Episcopalians, and especially those Episcopalians who have had to leave TEC), but the chess pieces are in place now, and TEC (in the person of +KJS) will be called to be given an opportunity to hear the voices directly from the Primates of the other provinces and to respond to their concerns. This is the “last chance.” Unless she is able to admit to the sin of heresy and schism, and repent fully (she will claim that only the next GC09 can do that) The Primates will vote to exclude TEC from the full meeting, properly relegating TEC to no seat, no voice, no vote. That end will have cataclysmic consequences, and will be felt across the whole communion. TEC will of course respond by initiating it’s own “communion” as they have previously announced that they would do. Those who leave TEC will be castigated in the press (see how the worm has turned in Virginia) and the heat turned up by David Booth Beers on property disputes.

Cannyscot:
IMHO I don’t think the Primates Meeting will get involved with TEC internal matters. That is beyond the scope of their responsibility. Each province is autonomous (including their own) so they wont mess with declaring that the revisionist have left TEC and the orthodox are now in charge of the 38th province. That’s an American problem that we will have to sort out. IMHO, The Primates will recognize another structure for faithful Anglicans in North America, initially under a GS primate to be headed by an American bishop (+Duncan, +Minns, etc.). If enough “dioceses” are formed under this structure in the years ahead to give it adequate numbers it will be recognized as the 39th province. The fate of the 38th province? That is in TEC’s hands. Given the actions of GC03 and GC06 and the election of +KJS I doubt that there will be a reverse in TEC’s direction It will be time for faithful Anglicans to leave TEC (and yes they may have to leave property behind depending on state laws) and join the new structure. “Choose now whom you will serve.” I am reminded of Jesus’ response to the man asking what he must do to gain eternal life: “Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, “One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me.”  The cost of discipleship is great. Are we ready to take the next step in our journey to follow Jesus?

This has been most interesting, but I followed a suggestion above and went to visit Fr. Jake’s site. Good grief. I need a bath before church. Merry Christmas to all.

Irenaeus’s post is great.  +++RW is not really a “hatchet-man” type anyway.  The whole scenario, too, seems to reflect Anglican Polity 101. (I’m posting this for those who don’t already know; a lot of the bloggers here do know this, so my purpose is not to insult everyone’s intelligence). 

Four Instruments of Unity: 

1)  The AB of C;
2)  The Primates’ Meeting;
3) Lambeth Conference;
4) The Anglican Consultative Council

Given the chance, I largely believe the “power” rests mainly with Lambeth and the PM.  The AB of C and the ACC have more of an advisory role.  That said, it seems to me like +++RW is just doing his job.  It’s the Primates who will predominantly be the “act-ors”. 

I think the 5 assumptions are very accurate.  Plus, I hope Orombi and co. all come to the table.  I thoroughly understand the theological differences and I agree with them.  But, at that level of business it is counterproductive to sacrifice your voice and your vote. 

Again, the pre-meeting just might be zero-hour for Ms. Schori and co.  They’ve nothing to blame except themselves and their apostasy.  I think the Primates, not to mention everyone involved, have had enough of “nuance” and/or nebulousness, and/or “song-and-dance”.  Remember, too, that the word on the revisionist street was that no one believed in B033 anyway; the point was just to “get Katherine to the table”.  Such integrity…yes, they really did cock a snook at Windsor and now it’s time to pay the piper. 

Williams has done his job here; let’s hope and pray the Primates do theirs…

I think the ABC has come to the conclusion that the pain of including KJS would be less than the pain involved excluding her.

Mr Kennedy

Would you please clarify what you think are the alternatives?  What pain do you think the AoC anticipates from including KJS, and what pain do you think he anticipates from excluding her?  Including her likely will precipitate collapse of the Anglican communion.  What does he anticipate if he excludes her that would override his aversion to this outcome?  Or do you that think my expection is faulty regarding the impact of excluding her?

carl

Sorry, the last sentence should be :
“Or do you that think my expection is faulty regarding the impact of including her?”

carl

I just glanced at the responses at Jake’s,kind of reminded me of Haman getting hung on the gallows he built for Mordechai(Esther 7)

Sarah, when are you going to weigh in on this??? George

For kicks, I just re-read Kendall’s “authoritative” copy of the letter.  Three things stand out at me: 

1)  It is a time for choices and decision-making;

2)  Pope Benedict and co. have read the AC a polite version of the Riot Act; and

3)  The Archbishop of York’s presence at the table—should we consider that productive or explosive?  I don’t think he will carry much weight with the GS Primates.  Would anyone care to weigh in on his possible purpose there?  If anything is not good for the “orthodox”, I think it’s that. 

We live in interesting times, but it’s the Triune God who rules. 

I wish everyone a joyous Christmas and a Happy New Year—

Cheers

J.

I’m puzzled over what makes Kendall’s version the textus receptus of this letter.  While I have not minutely compared his version with the one which was up several hours earlier, I did not spot any significant discrepancies.  Had David Virtue gotten anything wrong, I am sure the usual people would have pointed this out promptly and loudly.  Fact is, DV had this up hours before anyone else.  To plead the necessity of textual criticism (when no errors have been discovered) strikes me as childish.

If these assumptions are correct, isn’t the letter quoted above an astute move? (I’m not endorsing the letter, only noting how it reflects a rational strategy.)

Ireneaus, I agree.  But do we really need more “astute moves” from our leadership?  And ‘rational’ maybe, but where is the conviction?  We seem to be so concerned about saving this Communion that we are willing to praise this AoC for politically maneuvering and passing the buck (one Instrument of Unity punting to another while still determining who sits at the table) instead of standing up for our Chrisitan faith.  Sounds to me like the same answer +Gris gave when he pushed everything to GC06.  Yet he was considered cowardly.

Enough of the maneuvering and political astuteness - we need a Communion with leaders who will be counted for the faith.  Can you imagine Peter or Paul or Luther or Augustine worrying more about proper polity over defense of Scripture?

As previously mentioned, Akinola retires in 24 months.  We better take care of business soon or we will be on the sidelines as our beloved Communion marches on toward revisionism.

Laurence—

I also read both “versions” and did not find any significant discrepancies, either. 

At the time, I read and noted Kendall’s take, honestly, for lack of a better phrase, simply because “it was there”. 

ATB IC,

J.

I note that initially, when there was doubt about the nature of this letter, credit was given to David Virtue for first reporting it.  Of course, the necessary cautions were given.  Now that Kendall has verified it, it seems that the original source is no longer important enough to get the credit.  If fact, the removal of his being the original source seems too embarrassing to keep posted.  Have I assessed this wrong?

richardc,

Things were moving so fast around this story yesterday that I didn’t have time to compare the two letters to see if there were any significant differences. The plain truth is that I trust Kendall - if he says it’s authentic, then that’s all I need to know. I just don’t have time to fact-check David Virtue. Thus the link to Kendall’s version, which, as it turns out, I believe is identical to the one Virtue posted.

Good suggestion to read Fr. Jake’s website on this. YOu have to hand it to Rowan, he sure managed, with one action, to get the blood flowing on both sides. And take the heat off himself.

Wow: Just returned from Fr. Jake’s website. It’s hard to believe the cynicism and attitude in some of the comments. I can see why having dialogue of any meaningful type is difficult today. Guess, I’ll stay here. Matt, Greg and Sarah have set a good tone for discussions. Thank you

Christmas Blessings

Wilkie: As Christians we should stand ready to suffer the loss of all we hold dear except for God Himself. I don’t defend “astute moves” as a method of church leadership.

But understanding Abp. Williams’ perceptions and objectives can give us a better sense of what he is likely to do. That can be particularly useful when, as here, we confront an ambiguous document that sends an ambiguous set of signals.

If my 5 assumptions are correct, then a pre-meeting (or even a meeting) that includes KJS is probably not a double-cross after all. That’s important and may even offer some comfort.

Seems to me that “decided not to withhold invitation” is a bit different from “decided to invite” - because he does choose his words carefully, that says to me that it’s not time for despair just yet.

O God, you have caused this holy night to shine with the
brightness of the true Light:  Grant that we, who have known
the mystery of that Light on earth, may also enjoy him
perfectly in heaven; where with you and the Holy Spirit he
lives and reigns, one God, in glory everlasting.  Amen

Felicidades from the Global Center of the Anglican Communion…rejoice! We are ALL soon to be filled with Gods wish for the WELCOMING of EVERYONE at The Body of Christ…even more loving brightness and TRUE Light than ever before will be revealed (and is everyday)!
Horray and Thanks be to God!

garyec:
I would say, both SF and Fr. Jake’s sites have equal tones of vociferocity.
But SF has the best news.  Very good work by all on this thread. thank you, SF
RC

Some things you can count on (and have been able to count on for some time):

1.  The AOC will not take action to further the effort to seperate TEC from the Anglican Communion. If you look at his writings and actions before he began to carefully parse his language as AOC, you know that his personal sympathies lie more with the actions taken by TEC in the area of sexuality than with the reasserters.  In addition to his own preferences, he knows that in the final analysis it would be very difficult politically for him to lead the COE away from communion with TEC. Those that believe his statement is part of an intentionally crafted trap for Schori++ are whistling Dixie.  He is doing everything he can to prevent a Schori led TEC from being bounced.
2.  Orombi++ does not engage in Anglospeak; he means what he says and says what he means.  He will not sit with Schori++ at the Primates meeting, and other like minded GS Primates will take the same position. Those that think he was bluffing don’t know the man.  It is hard to see how even a preliminary session can be arranged with Schori in which he would attend.
3.  I continue to believe that Camp Allen was, and remains, a setback.  The AOC’s reference to Camp Allen suggests that one of his “two or three” other Bishops will be a “Camp Allen” Bishop (translated, a non-Network Bishop who supports Windsor but has pledged to work within TEC and will oppose the recognition of another US Province).  The Camp Allen statement will be used as a reason not to take immediate action against TEC.  The Second Camp Allen meeting will cause further harm if it adds additional legitimacy to this strategy.
4.  If the orthodox leaders in the Global South don’t attend, or walk out, their days in an AOC led Anglican Communion are numbered.  That will present a dilemma   those of the US orthodox who do not wish to stay in the fight for an orthodox Anglican church if such church is not tied to the AOC.  For others who are already tied to the GS it will be a source of regret, but nothing more.

I disagree. I happen to believe that the ABC has always been able to put his personal musings aside in favor of church unity and faithfulness. Take a look at the vitriolic liberal comments about +++Rowan on the Jake site; there was dancing in Episcopal streets when he was named ABC. He didn’t turn out to be the liberal champion after all. People tend to ignore +++Rowan’s large body of orthodox writings to focus on a few questioning pieces he wrote about homosexuality.

And even if you can’t accept that he’s orthodox and faithful, consider what would happen in the CofE if he allowed TEC to continue in the AC with just a slap on the wrist. The CofE is his direct responsibility and its strength and growth lie with the evangelicals who have already presented him with their unambiguous demands. He couldn’t risk the potential for an immediate CofE split if TEC gets away with unilateralism.

I can’t find fault with the Camp Allen statements and one gets the impression that the ABC is very involved in this group’s proceedings. Is it that they are willing to stick with TEC through thick and thin or is it that they have organized to be ready for a new option from Canterbury? As my former (Windsor) bishop wrote to the diocese, leading a diocese out of TEC with nowhere to go can become a violation of trust. But he also made clear that patience with TEC was not limitless and dissatisfaction was very high.

I would never criticize individuals, parishes and dioceses that have affiliated with GS bishops but I don’t think it’s an ideal situation. We need a long-term solution.

Here is how the dissenting voices in Fort Worth read the letter at hand.

http://fwviamedia.org/bryan.html

Hahahahahaha, GREAT letter! If the “dissenting voices in Fort Worth” are crying “tyranny,” then they recognize the potential impact of +++Rowan’s letter on their cause. Now if only our conservative brethren and sistren would see it from this point of view and give the ABC our support and confidence, relief just might be on its way.

I LOVED the “don’t tread on me” bit. Well, TEC, when can we expect the “declaration of independence?” This time it will be easy as no legions from England will fight to keep you.

Clearly, many believers who say they are orthodox are eagerly pushing for speedy punishment of TEC, i.e, for disinvitations, exclusions, something.

What they never mention is the other side of this punishment or exclusion coin.  Whatever Canterbury agrees to do to TEC will also be done to others, in the near future. 

That means, possibly, targeting women in ministry, especially any woman who has already been ordained, somewhere in the world. 

That means, possibly, targeting believers who value inquiry so much that they make it a regular part of their approach to understanding their own faith, keeping up with all manner of scholarship and empirical research that is taking place, even now, in this or that or the other field of study. 

That means, possibly, agreeing that non-conservative believers who are already inside CoE, or Canada, or Scotland, or some other province can be targeted next - If alternative Anglican believers still exist in Fort Worth despite everything Bishop Iker does and has done to make them feel unwelcome and out of bounds, then surely there are more, leavened as it were throughout many parishes in the worldwide communion. 

Come to think of it, not even Nigeria is purged, as Changing Attitude Nigeria has emerged whether Nigerian bishops like it or not. 

That may mean, possibly, hunting down and punishing any Anglican lay believer(s) who engage directly in research, study, discernment that doesn’t conform ahead of time in all efforts to whatever the predetermined, narrowly conformed new conservative confessional Anglican covenant protocol turns out to be. 

That means, possibly, a wholesale dumbing down of conversation and inquiry throughout the realigned communion as a definitive mark of faithful Anglican allegiance, just so that we can head off surprises.  Imagine Anglicans pledging to dumb down by ceasing conversation with everybody else in the world that doesn’t already agree with them, for about the first time since the Elizabethan Settlement.

None of these things is capable of being boiled down to a simple strategy of punishing/replacing TEC.  Though of course that is what so many people say they want for Christmas this year. 

Nor, in fact, is TEC so completely alone or unique in its diversities of Anglican views, or in its institutional commitment to historical practices of democracy as a means of governing church life, alternative to the legacy of the received Divine Right of Kings that obviously preceeded it.

What about all the places where some local, regional, provincial Anglican viewpoint difference intersects with some piece of current Anglican institutional process?

Anybody who has even taken and passed a class like Sociology or Anthropology 101 can tell you this is as potentially volatile as a pile of chemical soaked cleaning rags, left waiting to ignite in so many of the nearest global garages of our shared Anglican life. 

Keeping the Anglican heat down through all manner of para-church relationships and through a special Anglican shared legacy narrative about our bonds of Christian equality and affection (inclusive of so many, many distinct and potentially vexed differences) was the main way of keeping those fire risks managed.  People talk about the Anglican Fudge, as if we already know all the gospel truth there is to know, Jesus’ admonitions to the contrary notwithstanding, and it is just a matter of becoming cookie-cutter truth mongers. 

Okay then.  If we are going to turn up the heat so high over the near future decade, say, all over the world, then might some of those other differences also fatally ignite?

As any fire professional will tell you, it is ten times easier to head off fires, than it is to put them out, once they have caught and are burning through.  But the going thing now is to be really hot for Jesus.  Conservative believers are especially in the mood for fires and for burnings and for getting the good wheat sorted out from all the obvious non-conservative empty husks.

These deep institutional differences link up with deep theological and deep ethical differences.  So these differences are embedded in our institutions and in us as people.  A large number of Anglicans have painstakingly tried in best conscience to be and become, pretty much what they best could think and understand and pledge.  All of this will be quite difficult to leave untouched, while somebody with mandated conservative religious force tries to parse out good from bad, at first only cutting on that piece of unwelcome and apostate thinking or ethics or theology.

Equally problematic, at least in some locations, is that we all – already, actually - know the people involved, face to face to face.

What to do, for example, with all the queer folks in TEC who have been pillars of the congregation for one or two or three or four decades? 

What to do with their children, now grown and graduating from high school? 

What to do with their parents who accept them as a welcome and greatly appreciated part of the extended family? 

What to do with all those Out queer priests, and all those women who have given so much, already? 

What to do with their spouses or life partners? 

What to do with their own children? 

What to do with any Anglican believer who doesn’t agree that the single royal road forward in Christian gospel living and witness is exemplified by just the sort of narrow and specific conservative religious confession, presumed and published in the recent evangelical covenant? 

What to do with all the friends and family members of all these whom realignment believers have now defined, comprehensively, as unwelcome (and apostate, wow) individual Anglican believers?

As this whole dilemma is encouraged to catch fire and burn, not least by most of the conservative believers who say in their posts here how they can hardly wait for the non-realigned Anglican people and institutional entities to burn up – what glee to render the apostate homeless as it were? -  much more will probably go on than just neatly excising TEC and its silly progressive fol-der-ol from the otherwise safely conformed Anglican worldwide sheepfolds. 

Whatever works to undo TEC can be adapted and used to undo other provinces. 

Surely Canada is ripe for similar treatment? 

Surely these fault lines run right through the UK and the CoE? 

Surely realignment will not actually stop, content to do not much more than judge TEC and burn it down for God?

Burn, baby, burn?

I agree with Brit. As the first among equals among Anglican Primates and the one who speaks for the Anglican Communion he has to put aside his private views and represent the mind of the communion (as example his support of Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report). I was not excited about him when he was first appoint as ABC (I would have prefered another Lord Cary) but I have grown to greatly respect this man.

Because of his acedemic background and his Welsh/UK heritage which affects the way he writes I often have to re-read his letters and papers. But I have learned to read him clearly. Personally, I feel that he has turned out to be the man we need at this time in this place. I trust that somehow through all the English Politics, God chose the man that would suit us best at this time in the Anglican Communion.

Wishing you all a joyous Festival of the Nativity of our Lord

drdanfee

Clearly you are trying to incite Fear Uncertainity and Doubt. “targeting women in ministry.” No Instrument of Unity has passed any resolution like 1.10 to exclude woemn in ordianed ministry. The offical position of the communion is that WO is in a process of reception. Some Jurisdiction have accepted, others have not. No threats of punishment have been made. Come on now, man!

“Whatever Canterbury agrees to do to TEC will also be done to others, in the near future.” You have clearly missed the point of the ABC’s letter and many postings here: The ABC will do nothing, but provide the space for those who disagree with TEC to have their say and for TEC to respond. Any actions taker to either re-admit TEC to full communion status or assign TEC to some 2nd tier status will be by the Primates assembled. Clearly ABC Williams has deferred to this body to handle questions of International concern

Your posting is all about FUD and your facts are distorted or incorrect. Sorry, I can’t take it seriously.

Drdanfee:

What to do with any Anglican believer who doesn’t agree that the single royal road forward in Christian gospel living and witness is exemplified by just the sort of narrow and specific conservative religious confession, presumed and published in the recent evangelical covenant?

Matthew 7:13-15 (English Standard Version)
13"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy[a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. 14For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
A Tree and Its Fruit
15"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
Charles

“Whatever Canterbury agrees to do to TEC will also be done to others, in the near future.”
Uh, there’s an intrinsic problem with this statement. It implies that poor TEC was a happy little member of the AC when big, bad Canterbury swooped in with persecutions.

TEC was begged not to act unilaterally, was warned of the possible consequences, and proceeded to do as it pleased with cries of “you can’t tell us what to do.”
While agreeing to a moratorium on gay bishops, TEC looked the other way as gay candidates were nominated for the episcopacy. While agreeing to a moratorium on same-sex blessings, dioceses voted to perform them.

So, either TEC lies to appease others or it has absolutely no order or control in its church. Which is it? You can’t lay whatever happens at Canterbury’s feet. Six years of waiting for a show of good faith are more than sufficient.

Perhaps I should put this in different terms. If one of a married pair swears commitment to the bond, yet becomes enamored with another way of life, the marriage is in trouble. The couple is repeatedly counseled and the straying party insists the relationship is important to him/her. Straying party is asked to apologise and says that he/she is sorry the partner is hurt but is not sorry that he/she strayed. Straying party remains unfaithful and will not change but will not end the relationship, either.  In fact, straying party says that the faithful partner needs to become convinced that straying is OK and should stray, too! What sane individual would insist that these parties must remain together? Who would fault the faithful partner for seeking a separation?

We needn’t fear Canterbury becoming a “bully.” I think the question you should really be asking is, once it has its freedom, which issues du jour will TEC next decide are holy and foistable on its beleaguered faithful? Political groups need issues to attract attention and interest.

drdanfee,

Ah, so the slippery slope slopes both ways. Now I see…

Drdanfee:

When reading writings such as yours (or taking a stroll through Fr. Jake’s site and the like), it just clarifies that there are indeed two churches under one roof…that can’t last.  Jesus said a house divided can’t stand.  He told his disciples to shake the dust of their feet and depart if they weren’t welcome.

You can’t convince us that TEC’s path is correct because it doesn’t line up Scripturally.  TEC is choosing to walk apart from Scripture.  That’s important to us orthodox.

One thing we can all agree on is that God does love all of us.  While I believe that the TEC is headed down a wrong path, I still pray God’s best for them.  I await what the Anglican Communion is willing to do for those of us who don’t follow what the TEC’s up to.  Because I, as an orthodox believer,  am not welcome in the TEC.

Thank you, Lakeland Two, for a civil and thoughtful posting.  I’m as “reappraising” as reappraising can be, and agree with you, that we are two under one roof.  Within my diocese I am a minority, just as you seem to be in relationship to the national church.  I know how it feels to be on the outside.  It does please me that however tempted we have been to push back and act out against our bishop, we have “stood firm” with our commitments and desire to stay within communion with other parishes within our congregation.  Maybe separate roofs are the answer, but it saddens me to accept that as truth.  Again, thank you Lakeland Two for the civility of your posting.  It stands out in great contrast to much of what I read here.

Dear Nashvilleepiscopalian:
  The posting on this site are pretty tame compared to those on Lisa Fox’s or Fr.Jake.  For the most part, posts here are a model of comity; well argued, and mostly not inclined to engage in ad hominem attacks.  The difference is not only do the orthodox who post here have strong convictions, they are quite articulate in expressing them, and being able to support their conclusions from facts, scripture, or the fathers.  Once in a while someone will post an ugly comment, but that is the exception, not the rule.  Loving correction is quite different from personal attacks, and the kind of venom, spleen and emotional posts not badked up by anything but “feelings” that I have observed on some of the “progressive” blogs.  Responses may be addressed to a poster, but are not personal attacks. 
As to “separate roofs” - that has been evident for some time now.  We are two religions trying to coexist in one church.  Each side begins with a different set of assumptions, and inevitably reaches different conclusions.  We have a tendency to forget that the <i>telos<> we are in search of is Jesus Christ, the incarnation, and His reconciliation of us to God. 
Bless you in your search, as we all seek the new-born Christ on the road to Bethlehem.
Charles

Dear Lakeland Two,
I find you two awesome.  Thank you both for the spirit-filled words that you always bring to this blog and which often move me near to tears.  Christ bless you both this Christmas as He has blest all men through His birth, which we celebrate tomorrow.
And to all of you who have enriched me here, and in whose company I feel ministered to and witnessed to and been able to share my own thoughts occasionally, God Bless you all and have a wonderful Christmas Day.

Dumb Ox:  Thanks, and the feeling is mutual.  We’ve gleaned a lot from you as well.

Nashvilleepiscopalian:  Thanks.  And I agree that the whole situation is sad.  And I agree with El Jefe.  And I think that maybe we see the “other” side with harsher eyes.  But I know I would love to use the delete key on some of the comments on both sides I’ve seen - including mine.

It rained until it was too late for us to go to our 10:00 “Midnight” service (powerchairs don’t do well in the rain) so we found the Pope celebrating Christmas Eve Mass on TV.  We’re sharing a pizza, listening to carols on the cable network’s station that’s showing a roaring fire. 

Merry Christmas to all!

King of Kings…and Lord of Lords…And He shall reign forever and ever…Hallelujah!!!!

Did anyone see Warren (Purpose Driven Life) on Chris Matthews’ program today?  Much as I disagree with him on many issues, I wholeheartedly embrace his premise that it is good for people to find the common ground where they can share civility…..and from there (my words) we may learn more about others’ viewpoints, passions and biases.  That is one reason I’m not so eager for a termination of “conversation” and “dialogue,” unlike many in Standing Firm (so long as it is thoughtful and civil).  Perspective is such a fascinating thing.  Being a “reappraiser,” to accept that term for the moment, I find the dialogue in Standing Firm to be much more strident than in Fr. Jake’s blog site.  (Yes, I read 84 comments to his posting about the AoC’s recent announcement.)  But I accept the fact that others can have the opposite perspective.  But isn’t it a good thing that we read multiple viewpoints?  I certainly think so.

“I hope that a couple of pretty difficult meetings for my church in the early part of the year will pass without major disruption.”  +++Rowan

Me too, dear Archbishop Rowan and thanks for all that you do to serve us as the honorable/fair minded and emotionally “well balanced” person that God, England and The Anglican Communion have EXTRA inspired you to be!

NashvilleEpiscopalian: Listening to and speaking with others is part of Christian formation and service. One of my personal credos underscores the value of receptive listening: “what I most need to know is what I least want to hear.”

But “dialogue” as long practiced by the reappraisers in control of ECUSA often differs from real dialogue. These folks have their minds made up, and nothing I could say would make much difference. They look down on orthodox laypeople like me. We didn’t go to their seminaries. We haven’t internalized their enlightenment, even when they have gently and repeatedly offered it to us from the pulpit. We are like nice children whose minds remain in thrall to dead bigots and (behind it all) some primitive scriptural Moloch.

ECUSA’s ruling reappraisers stand ready to enlighten us and (meanwhile) to humor us. But they know best, and they know they know best.

“Dialogue” with them is a process by which they calm us, keep us playing their game and paying their salaries, get us to acquiesce in their agenda, and ultimately lead us toward their enlightenment. They are the therapists; we are the patients. They are the parents; we are the children. Dialogue is yet another means by which they impose their will.

If comments really are tamer on Fr. Jake’s blog than here, might that be because of Jake’s proclivity to censor orthodox comments?

Completely off thread. I just wanted to post a huge thank-you to Mr. Griffith and the leadership of this blog, and over at T19 as well. You are too many to name in a short post, but you have been, for me, a beacon in the darkness. As importantly, I find here kindred souls in this struggle to return the church to truth. Merry Christmas to each and every one of you. You have showed us the ‘pearl of great price’ (non-LDS version). Grateful thanks.

Irenaeus is dead-on regarding what is truly an active word, “dialogue” and the inherent condescension when said word is mentioned by reappraisers. 

“Dialogue” is no more than a facade with that crowd.  The phrase that would demonstrate much more integrity is “passive submission”. 

No thanks—I prefer to spend my time with the Triune God and the REAL Historic Faith.

Drdanfee,  I think you are being fearful of the orthodox tide for nothing.  They will never have enough to pull off all you fear even if that was their agenda.  Soon they will be out of TEC either walking away or being purged.  As for the strong orthodoxy type primates,  I think ECUSA will be toether in the same communion with the COE and other typical liberal provinces.  You just won’t have to deal with the GS bunch who will be off in their own communion.  I think the general public will still have their same opinion about Episcopalians as in the past—smaller denomination but the same or stronger reputation.  IMHO

All, don’t forget that we must translate what our British cousins write into the American syntax.  While the wording is gentle, the meaning is direct and pointed.  The very replete reference to the “troubles” is something we normally do not see from Archbishop Williams.
To me, this letter sounds like an invitation to a contempt hearing.  Dear Defendant, would you be so kind as (you are commanded) to appear before us at 9 a.m. on February __, 2007 so as to show cause explain and show cause why you and your province should not be held in contempt.  Witnesses will be present to testify against you . . ..
Then again, I’m an optimist, and have been wrong before.

“...  However, given the acute dissension in the Episcopal Church at this point, and the very widespread effects of this in the Communion, I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business,...”

IMHO, a close reading of the letter excludes the possibility that one of the contributors might be a missionary bishop because, as members of the HoBs of Rwanda or Nigeria, they are simply not “from that Province.”  The phrase “that [p]rovince” refers to TEC.

Okay, I’ve posted my analysis of the letter at BabyBlueOnline. 

Frankly, I think “Point #3” - which Rowan doesn’t mention as Point #3 but may be the most important point of all, is almost overlooked (an excellent British-style tactic).  There may be 38 provinces, but are there now 39 primates?  That is a big deal - for the office of the ABC as well as for the direction of the Anglican Communion.  And why does it take more than one “primate” to represent TEC?  Could it be because division has occurred?

Read more here. 

bb

“There may be 38 provinces, but are there now 39 primates? “

That idea carries a great deal of merit and seems to me to be a logical step since it conveys, both to the beleagured orthodox and to the liberal majority, an early organizational step towards the ultimate creation of a 39th. province.  That would be seen, by the reappraisers, as a very threatenng move on the part of the AC;  to the orthodox, as a strong ray of hope and doubtless the fruition of the dealings between the conservative dioceses and the GS primates.

“There may be 38 provinces, but are there now 39”  BB

Visions of grandiocity….

The Archbishop of York is to be seated!  Being the son of a Englishman (from Yorkshire) I’m quite pleased about this NEW addition as he will represent the COE and +++Rowan will be free to chair! 
Clean as a whistle as I understand it and no secret Britanical decoder thinking necessary (maybe a arched eyebrow or twelve).

Felicidades!

BabyBlue, you are optimistic about +Sentamu and I know other British evangelicals who are as well.  Did you read Virtue’s deflationary piece, critical of his evangelical credentials?  What’s your take on that?

One of the most bemusing aspects of the whole debate—over the last thirty years—is the utter unreality of the left.  DrDanFee above has us burning gays at the stake, Bryan Taylor of Fort Worth accuses the ABC of “tyranny”, and they all complain about Anglicanism “suddenly becoming conservative [EEEK!!]”, as though the primary purpose of the Church of Christ were to Keep Abreast of the Very Best Thinking In Progressive Circles.  They keep asserting that theirs is the majority view in ECUSA when the votes of those who actually pay the bills—e.g. in northern Virginia, hardly a hotbed of rabid reactionaries—run overwhelmingly against them (90+%).  They mention WO as though a) it had some relevance to the current situation, and b) ending it would be an unthinkable horror.  (It does have some relevance, after all, I guess, but certainly not in the way they think it does.)

I was raised an Episcopalian, confirmed by +Brady of Fond du Lac in the 1950s, and reading these folks’ comments about “traditional” US Anglicanism is even more amusing than their attempts at theological justification.  They have at this point moved well beyond mere denial into total mental imprisonment within their own propaganda. 

I’ll pray for them, sincerely.  But the hardest part will be trying not to giggle.

Re: DrDanFee

There is a silver lining to everything you know - at least this time he was intellible.  Last time I read something he wrote it read like a GRE vocabulary list… so that’s a positive…

As a parent I do what’s best for my children - not what they like - but what is best.  Seems to me since KJS has decided not to believe in Christianity, the best thing for her is not to be a part of Christian meetings.  She should go find a Unitarian meeting or something that more approximates her belief system.  That’s what’s best for her - not what she might like - but what is best.  True love combines both acceptance AND what is right.  The liberal position always forgets the latter.

You ask me, love without any qualifications reads more like apathy than love - takes no effort and requires nothing to sustain.  If that is the definition of ‘love’ in the liberal sense - it is worse than worthless.

Maybe my reaction to DrDanFee’s posting is related to my “reappraiser” status, but I am astounded to read the writings of someone who is so all-knowing and certain about “best” and “right”  (six times in one paragraph!).  Then again, I would never presume to be so intellible as to scorn another’s offering as GED quality.  I do hope my children experience unqualified love, just as I do from Him.  It is NOT worthless.

For what its worth, I certainly agree with Peter’s initial insight and Irenaeus’ follow up to explain why ++Williams might do as Peter supposes. 

However, given the acute dissension in the Episcopal Church at this point, and the very widespread effects of this in the Communion, I am also proposing to invite two or three other contributors from that Province for a session to take place before the rest of our formal business, in which the situation may be reviewed…

I do not think there can be any doubt that the “situation” which Rowan is trying to address here is KJS’s ability to represent the people of TEC.

++Williams makes it clear that the purpose of the pre-meeting, at least in part, is to review “the situation”.  What is this “situation” that might be reviewed? Well I suppose I could be wrong, but it certainly seems that the situation referred to is whether or not KJS is seated.  This certainly seems to be the number one issue that everyone is looking at.  Furthermore, common sense tells me that there really is no subject matter which could not be discussed within the context of the primates meeting EXCEPT the matter of who is going to be seated AT the primates meeting.  So it seems clear to me that from the context, the “situation” at hand which is to be “reviewed” at the pre-meeting is “What is the status of KJS (and TEC) within the Anglican Communion?”.  To my mind this letter clearly insinuates that, although it would be premature for ++Williams to act unilaterally by uninviting her, holding a pre-meeting where this “situation” can be formally addressed in a conciliar manner is the proper Anglican way to address it.  Therefore, her status (and possibly even the status of the other TEC visitors) might very well change at that pre-meeting.

I actually think this is wise not only for the reasons Irenaeus suggests, but also by reducing her to an observer status prior to the primates meeting, the meeting can get down to business without having to listen to her constant dissention.

Nashville, I didn’t see any reference to the GED prior to your post—I even used ctrl F to make sure I wasn’t missing one. Was your remark a comment on what Eclipse wrote?

There is a silver lining to everything you know - at least this time he was intellible.  Last time I read something he wrote it read like a GRE vocabulary list… so that’s a positive…

The GRE is not the high-school equivalency test, but the Graduate Record Exam (for grad school admissions). I took Eclipse’s comment to mean this is the first of the ABC’s recent messages which was understandable without a dictionary close at hand.

As I posted on T19, I’m so glad that I have taken nearly a week’s break from the AC soap opera.  As with his assessment of Camp Allen, I agree with Matt+ on this one as well.  I guess I’m just simplistic, but all I can see is that Rowan Williams chose to invite a heretic and an apostate and a pagan to a meeting of Christian bishops.  I view this as a slap in the face to the orthodox primates in the GS, particularly to the host country of Tanzania.  I am sick of all of the machinations.  If our Lord were to call Rowan Williams home tonight he has much to answer, for all I can see is that he keeps choosing “unity” above proclaiming clearly the gospel of our Lord and Savior.  He is a bad shepherd.

Merry Christmas all,

I think the Archbishop of York appointment is very strategic.  I believe the ABC wants the second highest ranking Archbishop in the COE, an African, to be the lead person from the COE dealing with Akinola and the GS.  I am hedging that the ABC hopes this will the AB of York will be able to dissuade Akinola from taking any drastic actions.  Alas, I believe that effort will be for naught.

Gayle (and Matt+),

Please remember that +++Rowan believes, sincerely and firmly in the depths of his soul, in the conciliar model of ecclesial authority (as do the Orthodox).  In his view, what to do about ECUSA is not a decision he can legitimately make by himself, and disinviting Ms. Schori would amount to prejudging a case that can only be decided by the Primates as a body—i.e. as close to a Council as he can get for the purpose.

Both we orthodox and the revisionists keep berating +++Rowan for not acting like the Pope.  Let’s try to control our impatience and remember our Anglican ecclesiology.  Some of our RC friends are pointing out that our troubles are due to a lack of an authoritative Magisterium; perhaps they’re right.  But we rejected all that 400 years ago (and the Greek church rejected it a thousand years ago); maybe we should give our system a chance to work—however slowly and painfully it may seem at the time.

Thanks for bothering to respond from the right side of the highway to the Great Feast. (To which only the authentic believers on the right are invited, naturally.)

Let’s see.  So far.

(1) I am giving real big-hearted believers the giggles at the same time they are promising to pray for me – once they have a momentary chance to catch their more somber breaths, I would guess.  Since they are getting a laugh out of my views, I wonder what they pray will happen to me next, except that God bless me by making me a cookie-cutter version of all that they believe themselves at best to be?  Maybe I have a hidden calling to roady humor, after all?  I would seriously love to do stand-up, theology-wise.  Laughter and pilgrimage might go hand in hand in hand.  But alas, my shortcomings are all to palpable.  (But funny, some say, funny.)  Like Grandma Moses, I think I better practice in my own garage or back porch, safely, after all the guests are long gone.  Still.  Funny, giggly funny.  Thanks.  I think.

(2)  My fears of forced worldwide Anglican institutional and confessionally detailed conformity and prefabricated religious conservatisms (the Southern Baptist Baptizing, the Rushdoonian Rushing – of all significant Anglican leeways?) are sufficient to diagnose me as mentally ill.  Thanks.  I knew my meds needed to be adjusted, but it is always hard to know, up or down.  Up the med?  Decrease the meds?  I am also reminded of the town drunks and the town idiots in certain types of eighteenth century Americana, real or faux or simply kitsch.  Lost, lovable fellars.

(While conservative believer loud and published worldwide fears of their frequently listed target people are entirely reasonable - and just - of course.  Their doom is truly doom, and just those very folks as listed will truly bring it to all of us if real believers don’t clamp down on them, and quick.)

(3) I am unable to understand love, let alone actually love, unless I can show my love by using force or by punishing the loved person for his or her own good.  Ditto, God and Jesus, I surmise.  A corollary maybe?  Love cannot be real love unless it concerns itself at core – both human and divine? – with ever pressing categorical and final distinctions between nothing but right and nothing but wrong.

For some reason, I am thinking of whats-his-name’s Love Story.  Love means never having to say you are sorry that all things can be finally sorted into nothing but right, and nothing but wrong.  Things, actions, views, confessions, life styles – and most importantly I might guess – people.

Now. Don’t worry.  I have known for some time that people think I am all wrong, nothing but wrong.  I cannot fully explain why it doesn’t bother me more than it does, but for now let’s just say I view weathering some types of big or small disapproval from other people as the ticket price to fallible adulthood.  Yeah.  I know.  Really silly idea.  Way sillier than unity via forced conformity.

(4) My hunches that the conservative way of reading scripture, Levitical sanctions against people so far beyond the pale that they will not or cannot repent and rejoin the tribe, and contemporary peripatetic violence against outsiders – (at the moment queer folks are mostly on display, but transgender folks are sweeping up rapidly from behind the regular statistics, at least in USA) – well these are loony. 

Okay.

It is not the violence against outsiders which is mainly loony, but the noticing of the violence against the outsiders that it loony.  The really righteous ignore it, safe and sound and calm - because it has nothing to do with anything that matters.  If you didn’t do the punching, violence against a neighbor who just happens to also be an outside is of no importance to believers? If noticing violence against outsiders is loony, then the noticing person is probably loony, too.

Okay.

The fact that every single physically violent actor against queer outsiders in particular turns to Scripture – consistent with how it is read on the right – when explaining and justifying why violence was necessary and sufficient for godliness – well that is an insignificant coincidence that has nothing to do with conservative believers. 

Okay.

Even when orthodox believers – Akinola? - are very angry and calling down hell fire on the heads of people whom they find filthy or dangerous or objectionable, well, we all know they never, ever, really mean anything by it.

Okay. 

All that conservative negative talk is just talk, then.  Orthodox believers letting off steam in their inner locker room sanctorums.

Hmmm.  So all that talk about how real love needs to force loved ones is just talk, too?

Oh well.

drdanfee,
It’s not clear what the point of your diatribe was unless it was merely to vent.  I trust it was therapeutic.  Perhaps it may come as a surprise to learn that many of us enjoy hearing diverging views despite the fact that we often disagree with them.  Good dialogue helps to really see the issues.  We would in fact, welcome scholarly inquiry which makes us rethink our theology.  We do not, however, come to this inquiry with the premise that what was passed down to us is rubbish.  That is the difference between our approaches in our scholarship.

Our reasons for inquiry are different.  Our presuppositions are different.  The transformations as a result of scholarly inquiry draw us into the light, not away from it.  So if you desire to journey with us and explore new ways in which to see both old and new problems, hurray for you!  However, if the inquiry you suggest is to tear down the faith which has been passed down to us through the ages, well then of course you can expect opposition. 

Many of us here would welcome dialogue with revisionists who uphold the core theological essentials.  Alas, in seeking to genuinely engage with them in dialogue over contemporary issues, we found none who upheld the faith ie, the timeless theological core essential teachings which have been passed down to us.  That, my friend is problematic. 

The problem lies not in your new understanding of how to study contemporary theological issues.  Rather, the problem lies in that in order to agree with your views, we have to abandon the true faith which has been the banner of the Church through the ages.  That my friend, we will not do for you of for anyone else.  Bring the stake and burn us if you must.  We will well come the fire.  Will you?

Drdanfee:

Hmm - let’s clear up a couple of things:  1.  If your intent is actually to have an intelligent conversation, let’s drop the whole prejudiced ‘if someone sees homosexuality is a sin then they have to hate homosexuals’ motif.  I know that is a favorite one because you can villify entire groups with that bias, however, in the light of reality it doesn’t wash.  I believe gossip is a sin… under this premise THEN I have to hate everyone who gossips… or has evil thoughts in their hearts… or does not love their neighbor as theirselves.  That is a ‘not well thought out’ concept - so you need to loose it as it’s not not flat out true.  2.  If you state things about someone B. Aniknola, for example, please cite your source… otherwise it comes across as just slander.

I am only going to deal w/ the love issue since it’s the only one I commented on:
Re: Love -

3) I am unable to understand love, let alone actually love, unless I can show my love by using force or by punishing the loved person for his or her own good.  Ditto, God and Jesus, I surmise.  A corollary maybe?  Love cannot be real love unless it concerns itself at core – both human and divine? – with ever pressing categorical and final distinctions between nothing but right and nothing but wrong.

So, if I keep my child from staying up too late, running into the street, over-eating him/herself to death (things they might want to do) then this is punishment?  So, in your idealogy doing what is best is punishing?  You need to rethink that one.

Well, seems to me the best idea would be to go back to the original definition:
4 Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud5 or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged.6 It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out.7 Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.

Therefore, to love, yes, you must be concerned with truth… and for a Christian that means Biblical Truth.  Choosing to confront injustice and rejoice when what is right wins out is part of being loving.

For some reason, I am thinking of whats-his-name’s Love Story.  Love means never having to say you are sorry that all things can be finally sorted into nothing but right, and nothing but wrong.  Things, actions, views, confessions, life styles – and most importantly I might guess – people.

You know, repentance (being sorry and wanting change) is the core of the Christian Faith.  It is by being repentant for the things we do that are wrong that we come to know Christ in the first place.  Therefore, since I love my family, I find myself CONSTANTLY in a state of repentance with them because I know I’m not always the perfect parent I’d like to be (or spouse).  True love recognizes what is best for another and tries to help that person achieve that best.  True love also sees when it has done wrong and honestly admits it. 

Never having to say you are sorry means your love is meaningless, thoughtless and without any kind of enduring value.

drdanfee

Couple of thoughts here:

1.  Anyone quoting Love Story’s “Love is never having to say you’re sorry” just doesn’t get what love is really about, IMHO.  Love is caring enough for another person to admit you are wrong.  To repent when you are.  This movie quote is in opposition to Scripture.  Why else in the Lord’s Prayer (you know, the one JESUS gave us as an example to pray) it says, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”  This is Jesus telling US to ask GOD for forgiveness - we’re to say we are sorry to God whom we love.

I cannot fully explain why it doesn’t bother me more than it does, but for now let’s just say I view weathering some types of big or small disapproval from other people as the ticket price to fallible adulthood.

2. Your lengthy post here is in opposition to your words.  My father would quote Shakespeare at you at this point, “Me thinks thou protesteth too much…”

3. What, IMHO, you and the liberals/TEC want is our absolute, unqualified surrender/submission to this new thing.  The real question is:  Why do you/TEC expect us to turn our backs on the divinity of Christ, that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life - the only way to the Father - Jesus’s own words?  That there are a whole lot of us who can’t write off the Bible as just a book of fables that has no relevance today seems to frost you/TEC and what we L2 believe is a small minority that has manuvered and positioned themselves into power.  Just one example of this is on Integrity’s website.

4.  We L2 are sorry that our wanting to stay true to Scripture offends you/TEC, but we are called to stay true and we will.  We have our areas of challenge/sin that we struggle against…but we do struggle against them - not throw out the parts that we don’t like.  We are all sinners, each and every one of us:  it is only through Jesus Christ we are redeemed.  It is not our wish that you cease to exist (though that’s how we feel the TEC feels about us), but hope and pray that God works through you this day and every day.  It is up to God to decide whether anyone’s works will hold up to the refining fire.

We are willing to say, “Go your way.”  Why can’t you/TEC do the same? 

5. While I feel that you have attacked orthodox believers specifically by this particular post, I remind myself and everyone that you , like the rest of us, are just a human with all the frailties that come with it.  We are all imperfect creatures, but God loves us anyway.  He’s not done with any of us yet.

Well said Eclipse and richardc;

“Never having to say you are sorry means your love is meaningless, thoughtless and without any enduring value.”

I would also add it has no endearing value as my love is then all about me and not about the other person, the beloved.

It is not the violence against outsiders which is mainly loony, but the noticing of the violence against the outsiders that [is] loony.

What “violence” are you referring to here?  Actual, physical violence?  Are you seriously suggesting anyone here would condone brutality against another human being?

Or is this that new, trendy “spiritual violence” that revisionists are always going on about nowadays?  If so, let’s talk about the “spiritual violence” of orthodox believers being shunned, reviled, slandered, and denied entry to their own church buildings into which they have poured time, love and money. 

<blockquote>The fact that every single physically violent actor against queer outsiders in particular turns to scripture – consistent with how it is read on the right – when explaining and justifying why violence was necessary and sufficient for godliness – well that is an insignificant coincidence that has nothing to do with conservative believers.</blockquote>

Once again, if you’re talking about real violence, no reasserter condones that.  If you’re referring to the situation in Nigeria, the orthodox have a better chance of turning that around by maintaining the relationship and appealing to Christian mercy than the revisionists, who have done nothing but insult and alienate Nigerian clergy.  How productive is that?

Even when orthodox believers – Akinola? - are very angry and calling down hell fire on the heads of people whom they find filthy or dangerous or objectionable, well, we all know they never, ever, really mean anything by it.

Is this really what Akinola believes?  Or what you want to believe he believes?

Hmmm.  So all that talk about how real love needs to force loved ones is just talk, too?

Whether you agree with their stance or not, the fact that reasserters are quoting those awkward scriptural passages at you must mean they have some concern for your wellbeing.  If the orthodox really hated the LGBTQI, revisionists etc, then wouldn’t they just abandon them to “hellfire and damnation”?  Think about it.  The motivation here is clearly charity, not hate.

We just read Richardc’s and Eclipse’s posts after we posted.  We just love how God works…what they had to say dovetailed together beautifully.

Off to the doctor’s today….....