Yet Newer—And This Time Really Serious And Important—Pastoral Visitors Appointed—Again

Too little, too late.  Too many churches already GONE from TEC.  Who do they think is going to go back???

I must wonder (assuming for the sake of argument that these appointments mattered at all to the orthodox Christians still within TEC who are “in crisis”) how precisely these good panelists are supposed to do their job. They are apparently meant to be mediators of some sort, but I must assume that they are phyisically scattered all over the earth. Are they supposed to read written statements from parties involved in the “dispute” (surely such written documents would give undue weight to the opinions of the diocesan bishops involved in the disputes and will take many months to prepare and assemble) and then confernece call together internationally to propose solutions to the crisis (which proposals, I am sure, the diocesan bishop involved can simply accept or reject at his or her whim)? Surely this sizeable panel will rarely, if ever, actually be present together in the same place, and it will certainly be beyond their capability to do any actual “fact finding on the ground” when a crisis comes to their attention. Weren’t these logistical considerations part of the reason the Panel of Reference only produces two findings in two year’s time? (Both of which were completely ignored by the liberal hierarchy once produced, of course.) When the Communion’s leadership proposes such panels, how do they think they could possibly work in practice? Even assuming unbounded good will and complete honesty all around the table (assumed again, for the sake of argument), these things are completely unworkable.

Major General Tim Cross, a retired British soldier who was the U.K.’s senior-most officer involved in the Pentagon’s post-war planning in Iraq

That’s…  different. Not that I have anything against generals, but the others on the list clearly have a pastoral and ecclessiastic background.

I wonder why he got the job.

Here’s a bio for the general
bio@foxnews

Military people know something about keeping organizations together and effective, even under duress of the worst sort.  People from various disciplines make for the best church leadership teams (think of a very good Vestry, if you’ve ever been blessed to experience such a thing).  One of my best ever Sr. Wardens was a retired Air Force Colonel.

But, Sarah and #1 are right.  All the talent in the world is meaningless with no clear mandate, authority or responsiveness to the actual issues on the ground.

Officer’s Christian Union.  Okay.  Well, I’m sure his involvement will go over swimingly with the type of people that see criminal tresspass at Ft Benning to be a Christian duty.

Perhaps the good general is the “professional” who is to be called in for those “professionally mediated conversations.” His experience in handling relations between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq who are plagued by communal violence might prove handy in negotiations between TEC and orthodox Anglicans who want to find a way out.

Here’s his conversion testimony
testimony

The Visitors are supposed to be an emergency interim measure until the Pastoral Forum can be established.  The concept is explained in the WCG Report here:

86. Since the establishment of such a Pastoral Forum would need authorisation and legitimacy within the Communion, and questions of “mandate, membership, appointment process and authority” will have to be addressed, it would seem appropriate that the proposal is given time for development by the Archbishop of Canterbury in consultation with the Joint Standing Committee and the Primates in preparation in advance of the fourteenth Meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in May 2009.

87. However, the need for such a ministry of reconciliation is urgent in the life of the Communion. The WCG welcomes the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury intends to move ahead with the appointment of a small number of “Pastoral Visitors” as proposed by the bishops at the Lambeth Conference (see above), and who could be called upon “in any dispute” or situation of tension between now and next May, as the proposal for a full Pastoral Forum is taken forward.

88. These Pastoral Visitors could be be:

Appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury for the limited period of twelve months in the first instance.
Drawn from senior leaders of the Communion, present or retired, or other notable individuals with specific skills in mediation and arbitration.
Available to the Archbishop to be commissioned as his emissary for specific work to assist in maintaining the highest degree of Communion possible in situations of disagreement or tension.
Available as well to the Primates of the Anglican Communion to act on their behalf in situations of disagreement or tension as go-betweens, arbitrators or conciliators, as deemed appropriate by those primates.
Available for appointment to particular positions or roles within the Anglican Communion which would be consistent with their work and the constitutional requirements or conventions of the body for which they are nominated.
Required to act in a manner consistent with the Constitutions and Canons of those Provinces with which they relate in the pursuance of any matter referred to them.
89. The WCG affirms the decision of the Archbishop that it is an integral element in their ministry that Pastoral Visitors would not have any authority to make dispositions or proposals for structural solutions to any situation, unless expressly authorised to do so by the Primate or other lawful authority of the particular Provinces with which they have been asked to work.

90. The scope of the activity that the Pastoral Visitors will be able to undertake will depend on the availability of funding. In all matters referred to the Pastoral Visitors, it will be helpful if the Provinces concerned would be willing to nominate a colleague who would be committed to working alongside them.

The link to the WCG Report is here

I have nothing against his involvement at all. I was just curious what his connection was.  Now I see.  Still, I think they should have given the job to sergeants.  NCO’s tend to do better at cuting through the…  nonsense… to use the polite version word for the concept I have in mind.

Seriously speaking, old lady, I expect this is for those who haven’t left TEC yet.

But it won’t accomplish one single solitary thing to keep people in TEC.  The most I can see it accomplishing is a little show for any embattled rectors out there who may need something to show their angry laity—particularly in light of the upcoming General Convention, which comes around every three years like Clockwork Orange.

Perhaps the Major General received training in special secret services ‘reconciliation techniques’ in the military.

Every time I hear the words, ‘pastoral visitors’ coming to engage in and mediate what Shori and Hiltz (topic of his talk at TEC-sponsored meeting going on in Costa Rica) call ‘reconciliation’,  I think of the MOB…big hulking leg-breakers, Nazi prison matrons, Gulag torture chambers. 
‘Zhu vill belief vhat ve szay to belief.’  <slap> <thud> <whip> <groan>
‘Ahrrr zou rretty to reecuncyle yet?’
<thud> <sock> <slash> <groan>

Somehow I would like to see the ABC work toward a solution that would INCLUDE those who have already left TEC.  Perhaps he is planning on recognizing the new province???  Ya think??? 

In a related development, Congress has established a commission to study whether it was a mistake to encourage Freddie Mac to loosen credit standards for home mortgages in the late nineties.

It seems like we are in the middle of another muddle.  I’m not saying this to be snarky. Every time the ABC speaks or acts I become confused. For example in this case, have these individuals been asked for and approved by TEC? Does this require the approval of TEC? Are they also a fact finding group that will report grievances to ACC? I thought the WCG stated at the end of their document that adequate pastoral oversight was already in place, that the CP fellowship and Episcopal Visitors scheme was sufficient to provide for the alienated in TEC (of course I did not believe this). This is beginning to look more like the Stimulus Package of President Obama. Let’s throw everything at the problem and hope something good comes from it.

There will be absolutely nothing that comes from this.  Committees, councils, meetings, papers, theses, memo’s, etc….  It’s depressing thinking about it.

The seed for renewal doesn’t exist in the established channels.  It will have to come from the lowest levels, from the parishioners.  The top has rotted, and fallen onto the ground.  Maybe there is some life still in the root.

In order to see if this development is at all serious, these pastoral visitors should be asked to intervene and attempt to mediate some of the dozens of pieces of civil litigation now pending between TEC and departing parishes/ dioceses.  That should add clarity.

Okay, these guys are going to have to get in line behind the Panel of Reference.  Some of us are still waiting to hear from them.  But we’re certain they’ll show up any day now, so we’ll talk to the new bunch when they’ve finished.

Score…another one for the Nebulous Table of Conversational Dialogue and Obfuscational Pastoral Care…

General Cross is no doubt a fine soldier and Christian, but that was the most inarticulate interview I’ve ever read a transcript of.  It’s surprising, as British Army generals, in my limited experience, tend to be very well spoken.

And of course, the whole Pastoral Visitors scheme is a complete waste of time.

Right.  At long last, RW has finally realized that all good, right thinking people in this Communion are sick and tired with the absolute failure to appoint other people to certain positions requiring appointment.  Finally, change we really need.

“I think that all good, right thinking people in this Communion are sick and tired of being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being told that all good, right thinking people in this country are fed up with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am.”

The question is this, “What is the strategy here?”

How many ex-soldiers would like this plan: “No funds, no ammunition, no marching orders, and a 2 month tour of duty (that could be extended to 12 months).” Like good soldiers, these pastoral visitors will do their duty, although to what end I am not clear. Will they come and consult with the standing committees in the TEC as they dispute or get into tension over the next Bishop elect controversy? Are they skilled in Zen warfare?

The new pastoral visitors’ motto: Respond, React, and Improvise (especially strategy).

The question is this, “What is the strategy here?”

Perhaps that his training for dealing with the Taliban might come in useful.

Let’s stand down from the snide remarks.  Not that I have researched these gentlemen thoroughly, but a reasoned first glance shows them to be qualified, and several have considerable expertise in mediation.  So, let’s let them do whatever it is that ++Rowan has asked them to do.  And respect them as men of good will, if nothing else.

Babyblue, over on her blog focuses on their job as mediators- it appears that these may be the mediators that were discussed at the last Primates meeting, as well as being “pastoral visitors”- whatever that means.  So long as TEC can control the access of these folks to orthodox parishes, they cannot be effective in that role, but of course they are smart enough to know that.  They also, I suspect, have all had considerable experience with manipulators, and will know when it is happening.

Is this a solution for a rector at odds with his bishop, for the election in N. Michigan or for gay bishops?  No, it isn’t.  But if these gentlemen can find a way for us to move away from TEC and remain in the Communion, and clear a path for the Covenant to be adopted by those TEC dioceses that care to do so, more power to them.  If they can get TEC to adopt rules that will allow an orthodox bishop to succeed to the see of an orthodox predecessor, more power to them.  Do I see this as likely? No, I do not.  But I cannot see blaming the people who are trying to alleviate our pain with being the ones responsible for the problem.

TEC will have its gay and “Buddhist” and probably before long, lesbian and “Islamic” bishops (the ” ” to indicate to anyone who is a follower of Buddha or Islam that I understand that these TEC-ers are not true followers of their doctrine or practice).  It will continue its lawsuits and depositions.  But perhaps a way can be found for those who would covenant together in a true Communion to do so.  And the Covenant will be better and stronger for it, if in the end it is a committed Communion of the willing, rather than a document developed so it can be signed by any and all.

Is the goal to persuade and bring about the dissolution of the ACNA and the return of the departed dioceses and parishes to TEC.  Or is the mediation directed towards the orthodox parishes in liberal dioceses, and perhaps resolution of all litigation?

I don’t know any of these ‘visitors’ but assuming few or none of them are liberal, observing the heresy of TEC and its scorched territory strategy, there are more voices to take back to their respective provinces.

15- Deacon Dale-
I can’t wait for the furor to erupt on the HoBD listserve in about a week when it finally dawns on them that the PB approved this (must have done, if the conference was at VTS) without so much as consulting the loudest mouths on the listserve.  This is clearly boundary crossing- ++Rowan is not only sending bishops, he is sending a soldier.  OK, granted, I would rather the ABoC had sent +Henry Scriven, but the Lord never sees fit to grant me my way in these things.

#23- Pageantmaster- lets my admonishment in 24 be misunderstood- I do not mean that we should refrain from witty remarks, such as yours in 23.  But I think we would all be better off to see this move on the part of the ABoC as analogous to the formation of the Communion Partners- it in no way solves the problems caused by TEC, but it might address the needs of at least a few people IN TEC.

...an interim group of “pastoral visitors” who could be called upon in any dispute or situation of tension until the May 1-12 meeting

Maybe if we call them for help today, they could be here by May…

Oops, too late!

From the original article on Anglican Mainstream

The newly appointed pastoral visitors participated in a briefing seminar at Virginia Theological Seminary from February 25-28 with the exception of Welby who was unable to attend.

The meeting was facilitated by the Rt Rev. Peter Price, bishop of Bath and Wells (England) and participants heard briefings from the Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner, professor of historical theology at Wycliffe Theological Seminary in Toronto and a member of the Covenant Design Group; the Rt. Rev. Gary Lillibridge, bishop of West Texas and member of the Windsor Continuation Group; the Rev. Canon Chuck Robertson, canon to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori; the Rt. Rev. Herbert Donovan, deputy to the Presiding Bishop for Anglican Communion relations; the Ven. Paul Feheley, principal secretary to the primate, the Anglican Church of Canada; and members of the faculty at Virginia Theological Seminary.

I love how the “pastoral visitors” never actually meet with with those whose desperate need was the reason for their appointment.  Instead, they are always briefed by those who think they need to do absolutely nothing.

And, of course, +Rowan and +Katharine’s original plan was for the “pastoral visitors” to meet at Nashotah House or Trinity where they could hear briefings from the members of their faculties.  NOT!!!!

ToAllTheWorld, one must have faith that the members of the faculty at THE Virginia Theological Seminary, who are most certainly more orthodox and faithful than those anywhere else, would have given the pastoral visitors a complete, objective, and unbiased briefing on the pastoral needs of the laity and clergy affected by the current unpleasantness.

ToAllTheWorld,

Come now, you know that +Katharine misplaced the entire diocese of Quincy.  I rather suspect she looked all over Minnesota and could not find Nashotah.

(For those who take things too literally, I know quite well where Nashotah really is.)

I rather suspect that the VTS faculty were there to lecture at great length, ala Bonnie Anderson, on the unique and sacred polity of TEC.  Pray for the pastoral visitors, that they came away with their hearing intact.

Dean Munday writes,

I love how the “pastoral visitors” never actually meet with with those whose desperate need was the reason for their appointment.  Instead, they are always briefed by those who think they need to do absolutely nothing.

This is so true. How offensive that, in the primates communique, they state that the Communion partners plan and Episcopal visitor plan should be sufficient for disaffected Episcopalians. How about these guys talking to Tim Fountain+ or other guys in the trenches?

#32…The only reason Our Lady of Perpetual Litigation might know where Nashotah is, is because the property is beautiful and historic…and worth $$$...oh, and that CANA has now come into her Wisconsin domains…at St. Edmund’s pleading.  I personally hope she never steps foot there at The House…as I will be starting there this year.

My understanding is the seminaries are NOT covered by the Dennis Canon.

She won’t care.  It’s anything and everything that EVER had or has the word “Episcopal” on it…they’ll try…after all, nobody can question The Empress of The Cosmos of The World!!!

My car had a TEC shield on it once upon a time…I had better look out…it might be claimed…

#35-
My parents are both buried in the churchyard at Nashotah. I have it on good authority that Nashotah is outside the purview of the PB and the Denis canon.  Of course, that the PB has no legal right to something is not necessarily an impediment from her point of view.  Actually, I believe the original land grant from the Northwest Territories of the United States (it predates Wisconsin statehood) mandates that the land is for the purpose of a theological seminary. It is separately incorporated and has its own board of trustees, most of whom historically have been Episcopalians, but I do not think that is a requirement. (Deferring, of course, to Dr. Munday should he correct me on any of this.)

I hope so…
I wonder about TSM, too.  But it was a grocery store and a Presbyterian church before it was renovated as TSM…maybe they have a chance to escape the clutches.

TX- I think General in NY is the only seminary “owned and operated” by TEC.  Most of the seminaries are broadly based- they train people for ministry in several churches.  I believe several Nashotah grads have ended up as Othodox (capital O) clergy, as well as a substantial number who went to Continuing Churches.  I’ve met people who went to seminary before they decided which denomination to join. (This has always been VERY confusing to me, but some Evangelicals seem to be able to move between Presbyterian, Anglican and Methodist ministries with alacrity.)

I’m in ACNA…so I guess I’ll add to the diversity of origin at Nashotah.  But yes…I guess if one can put aside Apostolic Succession into the cupboard, the going between Anglican, Presbyterian, Lutheran(most), and Methodist is not so difficult. I am a “Spirit-Filled Evangelical Anglo-Catholic”, so AS is part of my theology and ecclesialogy.

“...But if these gentlemen can find a way for us to move away from TEC and remain in the Communion…”

The intent is to do just the opposite.

#32. TJ,
“For those who take things too literally, I know quite well where Nashotah really is.”
Thanks TJ I am one of those people.  By the way, I was amazed as a freshman in college that all the administrators had the same first name at my university (Dean).

Wouldn’t these pastoral visitors be “border crossing”? I doubt TEC would take them seriously. Then what?

The briefing seminar included Feheley?  He has openly engaged in deceit regarding the Windsor Report.  It included the faculty at VTS?  Reportedly, VTS has a gay dorm and a partnered homosexual faculty member. 
One wonders if these details were shared with the pastoral visitors.  One also wonders if they were told ‘blog’ is a four-letter word.

Is ToTheWorld Robert Munday+? If so, Robert, it was a general reading of the communications from Egypt that the ACNA reality was referred to there as requiring a form of mediation (I don’t remember the precise language), and that the Pastoral conception (recently gathered at VTS) was aimed at those who had not left TEC but were in configurations like CP—hence the involvement of Professor Radner and Bishop Lilliebridge. If this is correct then those who are in realities like ACNA would not have been invited because the communications from the Primates spoke of a different form of mediation for them. One can say that is not what is wanted for ACNA (it would not be for me to conjecture about that) but the communications from Egypt did not simply conflate ACNA and other conservative initiatives like CP—nor is it clear why they should have done, given that ACNA has its own integrity. I might have thought that supporters of ACNA would not be looking for a Pastoral Scheme to deal with it, but for something else—in the nature of the case.

I am glad I don’t need Pastoral Visitors here in ACNA.  It’s gonna be a tough road to hoe, as time progresses, for parishes like St. Martin’s Houston, Incarnation Dallas, St. John the Divine Houston, Christ Church San Antonio, Advent Boston, St. Thomas NY, Advent Birmingham, etc… Dioceses like Dallas, Albany, Springfield, Rio Grande, Texas, Central Florida, Western Kansas, South Carolina, West Texas etc…

Prayers for you.  I don’t envy your position.

#25   Bill, in answer to your question:  There is no chance of this happening, since the ACNA is structured to negate the need for this, I believe.

#47 Seitz-ACI,

it was a general reading of the communications from Egypt that the ACNA reality was referred to there as requiring a form of mediation (I don’t remember the precise language),

Kevin, I believe the following statement is what you are referring to.
101. “The WCG therefore recommends that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in consultation with the Primates, establish at the earliest opportunity a professionally mediated conversation at which all the significant parties could be gathered.”

the Pastoral conception (recently gathered at VTS) was aimed at those who had not left TEC but were in configurations like CP—hence the involvement of Professor Radner and Bishop Lilliebridge.

Based on the following statement from the WCG, has KJS granted permission for this?

“Many felt strongly that the forum could operate in a Province only with the consent of that Province and in particular with the consent of the Primate or the appropriate body.”
Additionally, if as the WCG states that the CP Fellowship and Episcopal Visitors scheme instituted by the Presiding Bishop should be sufficient to provide for the care of those alienated within TEC, then why was this additional scheme included?

I agree with Christopher Seitz - this latest appointment of Anglican Visitors by the Archbishop of Canterbury is not for the parishes and their clergy who have all ready separated but for those still in TEC.  It appears that the battle is over the Anglican Covenant - and the 815 leadership has no intention of putting the Covenant up for a vote at General Convention (not sure how diocesan bishops feel about this, though).  In fact, the opposition is so strong that TEC is working hard to build a coalition of opposition to the Anglican Covenant.  How successful will they be?  Obviously, Rowan Williams hasn’t lost hope since he’s coming in person as General Convention kicks off.

Again, there is now another front in the battle.  It makes sense that Bishop Schori would hire a staffer to follow the litigation as she now has more trouble on her hands.  And the opposition of Bonnie Anderson and Katharine Jefferts Schori to the Anglican Covenant leads credence as to why so many Episcopalians have all ready separated.  Obviously, Rowan Williams did see something at Lambeth, perhaps the vision of Bishop Schori standing with her arms folded in defiance as other Episcopal bishops walked out during the standing ovation for Archbishop of Canterbury at the conclusion of the Lambeth Conference.  That had to be hard to miss.

bb

Interesting picture you paint BabyBlue.  I don’t remember hearing that before, but its been awhile.  I wish I had a video of that.

I really wish someone could boil down this stuff down to a single paragraph for those of us that don’t read Lambeth tea leaves.

What is this group supposed to do?

Forgive me…I can’t remember if the ABC asked for the invitation on his own volition to GenCon09…or if he was purely invited by them?  We may never know.

Do you think that even if the ABC agrees with TEC theology at least in the gay area, that he might accept the ACNA after General Convention if it goes the way we think it will?  Will that will the tipping point?  Or will GC and the acceptance of SSB just be another part of the ongoing conversation?

Prof. Seitz (#47), I was not thinking primarily of ACNA in what I wrote, since (as others have noted) those who are in ACNA are beyond needing “pastoral visitors.”  I am very glad Dr. Radner and Bp. Lillibridge were there to represent the Communion Partners, but the list of participants seems stacked in favor of those who haven’t exactly been sympathetic to the concerns of conservatives.

My earlier remarks on this thread admittedly reflect a cynicism that stems from the fact that I have yet to see any commission, appointed visitors of whatever sort, panel of reference, etc. do anything that met the actual needs of those on the conservative side of whatever dividing line we happen to be looking at at the moment.

One pastoral scheme comes to nothing and a group of conservatives leaves.  Another scheme is devised and (I am willing to bet) a year from now, nothing meaningful will have happened and more conservatives will have left.  I will gladly apologize the instant that events prove me wrong.

One other phenomenon I have noticed in recent months is the fact that the ACNA can’t understand that all of the conservatives in TEC didn’t leave with them.  The Communion Partners appear to suffer from a similar failure to recognize the number of conservatives remaining in TEC who are not identified with CP either. 

The article about the “pastoral visitors” didn’t contain this information, so can you please explain precisely what the “pastoral visitors” provision will do to help the Communion Partners? 

And, finally, what about those conservatives who are still in TEC but who are not a part of Communion Partners?  I am confident there are plenty of Stand Firm readers who are left wondering what, if anything, another scheme from Lambeth (with the apparent approval of 815) will do to help them or to resolve the substantial theological, moral, and pastoral issues we face.

Robert S. Munday+
Nashotah House
ToAlltheWorld

RE: “And, finally, what about those conservatives who are still in TEC but who are not a part of Communion Partners?  I am confident there are plenty of Stand Firm readers who are left wondering what, if anything, another scheme from Lambeth (with the apparent approval of 815) will do to help them or to resolve the substantial theological, moral, and pastoral issues we face.”

Robert Munday, as a person who is not a part of Communion Partners, I can personally assure you that I am not wondering what another scheme from Lambeth will do to help me or my friends and allies in TEC with whom I associate.  I recognize that there is nothing that Lambeth/Canterbury/et al will do to help us in that situation, as the only thing that could help—brute forceful intervention across provinces and disinvitations to the seats of power—Rowan Williams has discarded as a possibility.

We are on our own, with the exceptions of God and certain TEC conservative friends and allies.

And that’s okay.

“...the vision of Bishop Schori standing with her arms folded in defiance as other Episcopal bishops walked out during the standing ovation for Archbishop of Canterbury at the conclusion of the Lambeth Conference.”

Did that really happen? Shocking. However, I can see Mrs Schori with ‘that look’ on her face which makes her appear quite reminiscent of the Wicked Witch of the West. Ew.

Oh…I think I’ll like this dean!!!  Glad I’m headed to The House.  As one in ACNA I welcome others that join us, but that is their journey.  I joined TEC hoping to be part of the solution, but quickly was shown there was no place for me, as I could not make vows inside the institution.  A lot of leaders were not what I thought they were.  It’s one thing to stay and fight…I respect that.  But it’s another to obfuscate and lie to the sheep, then bleed them in the name of “fiduciary responsibility” to the Dennis Canon…and give them no choice but to leave with nothing and start over…which they do time and again.

I don’t know Sarah, think of the chaos that the pastoral visitors will cause in TEC when one of them gets away from his handlers for a few minutes.  There will be all points bulletins, senior wardens will be sent out to guard the checkpoints at the diocesan borders.  Right now, I bet that Remain Episcopal is rehearsing Rite I so that they can take the visitors there to demonstrate how all the faux dioceses are completely orthodox.  I bet that gay marriages will only be performed in dioceses where the pastoral visitors are absent, so as to be completely compliant (TEC definition) with the moratoria.

1.  The Pastoral Visitors have no authority.
2.  I am glad that they could be a personal pastoral presence to Radner and Lillibridge, for whom the last five years have not been easy.  I am quite frankly bewildered as to what sort of corporate pastoral support they can offer to the orthodox remaining in TEC as they have no authority to address the grievances.  The only person with any authority to address the grievances is the Archbishop of Canterbury, and he instead dismantled the DeS communique.
3.  It is only 10 weeks before the ACC meeting.
4.  The money would have been much better spent in Zimbabwe.
5.  I am tired of charades.

#61 Jill Woodliff,
“I am glad that they could be a personal pastoral presence to Radner and Lillibridge, for whom the last five years have not been easy.”
I agree with this and believe Dr. Radner has taken as much abuse from inside TEC as from the outside. Rest assured, if he has their ear, he will enlighten them about what is going on. I’m surprised he was even allowed on the campus of VTS, he would never be hired there at this point in time. The Covenant he is helping to craft may yet show TEC to the door.  Revenge is a dish best served cold (of course he would never think this way but I would). Dr. Radner in Canada reminds me of Luther in one of Frederick’s castles.

People’s perceptions of VTS are way off.  In response to Jill Woodliff (#46), VTS does not have a gay dorm.  We have four coed dormitories for single students.  You are right that we have a partnered gay professor; in fact, we currently have two.  In response to Dcn Dale (#62), I do not know why you would be surprised that Ephraim Radner would be allowed on campus.  We invite all kinds of people to campus.  Also, my New Testament professor is his colleague on the Covenant Design Group.  As far as someone like him being hired, VTS does not discriminate based on theology. Just this year, VTS hired an evangelical, nondenominational professor.  We also have Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Baptist professors.

No Chase, I think the perception of VTS articulated here is quite accurate. A seminary with two non-celibate homosexual professors is necessarily heterodox.

Chase, I am glad to hear that there is no gay dorm.  One alum stated that a faculty house had been turned into an unofficial gay dorm.  I am glad to know that is not currently the case, and I apologize.

[63] Chase at VTS

Just this year, VTS hired an evangelical, nondenominational professor.  We also have Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Baptist professors.

But are they orthodox, or are they orthodox?  An ELCA Lutheran or an LCMS Lutheran?  PCA or PCUSA?  SBC or ABA?  As always, the devil is in the doctrine, and not the label.

carl

63 Chase

As far as someone like him being hired, VTS does not discriminate based on theology.

That’s precisely the problem!

#67
James,
That was exactly my though when I read Chase’s statement.

One other phenomenon I have noticed in recent months is the fact that the ACNA can’t understand that all of the conservatives in TEC didn’t leave with them.  The Communion Partners appear to suffer from a similar failure to recognize the number of conservatives remaining in TEC who are not identified with CP either…

I am confident there are plenty of Stand Firm readers who are left wondering what, if anything, another scheme from Lambeth (with the apparent approval of 815) will do to help them or to resolve the substantial theological, moral, and pastoral issues we face.

I think that Satan came to God, and asked permission to test TEC and the Anglican Communion. I also think that, overall, we’re not doing very well in that test.

For sure, there are many conservatives left in TEC. We know that we’re a (faithful) minority within TEC, and a majority within the Anglican Communion, as well as the world’s Christians. We also know that Anglican polity, with its lack of defined hierarchy, and its present weak leadership (also sympathetic to liberal ideas), makes discipline difficult. You are correct: we do not trust that “Lambeth” will bring about a fix. We shall see what the Pastoral Visitors accomplish.

We know that the world is undergoing a new Great Awakening that will ultimately leave radical liberal theology in the dust. These ideas will ultimately die out because they are false teachings.

Barring a major intervention from Heaven (always possible), I don’t think the particular issues facing the Anglican Communion will be resolved in our generation, even if TEC continues to accelerate its self-destructive course, heading towards the cliff. I don’t think that full resolution of the issues should be our expectation. Remember:
1. The tensions between Roman Catholicism and Puritanism that formed Anglicanism remain.
2. The tensions related to the Oxford Movement remain.
3. The tensions over baptismal regeneration get brought up now and then.
4. It goes on and on…yet we’ve always (for the most part) held together.

What’s very different is that the current issues have brought about schism because the leadership on both sides seem not to be willing to discern ways to live with each other in the face of disagreement. Instead of meaningful conversation, we have departures, depositions, and excommunications.

There seem to be at least two schisms, 1) a de facto schism between the leadership of TEC and the majority of the Anglican Communion primates, and 2) an internal schism within TEC.

If the national TEC leadership continues their despotic course and make it impossible for those with a traditional, orthodox view of things to continue our lay and ordained ministry in TEC dioceses, those of us who are conservatives have an obvious escape route through the ACNA.

We who are TEC conservatives do need to have some sort of support group, other than places like Stand Firm. It appears that Communion Partners is for primates, bishops, and priests who are rectors. That leaves out other priests, deacons, and the laity.

Ralph—interesting comments.

RE: “It appears that Communion Partners is for primates, bishops, and priests who are rectors. That leaves out other priests, deacons, and the laity.”

My understanding is that Communion Partners is a fellowship group that will be for all of the folks you named—that is, eventually all types of clergy and laity too.

The problem is . . . their stated goals aren’t really the goals of many other ComCons left in TEC—like me and many friends and allies.  Chuck Alley’s statements about the goals of CP were pretty clear: “Some conservative voices do not see as their vocation the reformation of TEC.  Rather, the call is recognized as to stand as a witness to the truth in the midst of the theological chaos. They are called simply to be the Church and provide an alternative model of doing church within TEC.”

So folks who wish to resist the revisionism of TEC or reform a portion of TEC or any number of other activities and who don’t wish “simply to be the Church and provide an alternative model of doing church within TEC” need a group, tis true—but CP won’t serve because that’s not their focus or interest.

That doesn’t make CP a “bad group” any more than all the other groups out there.

But there is something needed for folks who want to do much more than “simply to be the Church.”

My understanding is that Communion Partners is a fellowship group that will be for all of the folks you named—that is, eventually all types of clergy and laity too.

Sarah, I know your “sources” are generally better than mine, but I do wonder where you got this information.  To date, everything I have received from “people who should know” tells me that the CP “scheme” is limited to those bishops who currently engaged, plus any they can convince to join, and those rectors under their pastoral supervision (which includes some outside the boundaries of their dioceses, with the consent of the diocesan with jurisdiction).  Since by its very nature it is centered around the person of the bishop, there is no such thing as a “CP diocese” there are only “CP bishops.”  Upon death, retirement or replacement of a CP diocesan (or rector, in the case of parishes not directly under the oversight of a CP bishop), the question of CP membership is entirely at the discretion of the new bishop (or rector).
  And, since by its very structure, it is voluntary on the part of the diocesans with jurisdiction (that is, no bishop is required to allow oversight by CP within his diocese), they cannot by their own structure provide oversight to any rector, priest, deacon or layman without the “expressed, written consent” (that is baseball, not church) of the governing diocesan.

#63. Chase at VTS,
“Also, my New Testament professor is his colleague on the Covenant Design Group.”
This wouldn’t happen to be Dr. Katherine Grieb would it? Do you think Dr. Radner and Dr. Grieb would have a similar theology?
“In response to Dcn Dale (#62), I do not know why you would be surprised that Ephraim Radner would be allowed on campus.” You got me there Chase but he probably would be “paper screened” if he ever applied to teach there.

What about a prospective seminarian who happens to affirm that one should reject homosexual practice as being incompatible with Scripture, “that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage,” and “in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union?”

How would that affect the interview process at VTS or Sewanee, versus Trinity or Nashotah House? How would such a person be treated by faculty or other students at these and the other TEC seminaries?

My only point in #47 was to clarify what the point of the VTS meeting was, from what had been intimated out of Egypt, as against mediation for ACNA. As for lots of conservatives who reject CP and are not in ACNA – that is not for me to comment on (though whether CP worries about them not joining in, just as ACNA may or may not do about its hopes for getting people on board, has not occurred to me; we all are doing what we judge to be appropriate given our season, and based upon principles we judge proper). From my experience, CP rectors come from a wide variety of different dioceses and ‘on the ground’ circumstances, and their motivation for being involved is unlikely monochrome (so too the Bishops and Primates, for that matter) As for Radner and Lilliebridge, neither was summoned to VTS ‘on behalf of CP.’ The former is involved in Covenant work and could be asked to describe circumstances in Canada as well as US. The latter is a Bishop who has been on the WCG and whose diocese contains lots of conservatives who may or may not be in CP. Would they know of a category called ‘conservatives who are neither in ACNA nor CP’ – I suspect not in the terms Dean Munday means it, as a kind of category. Would they ignore this kind of ‘constituent’ in their briefing? I would find that highly unlikely. The situation on the ground in a wide variety of different settings (CFL to Colorado to CT to RG to Dallas to U-SC to DC and on its goes) is something we are aware of, and could not otherwise be, given the long season we are in. Do I think the Pastoral Visitors were given an attenuated; or CP-only; or gussied-up version of the reality on the ground by Radner or Lilliebridge? I doubt it. Does this mean that the Pastoral Visitors scheme will succeed? There is a difference in answering ‘Yes’ and believing it is a good occasion to report on how things really are. I have no doubt Radner did that. I am not sure what kind of grouping the ‘conservatives not in CP or ACNA’ are, whether they agree amongst themselves or understand their plight as discrete, why they are not in ACNA, and so forth. But that was not in mind mind when I offered a clarification in #47. Lenten blessings.

Does this mean that the Pastoral Visitors scheme will succeed?

Thanks for your input, Seitz, but there is one thing I don’t understand.  At what are they trying to succeed?

#75 I must return to work and was only clarifying an earlier comment, which had led to a further response by Dean Munday.
I’m not sure what your question entails. The subject of the verb ‘succeed’ was Pastoral Scheme. So it would involve what the scheme entails. It should be no mystery what ACI has hoped would happen, in God’s mercy: the covenant would enable a differentiated reality in TEC to remain in full communion, in a robust and bona fide communion, and not a federation of autonomous denominations or national entities. A pastoral plan that enabled that in the interim, provided communion linkage of some clear sort for parishes, dioceses, and so forth, such that the communion retained its communion character—that is what ACI works for, amongst other things. My point was that it was a good occasion for people like Radner and Lilliebridge to give clear briefing about what is happening on the ground in NA, whether any ensuing scheme in the end helped the larger goal of preserving anglican catholic Communion life. That’s all I have to say on that, as it is a busy Lenten day.

Too little, too late.  Too many churches already GONE from TEC.  Who do they think is going to go back???

Well if you ask PECUSA they all will come back and the TEC buildings will swell with parishoners! Ask Jerry Lamb who writes countless letters to wastebaskets throughout AngloDio San Joaquin or Bp+ Bruno who chortles over “legal victories”. BeerKat et al…well you get the picture. It’s all for perks and the paycheck.
Intercessor

Would anyone care to translate postings #74 and #76? I have read each posting twice and was unable to extract any information.  At this moment I feel like the scarecrow in the Wizard of OZ. “If I only had a brain”. The only thing I understood was that Seitz was busy.

As an example of the type of networking that is going on among those who are still in TEC but who, for whatever reason, are not a part of Communion Partners, I would call your attention to this conference held three weeks ago: http://www.sttimscatonsville.org/article/developing-transformative-missional-churches-in-the-episcopal-church/.  A list of the presentations is here.

I am not one of the organizers—I was merely asked to speak at the conference, and I gave two addresses on “Anglicanism: Biblical and Missionary.”  Dean Justyn Terry, from Trinity, was the Bible Study leader and gave three excellent addresses on the Book of Galatians. 

My understanding is that there was a prior conference in the Minneapolis area (of which I was not a part), and one is planned for New York City, with the aim of establishing regional networks for fellowship, teaching, prayer, and support for orthodox Anglicans who are remaining in TEC.  So take heart! if you are in that category, and look for a fellowship of orthodox Anglicans near you—or be a part of starting one yourself.  It is not that anyone is looking to start yet another organization, but a lot of orthodox Anglicans realize the need for the things I have mentioned (fellowship, teaching, prayer, support and encouragement, etc.), and the only way it is going to happen is if we do something about it.

Robert S. Munday+
Nashotah House
To All the World

I’m not sure what your question entails. The subject of the verb ‘succeed’ was Pastoral Scheme.

Yes, I made the mistaken assumption that this was a given in my question.

So it would involve what the scheme entails.

Which is what? 

It should be no mystery what ACI has hoped would happen, in God’s mercy: the covenant would enable a differentiated reality in TEC to remain in full communion,

Okay, I’m having trouble parsing that.  Is it TEC that is remaining in full communion (presumably with the Anglican Communion) or the differentiated reality within TEC that is remaining in full communion with the Anglican Communion?

in a robust and bona fide communion, and not a federation of autonomous denominations or national entities.

I get this part.

A pastoral plan that enabled that in the interim, provided communion linkage of some clear sort for parishes, dioceses, and so forth, such that the communion retained its communion character—that is what ACI works for, amongst other things.

Okay, but what does the Pastoral Scheme do for parishes, dioceses, and so forth, that the status quo does not already do?  To be very precise, I’m not looking for abstract and metaphysical concepts, or the pastoral but private relationships built between individuals.  I am I’m looking for practical answers to how these schemes will create differentiation between participants in said schemes and non-participating members of TEC, particularly in areas such as doctrine, discipline, worship, polity and financial expenditure.  Furthermore, if you could provide any insight as to the impact that such a scheme might have on the weekly church experience of the average parishioner I’d be very interested in hearing it.

There is one other issue I don’t quite get. 

You say

remaining in full communion with the the Anglican Communion…  provided communion linkage of some clear sort

I certainly understand why this is seen as a desirable goal.  However, if this is the only goal or the primary goal, nothing at all needs to be done to achieve it.  The Episcopal Church fully participates in the life of the Anglican Communion at every level from hosting touring Church of England choirs and church music conferences to attending Lambeth conferences.  The fact remains that TEC as a whole, with perhaps only some fuzziness regarding the Diocese of New Hampshire, is not only in full communion with the Anglican Communion but remains a full constituent member, with strong and clear ties to the Instruments of Communion, the Church of England and a supermajority of the other provinces of the Anglican Communion.  Not only that, but it is arguably one of the most visible and influential members of the Anglican Communion. 

How would the Pastoral Scheme make the Diocese of Dallas any more a part of Anglican Communion than the Diocese of New York?

#78 Dcn…I agree.  I find myself also wondering what the new priest at Incarnation Dallas just said in #‘s 74 and 76.  I’m not a dummy…but sometimes it can be a bit like…“what what what”???

#80. AndrewA,
God Bless you Andrew for the clarity of your questions and your tenacity and….Just God Bless you! I tried asking some questions in post #50 but alas to no avail thus far. He’s busy you know.

#81. TXThurifer,
Thanks, I needed confirmation. I’m exceptionally ordinary. AndrewA’s questions helped also.

I find myself also wondering what the new priest at Incarnation Dallas just said in #’s 74 and 76

#81,
Now I am more confused than usual.  Does your comment indicate that Chris Seitz+ is the new rector at Incarnation in Dallas?  Did I miss an announcement while distracted with the situation up here in N. Mich?

No…he is the new canon theologian and an assistant priest there at Incarnation Dallas…+Bishop Anthony Burton(formerly of the ACoC) is new rector.  Greg Methvin, formerly of Christ Chruch Plano is new Vice Rector…plus they have a new organist/choirmaster and youth director…that was one huge staff change in the space of about a year and a half.

Incarnation is now a Covenant/Communion Partner bastion…

Thanks for the update TXThurifer.

RE: “I have yet to see any commission, appointed visitors of whatever sort, panel of reference, etc. do anything that met the actual needs of those on the conservative side of whatever dividing line we happen to be looking at at the moment.”

Robert Munday—I do think that the Pastoral Visitors scheme will serve some of the Bishops and some of the rectors of Communion Partners.  Their need is to keep their laypeople—as many of them as they can—in their diocese or parish.  I think it will help keep some—and not others.

As I’ve said for some time now, the conservatives are divided in their needs and goals.  So I don’t begrudge some groups of conservatives having something that will help out a little with their goals.  In this way I agree with Seitz-ACI that CP need not worry about conservatives in TEC joining in or not joining in with CP. 

One of the massive errors that I think was made over the past five years was the attempt to mash and cobble together different conservative factions into one organization—the Network—rather than simply accept that the varying groupings had entirely different goals and needs and that people will network and form where they can depending on those goals and needs.