My Predictions. My Warnings. My Call to You.

Greg,

You said:

“Currently, there is no mechanism by which a province may be ejected; neither are there any criteria the violation of which can invoke such a mechanism even if it existed.”

This is just wrong. It has been wrong from the very beginning. It is pure spin and please do not buy it.

All that is necessary is for the ABC, ACC, and primates to simply not invite delegates from TEC to the various councils of the Communion.

That would constitute expulsion and it is an avenue that has always been availible.

Matt,

I probably should have written that currently there is no recognized mechanism everyone agress on, and which has been used, and thus has a precedent. At any rate, it’s moot because ++RW isn’t going to use it; he’s going to engineer it so ECUSA walks apart of their own accord.

But Greg, what if TEC refuses to “make it easy” for Williams and everyone else?  What if they just sign on to things and then brazenly proceed to ignore them?  It’s not like it’s never happened before.  There HAS to be some method of forcibly expelling errant members, even if the ABC doesn’t want to be the one who has to pull the trigger.  This “gentleman’s agreement” style of organization only works if it’s composed of gentlemen.  I’d go further - a sure-fire method of expulsion is the only thing that will keep TEC honest.  If they think they can get what they want merely by LYING for it, I’m assured they will.  Only if it’s clear that fake bargains won’t work will they draw back from even trying it on.

Dr. Mabuse - I agree that there neds to be a change in the way members can be explelled; that’s what the covenant must include (or articulate for other Instruments of COmmunion to do) if it’s going to be worth the paper it’s written on. We have to remember that when Frank Griswold signde a pledge not to proceed with VGR’s consecration but did it anyway, that pledge included no “or else” clause. The covenant must include such a thing.

The primates understand this, and Drexel Gomez, who’s the head of the design group, understands this as well as any of them. And yes, they are Anglicans, so it’s not guaranteed they’ll produce something with teeth, but the days of the “gentleman’s agreement” you speak of being sufficient for order in the communion are drawing to a close.

I would have been in agreement about 50-50 until this mornings <a > Telegraph </a> (tp Kendal). 

++RW having invited her already, I am more inclined to think that she will not be seated based upon her own writings.  If nothing else there is a clear case not to seat someone because they are heretical.  This would to me be middle ground.  It would not expel ECUSA, but would be a solid slap in the face.  I think the right of any College of Bishops to qualify their members is something which should not be questions.  Not seating her and opposed to not seating ECUSA would in effect not be that different, but would have the effect of not stepping on the understood privilege of ++RW to do the inviting.

There is enough out there to declare her heretical.  (Fr Matt, Dr Bill, et al) Remember this would not be a trial, but rather a finding that her positions are so different from the position of the rest of the college that she can not be a member.  To use the secular legal analog, it would be civil and not a criminal finding.

If this happens, my guess is that +MacPherson being the senior Bishop with jurisdiction present will be invited to have voice but no vote for the rest of the meeting.  Here I mean senior in position, not by date of ordination.  He is a provincial Bishop.

Excellent thoughts, Greg.  I quite agree with you on most of it.  A few minor points: (1) I wonder if African social ethics will constrain Africa from sending a guest home.  At the AMiA conference, I got the impression that is a factor for them. (2) If the Denis Canon falls in federal court, that may accelerate the exodus. (3) You may give too little account of 815’s hubris.  You allude to it in your account of “Jake, Susan, Mark, Dylan, Louie,” but my own sense is that hubris is the sin beneath the sin here, and that the hubris of 815 may well lead them to to errors such as unwisely testing the Denis canon, accelerating the breach with the GS by their own response to Tanzania’s offer of discipline, and other precipitous actions. Both would simply compress the timeline you have laid out, though.

Craig U

What were you doing hanging out with the “rear echelon” at the AMiA Conference?

Rowan Williams will ultimately side with the Global South. Or, more accurately, he will not go to bat for an apostate and unrepentant Episcopal Church.

This is definitely a fair assessment of the ABC actions recently. GS will take advantage of it as they grow in their prominence, but I’m with you on this a mere step in the journey. I’m reminded of the call in Jeremiah 6:16, that sometimes it means back tracking to the cross road to get going on the right road again.

I agree with most of what you say, Greg.  But I don’t agree with one thing.  Your prediction that Schori will leave if “asked to leave” is based on the idea that she has some sense of honor or shame or sense of social stricture.

I don’t believe that she does.  Most of the committed “revisionists” that I can think of just don’t have care what “the group” thinks of them.  They think that they should guide “the group” into more sophisticated, progressive ideology, and they will, whether “the group” wants it or not.

Richard Nixon had the good sense and sense of shame to resign.  Bill Clinton did not.  I don’t think this was because one was a member of the party of the Democrats and the other of the Republicans.  I think it was a fundamental difference in their notion of societal approval or decision making—one had a sense of shame, the other did not.

I have been involved in computer communications since the late 60’s bu I never fully understood until this minute the incomparable instrument of knowledge that we have been given. I am manifestly not a theologian, rather am a 68 year old health care manager, yet have had the experience this morning of watch AND understanding the unfolding of a thread of fact and logic in the hands of Griffith, Mabuse, Scott, Uffman, and Kennedy. This was impossible a decade ago. This is why the Anglican Reform Movement can now succede. The bishops and other functionaries can’t hide from us any more in a fog of closed meetings, railroaded elections and intimidations of our priests. We will know about them as they happen. Git ‘er done boys.

I was trying to say the same thing as you, Sarah.  I think that the hubris which is the “sin beneath the sin” here is so dominant that we shouldn’t be surprised to witness the self- and other- destructive behaviors continue and intensify the crisis, such that things move along more quickly and painfully.  God thwarts the proud.  Always.

James Manley,
Good question.  My answer: seeing the Father at work in the Spirit’s faithful recreation and nurturing of the Son’s church….I saw some humans there, too.  They were singing and praying and laying hands on each other… radical bunch. To adopt Greg’s language, they “get it.”

What were you doing hanging out with the “rear echelon” at the AMiA Conference?

James,

Let me make it clear thta I don’t necessarily consider leaving for the AMiA to be the same as going to the rear echelon. I meant things more along the lines of Rome, or PCA.

I think my predictions would be close to Greg’s.  A big question mark surrounds what Schori will do when the majority of primates (acknowledging that many revisionists predict that it will not be a majority, but I think that unlikely) essentially move not to recognize her.  But I don’t doubt that there will be such a move.

Another element to consider will be the impact of the international press.  A tendency of reporting is to simplify things.  Thus, I suspect that the headlines out of Tanzania will be “US kicked out” or “US survives effort to be kicked out”.  I doubt there will be anything much in between in the public press.  If things go as suspected, I doubt that reporters will be persuaded by ECUSA spin that, yes, um, well there was a vote not to recognize (or whatever the terminology will be) the US, but Schori stayed in the back of the room, and the ABC and a Canadian said good morning to her one day, and we still say we are part of the Anglican Communion even if the rest of the communion does not recognize us, so it is was quite clear our status is unchanged.  Reporters can be slanted, but they are not, by and large, blind.  That will not fly.  In or out, the papers will say, and that, without the subtleties of interest to StandFirm readers, will become the result.

Greg,
This is a very well thought out and written offering.  I tend to agree with most of it.  However there are a few points on which I think there could be a different outcome.  Yes, Tanzania will not expel ECUSA, but it could certainly put ECUSA in “time-out” by having it withdraw from all Anglican councils, meetings, etc.  I also think this is probable given the resolve of the GS.  However, the main thing I think I differ on is the idea of the orthodox being in a sort of “Limbo” for a time.  I think that some measure of recognition and acceptance of the orthodox will be provided.  I do no think the primates would continue to allow the orthodox in America to continue in some ecclesiastical limbo.  As the state or ECUSA moves increasingly from impaired to broken, I believe there will be a corresponding recognition of orthodox in America.  This has already happened in some small degree, yet not in full.  The stronger the discipline of ECUSA is, the greater the chance of a parallel province for orthodox.  These two things go hand in hand.  If ECUSA is uninvited from Anglican councils, then I believe American orthodox will be invited in their place.  Therefore, if Schori is sent packing as you predict, then I believe Duncan will be seated in her stead, at least for an interim period (although I agree with Sarah on this point).  Bottom line, the measure of recognition that the orthodox structures receive will be proportional to the level of discipline that ECUSA receives. 

What I do not have much of a clue about is what will happen in the USA after Tanzania.  I agree it will be a tumultuous time!  However, it may be played out as a war within like you described, or it may be played out by droves of conservative and moderate dioceses and parishes realigning themselves under other jurisdictions.  If a weak response is dealt in Tanzania then a long arduous fight from within will be waged by the very few orthodox who stay, but if discipline is significant then the probability that vast droves will realign under interim or provisional structures greatly increases.  I also believe that the legal battles that ensue in either case will be better for the orthodox if strong discipline is handed out in Tanzania as it would clearly put ECUSA into a constitutional crisis.

One thing is for certain.  These times are not boring!

Just for clarity’s sake, Greg, would you include any of the continuing churches as “the rear echelon”?  BTW, very good job on the article and also the comments.
I’m hoping and praying that the Primates meeting in Tanzania gives me something that I can hang my hat on and be able to return to my TEC parish and fight the fight there.  I have found a wonderful continuing church that uses the 1928 prayerbook which we have been attending since the first of the year.  The best part is that I have been able to worship without the distractions of the past few months, hence my question.
It is a shelter of Anglicanism is this storm and I hear that it keeps getting more visitors each Sunday.  If we stay, I can see us having a part in building a bigger space. 

I can see where it is part of this bigger fight which Teddy Mak called the Anglican Reform Movement, which I beginning to think is the real battle we are called to fight.  It bigger and more important than the VGR’s or the KJS’s or gay marriage or even what hymnal is used.

Great posts here and an excellent first offering by Greg.  Thanks to all. 

I need to run off so I will read later and in more depth.  But, at first glance, I agree with Matt.  It’s my understanding that the Lambeth invitations don’t go out until March.  Who may or may not get one is still up for grabs, and, in my view, there’s a lot of power in that neck of the woods. 

We shall see, and I agree with Spencer, too—we live in interesting times.

Intercession for God’s world and Church goes without saying—

IC,

Jen

Greg,
With regard to limbo:  I feel confident that the ACN, at least, will not be allowed to remain on defense after Tanzania.  Our leaders are already anticipating the results.  I know Bishop Duncan plans an energetic campaign beginning this spring to push the orthodox churches to go back on offense; that is, a highly intentional educational/ ‘equipping the saints’ program that focuses our attention on the task of evangelism. We’re going to grow organically. You can see it noted on the ACN web site, and from what little I know of its details, it’s a “Let’s get back to our business of being the church” clarion call from the leadership….

Gayle,

The “rear echeleon” I define more as a mindset than which ecclesial body your church belongs to. It is a mindset of “I’m going to wash my hands of this until ‘those people work this out.’”

“Those people” are us, and we need folks to be part of “those people.”

So you can be in the rear-echelon no matter where you are - ECUSA included. By the same token, you can be a soldier in the battle wherever you are. It all depends on what you’re doing wherever it is you find yourself.

In addition, expect the Anglican covenant to be on the table far sooner than TEC would like - certainly at Lambeth ‘08, and perhaps before that. This is not to TEC’s favor no matter how you slice it. Word is that a draft version is nearing completion . . .

THAT got my attention.  So I sniffed around and found strong confirmation at, of all places, The Episcopal News Service.

This progress is significent indeed.  I comment more on my blog.

Greg: Thanks for the clarification.

A great piece, Greg.  Thanks.

While I differ in many respects from Greg’s work, I appreciate the thoughtfulness he put into this article.
It is sad, though, to see the Windsor process treated like something it isn’t. It is not a demand, but a process involving us all. What has happened is that, in the words of Liz Zivanov, a plowshare has been turned into a sword.

Very good indeed, echoing the kudos.

A couple of possibly relevant points:
<ul><li>Someone (Virtue I think) reported that at the famous To Set Our Hope ACC meeting, a resolution was presented which would have removed all reference to ECUSA from the ACC governing documents.  (It reportedly gained a majority but not the 2/3 required for passage.)  The idea was that this would in effect expel ECUSA.  Whether or not the report is true, there are (probably) not any “governing documents” for the Communion itself, in the typical British fashion, since “everybody knows what it is.”

<li> After Kigali’s call for a separate “ecclesial entity”, any “limbo” for the orthodox will at least be somewhat formalized.  Again according to Virtue, the organizations through which the GS prefers to work are FACA and the Network; how reliable that information may be (and what, in this context, “work through” means, precisely) we’ll only know after Tanzania. (I had actually not heard of FACA before; it was founded late last summer under ++Venables and includes AMiA, REC, and several continuing bodies in its membership.)
</ul>

Whose plowshare, TWBSF? Whose sword?

Tom,

Thank you for the compliment.

I would disagree strongly with you that WIndsor is simply a “process,” and not a demand. It is a demand, as set out at Dromantine. It is a list of principles and actions to which the Episcopal Church had to adhere in order to remain a member in good standing of the Anglican communion. Perhaps it lacks the crossed-t, dotted-i imprimatur of official legislation, but in a practical sense, the demands are quite real, as are the consequences of not adhering (or, in TEC’s case, barely even responding) to them.

Greg et al,

What happened to +Venebles’ assertion that the GS will propose a new ecclesiastic structure?  I thought that would happen at this meeting.  Is it more likely a Lambeth ‘08 agenda item?  I would also like to see some response to those diocese who requested APO.  The “new structure” (read new province if you like) would be an excellent response.  I still agree with the tenor of your article.  My expectations are pretty low for this meeting.

It seems to me that the leadership of the Global South have far more important issues facing them than any of this.  Poverty, famine, disease, including HIV/AIDS comes to mind immediately.  One would think they might take a look in their own backyards before looking into the yards of others.  Some of the reasons HIV/AIDS is such a problem are polygamy, sexual activity outside the marriage relationship, cultural taboos that no longer make sense, just to mention a few.  I believe there is something in one of the Gospels about getting the log out of ones eye before trying to get the speck out of anothers eye.

Those who are unwilling to meet with or sit with ++Katharine are just being rude.  There is no other way to explain it.  Differences of opinion about orthodoxy, polity, or anything else do not excuse rude behavior.  She is the duly elected Primate of the Episcopal Church.  We didn’t tell any other province who they could or could not elect or appoint, so it’s inappropriate for them to behave as they seem to plan.  Rude is rude.  Your momma raised you better!

Bruce Garner, Atlanta

What happened to +Venebles’ assertion that the GS will propose a new ecclesiastic structure?  I thought that would happen at this meeting.  Is it more likely a Lambeth ‘08 agenda item?

I won’t be surprised if this is on the table, but I will be surprised if anything substantive is achieved in Tanzania. A new ecclesial structure will almost certainly emerge in time, but it’s more likely that the marginalization of 815 that began at Dromantine will only be furthered, not completed, in Tanzania.

Gregg thank you for clarifying the “rear echelon.”  This is important in that in my community, the PCA church is the leader for orthodoxy.  There are three churches one can attend that are main line and a smattering of non-denominational churches which are orthodox.  By far the PCA church has the individual leaders and courage to proclaim the divinity of Christ.  No one in my old parish (ECUSA) will issue this proclamation.

My ECUSA parish is the rear echelon, followed by my diocese.  I am starting to formulate my understanding of the theology within the PCA church and I am close to strongly disagreeing with many of you who bemoan the inadequacies within this denomination.  The leaders are orthodox, have courage and have no problem proclaiming the divinity of Christ.  Gregg I will meet your call and have prayed about it this morning.  This is an orthodox fight as ECUSA, absence the grace of God, will never have the foundation again to be in the front echelon if it ever was.

Differences of opinion about orthodoxy, polity, or anything else do not excuse rude behavior.

This did not seem to be a problem to our Lord Jesus Christ, when he was “rude” to the moneychangers or to the hypocritical pharisees. Didn’t seem to be a problem to the apostle when he warned us not to be yoked to unbelievers. Didn’t seem to be a problem to the apostle John, the “disciple of love”, when he encountered a notable heretic:

But Irenæus, in the first book of his work Against Heresies, (Irenæus, Adv. Hær. I. 26. 1.) gives some more abominable false doctrines of the same man, and in the third book relates a story which deserves to be recorded. He says, on the authority of Polycarp, that the apostle John once entered a bath to bathe; but, learning that Cerinthus was within, he sprang from the place and rushed out of the door, for he could not bear to remain under the same roof with him. And he advised those that were with him to do the same, saying, “Let us flee, lest the bath fall; for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within.”

So, yes, if you want to whine about “rudeness” (and, I suppose, persecution of and litigation against the orthodox isn’t counted rude?) go ahead ... but dishonest politeness at the expense of truth has never been a Christian virtue… only a secular humanist one.

Anyway, I’m not sure it does constitute rudeness. After all, they’d not want to be seated with or worship with a Wiccan either—is that being rude or simply being humbly obedient to the requirements of the faith of the Gospels?

pax,
LP

The church fathers were a bit “rude” in their dealings with heretics as well.  The nerve of them!

Bruce Garner complains:

Those who are unwilling to meet with or sit with ++Katharine are just being rude.  There is no other way to explain it.  Differences of opinion about orthodoxy, polity, or anything else do not excuse rude behavior.

Au contraire, the African _Primates have made it clear that Mrs. Schori will be shown every courtesy of traditional African hospitality.  What they will not do is accept her religious views as a recognizable form of Anglican Christianity, nor overlook the plight of those in North America who also disagree with her.  They of course do not deny that she is the duly-elected Presiding Bishop of ECUSA; what they reject is the idea that this fact alone is enough to give her a voice in Anglican deliberations, since in their view ECUSA is no longer a necessarily-Christian organization.

TBWSF on Windsor—As of VGR’s elevation, the Communion was “torn at its deepest level.”  ECUSA was told precisely what needed to be done in order to begin a process to repair the damage.  ECUSA refused; the damage remains; and the _Primates are dealing with the resulting situation.  At GC06, ECUSA chose to walk apart.  Quit whining.

Thank you Craig for that response,well said.
It’s my opinion the Dr.Schori will be treated much more courteously than her bishops treat God’s people if Mr. Garner’s co-revisionist Anglican Scotist’s hopes come to pass.
The only exception I think will come as her theology(or lack thereof)and TEC’s overbearing treatment and lack of catholicity toward churches now under the temporary care of CANA and AMiA bishops.

Bruce,

You’re right. My mother raised me better and she would never let me associate with a person who has behaved as rudely as Mrs Schori has done. It is Schori and crew who have no manners and can not stop themselves from behaving as bullies. so she was elected; they should have known better. Her election was an active insult to the rest of the communion and absolutely everyone knows it - including her. If they give her more than a chance to say her speech before explaining why she and those who believe in and support her are unacceptable, it will be too much and taint their own reputations. She is the equivalent of Prince Harry showing up at the party in a Nazi uniform except that hers is for real and his was only for play. Unless all have forgotten, the New Testament does give instructions on how to deal with those who teach a doctrine other than its own. And those who claim to be orthodox will have to act as if they understand that if they wish to be believed as shepherds and not wolves.

TBWSF, Windsor may have been a process, and it may have involved all of us, but the sad truth - for you - is that the process ended at GC06.  Thus, the part of the process that involved ECUSA sadly ended in a middle-finger response that is unlikely to be viewed favorably by the world’s Primates.

But, I suppose we will all find out at Tanzania whether Dromantine/Windsor contained “demands” or “suggestions.”

Greg wrote:  “Currently, there is no mechanism by which a province may be ejected; neither are there any criteria the violation of which can invoke such a mechanism even if it existed.”

Actually, the important point is that there is no formal mechanism by which a province is included in the Lambeth Communion in the first place.  It is that lacuna which means, by default, that there is no formal mechanism for its exclusion.  However, there are several historical precedents for such exclusion:
1.  The first Lambeth Conference was called in 1867 to deal with John William Colenso,  the heretical Bishop of Natal.  Nothing formal was ever done about him but there was an implicit agreement among the assembled Anglican Bishops to exclude him.  As a result, to this day Colenso’s followers, the Church of England in South Africa, do not form part of the Lambeth Communion.
2.  In a similar fashion, after 1873, when Bishop George Cummins and his followers split from the then-PECUSA to form the Reformed Episcopal Church, they stopped getting invitations to Lambeth.  To this day they, like the CESA, are not considered part of the Lambeth Communion.
3.  In 1947, the Church of South India was formed by a merger of several Protestant bodies with four Dioceses of the Church of India, Pakistan, Burma & Ceylon.  The latter had been a member of the Lambeth Communion but the merged CSI was not considered to be such because so many of its ministers were merely congregationally- or presbyterally-ordained preaching ministers, not sacramentally- and episcopally-ordained Priests.  (In 1955 the CSI was admitted to a state of “limited intercommion” with the Lambeth Communion, and now appears to be a full member, but that does not alter the fact that initially it was excluded from the Communion.)
4.  In 1970, a similar pan-Protestant merger was effected in other regions of India which resulted in the formation of the CIPBC declined to join the new Church of North India.  The CNI is considered part of the Lambeth Communion but the CIPBC, which continues to exist in the form of the four surviving Dioceses, was, apparently without discussion or any formal action, excluded from the Communion.  (These four Dioceses, which are recognized by the Government of India as the CIPBC, continue to exist and, long after their exclusion by Lambeth, associated themselves as a Province within a “continuing church”, The Anglican Catholic Church.)
Thus it is perfectly possible to exclude anyone from the Lambeth Communion, both wrong-doers and the innocent.  What is lacking is not the mechanism for doing this, it is the intestinal fortitude to do it.

John A. Hollister

The way my mama raised me was not to lip her off and recite all the things she should be doing when I’d just dropped a bowl of soup on the floor and obliged her to come and wipe it up.  I was expected to be properly humble and apologetic, and so should TEC be, if they had any manners at all.

Bruce

‘Why can’t we just get on with more important things’ is a common statement of reappraisers.  OK, if this topic is relatively unimportant lets all just implement the Windsor recommendations and then we can get on with the big stuff.  If it really is not very important it won’t be a big deal if we submit to the Communion on this issue.  On the contrary, TEC’s dogged determination to reject Windsor shows that, despite their saying they want to focus on more important things, they really believe this is EXTREMELY important.

I agree with Canon Hollister and Matt.

The Primates should pass resolution(s) (1) acknowledging that TEC has chosen to walk apart; (2) that it will not meet further as a body with TEC in attendance; and (3) recognizing a new Anglican Province in the US with Bishop Duncan as its head, which should incorporate the GS Parishes and those TEC Dioceses that wish, through Diocisian action, to join.

Failure to seperate the AC from TEC now in pursuit of a Covenant will be just the latest in a long series of delaying mechanisms and will be a big mistake.

Dr. Mabuse said above:

But Greg, what if TEC refuses to “make it easy” for Williams and everyone else?  What if they just sign on to things and then brazenly proceed to ignore them?  It’s not like it’s never happened before.  There HAS to be some method of forcibly expelling errant members, even if the ABC doesn’t want to be the one who has to pull the trigger.  This “gentleman’s agreement” style of organization only works if it’s composed of gentlemen.  I’d go further - a sure-fire method of expulsion is the only thing that will keep TEC honest.  If they think they can get what they want merely by LYING for it, I’m assured they will.  Only if it’s clear that fake bargains won’t work will they draw back from even trying it on.

That is right on the money Doc! All we have to do is look at past history. Like ++Griswold signing on to the statement of the ‘03 Primates Meeting and then proceeding to do just what the statement warned against. Like all the liberal dioceses lining up after GC06 to disavow B033, which was a wholly inadequate response to Windsor and Dromantine to begin with. Believe me, if ++Schori signs on to anything even remotely offensive to the revisionistas, they will be lined up to repudiate it before the ink is dry on it. The TECusaCorp liberal revisionista wing will NEVER accept anything that would limit their ability to do whatever they please and the rest of the AC be damned.

the snarkster

If the extreme time constraints could be overcome, an Anglican Covenant might be prepared before Lambeth ‘08, and invitees to Lambeth asked to subscribe to it as a condition precedent to attending.

Scott-it will never end. The Covenant will not be issue specific, but rather an agreement worth the integrity (no pun intended) of the signatory. TEC will undoubtedly “sign” with its own interpretation and accompaning statement, which will in turn result in calls for further study as to the implications of the Covenant, how it is to be applied,    ad infinitum.  

Even the orthodox US representative on the Covenant drafting team-Radner+, doesnt support the premise that the Covenant will be a document that will, by its very nature, exclude TEC.

If the will isn’t present now to expell TEC (and that is what it will take), it will not be present two years from now.

I also agree that it is unlikely +Schori will leave Tanzania if invited to do so.  Her supporters will seek to spin her univited continued presence to be the equivalent of a lunch counter protest during the Civil Rights movement.

Bruce Garner would do well to compare the time that is planned to be spent on the ECUSA problem since they do have other very important and practical issues to work on.  In fact, the very issues you suggest.  You are simply attempting to draw a red herring across our noses by suggesting there are more important things to deal with than talk about ECUSA.  those other things will be talked about AND there is room to deal with Bruce and his ilk. 

Mind you I happen to like herring very much, just not your use of it.

Dr. Mabuse suggested TEC might choose to sign the covenant and ignore it. But I don’t think anyone has asked a more important question: What if Nigeria or other “conservative” provinces decline to sign, preferring to maintain their provincial autonomy rather than binding themselves together under Canterbury?

A covenant might curtail the activism we have seen in the past few years from the Evangelicals of the GS. It would probably prohibit the sort of inter-provincial intervention that has resulted in the formation of AMiA and CANA. It would certainly put a stop to Sydney’s move for “lay presidency.” So I have to ask, how much support is there for a covenant with teeth? I think it is just as likely that Evangelical-dominated provinces will dismiss the covenant concept as an unnecessary institutional restriction on their freedom.

I must disagree with Sarah Hey above on her Nixon-Clinton analogy, not because I want to defend Bill Clinton, but because the facts point in a different direction.

Nixon resigned because he did not want to face a trial that would result in certain conviction.  His own words at his resignation were that he had lost “the political support” necessary to continue in office.  When he did produce a mea culpa, it was AFTER he left office, and only a modified, dare I say “Clintonesque” mea culpa at that.

Whether or not Clinton should have resigned (I’m about fifty-fifty on that one), he did not resign precisely because he believed—-correctly, as it turned out—-that he would not be convicted.

In the case of Schori, there is no trial going on here.  If she is not directly told to leave, she will not leave.  If she is told to leave—-and they would have to spell it out pretty clearly—-she will leave.

But leaving itself can take several forms.  It could be “Please leave Tanzania, or at least have nice time at our beaches and enjoy our hotels for a week but don’t hang around.”  It could be “Please leave the room, but stick around and we may have some private, informal conversations.”  It could be “Please sit down, but understand that you no longer have a voice, or at least a vote, in our deliberations.”  Or it could be “Please sit down, but you can’t join us in the group photograph.” 

Whatever it is, if it is anything, she will interpret what is said in those terms most favorable to her, as far as that is possible.  No matter what happens, look for photos from ENS and ACNS that show Schori being all chummy with ++Rowan and anyone else she can get her picture taken with.  It will be up to us and the media to decipher the newspeak that 815 will employ.

Yes IRNS, and the other big failure of Sarah’s analogy is both US Presidents faced an elected legislature with direct constituents who were in various stages of warfare over the issues at hand.  Archbishops: not so much.  There were no pew potatoes who wondered who was Monica or Liddy, and what did they do behind closed doors at the President’s behest.

Dr Mabuse wrote:

What if they [TEC] just sign on to things and then brazenly proceed to ignore them?  It’s not like it’s never happened before.

Why would they even be offered the opportunity to sign, especially with such a track record? If TEC is put on “time out” as someone described it above, won’t they stay there until they give evidence of repentance, such as passing Windsor compliant resolutions at the next GC and then actually abiding by them until the one after that (or longer)?

I think that IF ECUSA as a whole is severely disciplined, then I still expect individual bishops will be allowed to “sign-on” at Lambeth.  However, I would also think that prior to getting a Lambeth invitation that they become Windsor compliant as a demonstration of repentance.  This would be done on the diocesan level without waiting for the next GC.

I agree that TEC’s chance to repent has come, and gone. TEC has refused to comply with the Windsor/Dromantine requirements, full stop. The Primates will likely not spend a lot of time again begging TEC to comply, because TEC has not, and will not. Instead the meeting will focus on what to do about TEC’s refusal to comply.

Thought experiment: What, exactly, would exclusion of TEC actually look like? We think in terms of institutions, e.g. “TEC was kicked out of the Communion”, etc. But the true Church is really all Christians as Christ knows them. Bp. Duncan is effectively saying that when he says that his diocese is not going anywhere, that it is remaining the true PECUSA in and around Pittsburgh.

The “exclusion of TEC” is really a decision to invite someone other than the Presiding Bishop to represent Angicans who live in the USA. Why couldn’t Bps. Duncan, MacPherson, and Epting, or somebody else, be that representative? Bp. Jefferts-Schori can huff, “I am the duly elected Presiding Bishop of TEC. You SHALL acknowledge me and have no other presiding bishops before me”.

But so what? Why is the Communion required to accept TEC’s diktat that the Presiding Bishop, and no one else, speaks for Anglicans in the USA? Is it the $$$?

RE: “Nixon resigned because he did not want to face a trial that would result in certain conviction.  His own words at his resignation were that he had lost “the political support” necessary to continue in office.  When he did produce a mea culpa, it was AFTER he left office, and only a modified, dare I say “Clintonesque” mea culpa at that.”

Whether or not Clinton should have resigned (I’m about fifty-fifty on that one), he did not resign precisely because he believed—-correctly, as it turned out—-that he would not be convicted.”

We will probably not agree on this, IRNS.  Richard Nixon actually never endured a full house vote to impeach.  Why?  Because he resigned.  I don’t know if a Senate trial would have removed him as President or not.  The Senate is a pretty deliberative, “conservative” body, and a vote to remove an elected President would have been pretty historic.  But it is clear that Richard Nixon was not capable of going through impeachment proceedings, yet Bill Clinton was, indubitably, able to, with bells on!  ; > )

Richard Nixon was on his way to being impeached by the House—a full House vote was not taken because he resigned.  Bill Clinton was impeached by the House, for perjury and obstruction of justice—and the evidence was overwhelming to American citizens that he did precisely that.

Again, I’m not arguing that Clinton and Nixon were great guys or bad guys.  I’m just pointing out that the two had very different notions of shame and honor and public stigma.

Thus, when you further on in your comments say this—“If she is not directly told to leave, she will not leave.  If she is told to leave—-and they would have to spell it out pretty clearly—-she will leave”—I say again that I do not think that she will leave based on my conception of her sense of shame/honor/the group/hergreatleadership;  I think that she fancies herself the sophisticate who will “lead the group” and “take prophetic, progressive action” whether “the group” wants it or not.  I think if a majority of the Primates ask her to leave [and I think that unlikely, anyway] , she will sweetly turn to the ABC and say “what do you think, first among equals?”.  And I think he will cave.

Again, I understand that we will not agree about Clinton/Nixon/shame/honor.

Signed,

Little Black Cloud

Every cloud has silver lining. 

I am afraid there are several Bishops would gladly sign a Windsor Compliance Certificate in order to stay in TEC, yet would serve to undercut and ultimately kill any true renewal.

I definately support an opportunity for repentance and reconcilation. My problem is that these Bishops are currently proclaiming themselves as Windsor Bishops while, at the same time, blaming those that complained about Robinson ‘s consecration and persecuting those bold enough to join organizations like the ACN.  If they become the core of a new Province, arent we just turning the calender back to 2002?  Is that worth the fight?

Only several Timothy?  How about many?  Great point!  Widsor has run its course.  It has been degraded by the Process which is another code word of the reappraisers.