The Communion Sub-Committee findings betray a serious lack of study and care. There are gaping inaccuracies and unwarranted assumptions throughout the document. The mistakes are so glaring that the work appears more motivated by apologetic concerns than investigative care.

Response to Communion Sub-Group Report Part 1 B033

From the Communion Sub-Group Report on Resolution B033: the selection of Bishops:

The resolution, which was passed by large majorities in both houses, therefore calls upon those charged with the giving of consent to the result of any election to the episcopate to refuse consent to candidates whose “manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion”.

In voting for this resolution, the majority of bishops with jurisdiction have indicated that they will refuse consent in future to the consecration of a bishop whose manner of life challenges the wider church and leads to further strains on Communion. This represents a significant shift from the position which applied in 2003. It was noted that a small number of bishops indicated that they would not abide by the resolution of General Convention, but in supporting the resolution the majority of bishops have committed themselves to the recommendations of the Windsor Report.

The group noted that while the Windsor Report restricted its recommendation to candidates for the episcopate who were living in a same gender union, the resolution at General Convention widened this stricture to apply to a range of lifestyles which present a wider challenge. The group welcomed this widening of the principle, which was also recommended by the Windsor Report[4] , and commend it to the Communion.

The Group completely misunderstands the general language employed in B033. The language is lifted directly from Resolution A161 which had been defeated the day before Resolution B033 was introduced.

Resolution A161 stated with regard to bishops:

“Accordingly, we are obliged to urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to refrain from the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion…”

The published explanation provided for the language of Resolution A161 is as follows:

“The resolution does not specify what constitutes a "manner of life" that "presents a challenge to the wider church;" we leave this to the prayerful discernment of those involved in nominating, electing, and consecrating bishops. Concerns we discussed were by no means limited to the nature of the family life; for example, the potential of bishops to serve effectively as pastors for all within their diocese, and their level of commitment to respect the dignity of and strive for justice for all people are also relevant.”

Obviously, the “widening” or generalization of the Windsor language is not intended to provide for greater compliance to Communion principles but rather to provide greater space for diocesan nominating committees and conventions to decide for themselves what sort of lifestyle might pose a “challenge” to the wider church.

And at least one diocesan standing commission has already nominated a candidate living in a non-celibate homosexual relationship and it did so without any official consternation from the Executive Committee or the Presiding Bishop. Why? Because the standing commission in question had “prayerfully discerned” that the non-celibate homosexual candidate did not pose a challenge to the wider communion.

And yet at the same time while Resolution B033 has not prevented the nomination of non-celibate homosexual candidates, it has been applied by many bishops and standing committees to object to the election of South Carolina's Bishop-elect Mark Lawrence whose candidacy, they have "prayerfully discerned," poses a challenge to the wider communion.

It is abundantly clear then both from the background of the language employed in Resolution B033 and subsequent application of the same that the “widening” language was not intended as a gesture of compliance with paragraph 131 of the Windsor Report which states:

In our view, all those involved in the processes of episcopal appointment, at whichever level, should in future in the light of all that has happened pay proper regard to the acceptability of the candidate to other provinces in our Communion; the issue should be addressed by those locally concerned at the earliest stages, by those provincially involved in the confirmation of any election, and not least by those who, acting on those decisions, consecrate the individual into the order of bishop. The question of acceptability could be posed in a number of ways. Is there any reason to expect that the appointment or election of a particular candidate might prejudice our relations with other provinces? Would the ministry of this individual be recognised and received if he or she were to visit another province? Would the individual be 'translatable'?

But rather it was intended and has served to provide dioceses the space to nominate non-celibate homosexual candidates for election and consecration to the office of bishop.

On its face Resolution B033 as a whole merely calls standing commissions to "prayerfully discern" for themselves whether a given candidate poses a challenge to the wider communion. And if they discern that he or she will not pose such a challenge, then it is within the purview of the standing commission to nominate that candidate for election and to support his consent.

Within the “space” provided by resolution B033 non-celibate homosexual candidates have already been prayerfully discerned not to represent a “challenge” to the wider communion and, make no mistake, more will be.

The "space" provided by B033 is not a widening of Windsor principles but simply a vehicle for violating them.

In sum: The purpose of the careful specificity of the Windsor Recommendations and the Dromantine Communique was to deny the very space Resolution B033 seeks to create.

Part II: Response to the Communion Sub-Group’s Findings on General Convention and Public Rites for Same Sex Blessings

From the Communion Sub-Group Report:

A separate recommendation in the Windsor Report and adopted by the primates was the proposal for a moratorium on the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing of same sex unions. This issue, as well as others in the Windsor Report, had been addressed in a draft resolution, A161, which was defeated in the House of Deputies. General Convention as a whole did not therefore specifically consider the question of a possible moratorium on same sex unions.

This is simply not true. The above paragraph itself is something of a contradiction because one of the resolve clauses in A161, defeated by the deputies, included a specific call regarding same sex blessings:

Resolved that this General Convention not proceed to develop or authorize Rites for the Blessing of same sex unions at this time, thereby concurring with the Windsor Report in its exhortation to bishops of the Anglican Communion to honor the primates’ (Pastoral Letter of May 2003).

This resolve clause along with the other resolves included in A161 was clearly defeated on the floor of the House of Deputies by the following vote:

LAY: 38 yes 53 no 18 divided: Motion fails
CLERGY: 44 yes 53 no 14 divide Motion fails

It is absolutely incorrect and misleading to suggest, as the Sub-Group does, that the Convention as a whole never considered a moratorium on public rites for same sex blessings.

Such a moratorium was considered on the very floor of the House of Deputies and defeated.

It was not only defeated once (above), but it was defeated twice.

A substitute motion was proposed on the floor which employed the precise language of the Windsor Report. It stated:

Resolved, the house of--------concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church “effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until [and unless] some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges” (WR134) and be it further

Resolved that the 75th GC effect a moratorium on the authorizing of all public rites of blessing of same sex unions (WR 144), and be it further

Resolved that the 75th GC call upon those bishops who have authorized public rites for blessing same sex unions, “because of the serious repercussions in the Communion…to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorization” (WR144)

This resolution was ruled “unconstitutional” by the parliamentarian who claimed that General Convention does not have the constitutional authority to “effect” the moratoria named in the substitute. Thus the entire substitute was also deemed out of order.

However, the ruling of the parliamentarian was challenged. It could have been overturned by a majority vote. But the challenge was defeated by a majority of the Deputies.

Thus, specific language regarding a limit or moratorium on same sex blessings was twice considered by the House of Deputies and twice rejected.

The Sub-Group report continues:

A summary of the current situation was included in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury from Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold[5] . While this states the position at national level, the group noted that decisions affecting the use of public rites have more usually been made at diocesan level. The Windsor Report, in recognising that fact, calls upon all bishops of the Anglican Communion to abide by the unanimous recommendation of the primates in March 2003 and institute a moratorium on such rites[6] .

In a resolution of the 74th General Convention in 2003, the Episcopal Church recognised that local faith communities within its common life were exploring and experiencing such liturgies[7] .

and while, at provincial level, it has done nothing to authorise such Rites, it has done nothing to check their development. This creates a level of dissonance between the life of the Church at national level and at local level, which makes it hard to discern exactly where the Episcopal Church stands on this issue.

This is another confused and misleading paragraph. Resolution C051 was passed by the 74th General Convention in 2003. Here are the relevant portions of C051:

Resolved, That the 74th General Convention affirm the following:

…

3. That, in our understanding of homosexual persons, differences exist among us about how best to care pastorally for those who intend to live in monogamous, non-celibate unions; and what is, or should be, required, permitted, or prohibited by the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church concerning the blessing of the same.
…

5. That we recognize that local faith communities are operating within the bounds of our common life as they explore and experience liturgies celebrating and blessing same sex unions.

6. That we commit ourselves, and call our church, in the spirit of Resolution A104 of the 70th General Convention (1991), to continued prayer, study, and discernment on the pastoral care for gay and lesbian persons, to include the compilation and development by a special commission organized and appointed by the Presiding Bishop of resources to facilitate as wide a conversation of discernment as possible throughout the church.

7. That our baptism into Jesus Christ is inseparable from our communion with one another, and we commit ourselves to that communion despite our diversity of opinion and, among dioceses, a diversity of pastoral practice with the gay men and lesbians among us.

C051 was a “provincial” resolution. It was passed at General Convention, the primary provincial legislative body of the Episcopal Church. In fact, it is often stated that dioceses are mere creatures of General Convention. Resolution C051, then, represents a provincial resolution that provides leeway and legitimacy for dioceses to "explore" and "experience" public rites for same sex blessings. C051 provides provincial legitimacy for diocesan action.

Contrary to the assertion of the Sub-Group, it is not at all, “hard to discern” where the Episcopal Church stands on the issue.

Since C051 was not addressed or repealed at GC2006 it remains in effect.

There was, as the Group notes in the paragraph below, an interruption in the legitimacy offered by C051:

While the bishops of the Episcopal Church pledged themselves in March 2005 not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and not to bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006, there is evidence that a variety of practices now apply across the United States in accordance with the acknowledgement given at the 74th General Convention in 2003. (As we have already noted 75th General Convention in 2006 did not speak authoritatively the issue.)

In other words, the moratorium enacted by the House of Bishops in March 2005 has expired and C051 once again provides provincial legitimization for the exploration and experience of public rites for same sex blessings which are occurring throughout the province with the approval of diocesan bishops as the following paragraph grudgingly admits:

While the bishops of the Episcopal Church pledged themselves in March 2005 not to authorize any public rites for the blessing of same sex unions, and not to bless any such unions, at least until the General Convention of 2006, there is evidence that a variety of practices now apply across the United States in accordance with the acknowledgement given at the 74th General Convention in 2003. (As we have already noted 75th General Convention in 2006 did not speak authoritatively the issue.) There are dioceses in which progress towards the development of a public Rite of Blessing for same sex unions has been initiated[8] ; other dioceses where, while there is no standard rite, guidelines have been issued by the bishop giving circumstances in which it may be permitted for priests of the diocese to offer such blessings[9] . In other dioceses, permission has been given for the development of rites which cover a wide range of circumstances, but which could include circumstances where a same sex couple were seeking a blessing on their relationship[10] . Experimental liturgical resources have been produced in some dioceses which address amongst other matters, the area of pastoral care for same-gender couples[11] . There are also dioceses which have only adopted a process of study around the subject, but which have not moved to the adoption of any kind of rite[12] . Some commentators allege that up to sixteen dioceses out of a total of 108 dioceses and jurisdictions have moved in the direction of the authorisation of public Rites of Blessing which can be used to celebrate same sex unions, but this is probably not demonstrable: the real situation is very limited, but very complex and the wide range of practice and procedures means that it is difficult to establishment exactly what has and has not been approved.

While this paragraph acknowledges that widespread violations continue in accordance with C051, it ends with another rather confusing sentence.

It is not at all “difficult” to tell what has and has not been approved. The Episcopal Church has said, as a province, that same sex blessings may be explored and experienced legitimately within her jurisdictional boundaries and many bishops have acted accordingly.

It may be difficult to sort out the different ways in which bishops with full provincial legitimacy have permitted the exploration and experience of rites, but it is not at all difficult to figure out that they have granted this permission and that they have done so in direct violation of the Windsor Report as accepted by the Primates at Dromantine.

The Sub-Group concludes:

It is therefore not at all clear whether, in fact, the Episcopal Church is living with the recommendations of the Windsor Report on this matter.

This sentence is so baldly incorrect it is breathtaking. As noted above, and as the Windsor Report clearly indicates in Paragraphs 140-144, the Episcopal Church as a province has provided legitimacy for the exploration and experience of such rites and bishops, on the basis of this provincial legitimization, have granted permission for them to be developed and celebrated.

Moreover, at GC2006 the Windsor requests regarding C051 were considered twice and rejected twice and, as the Group itself admits, the exploration and experience of these rites continues to this day.

To assert, then, that there is even a possibility that the Episcopal Church has complied with Windsor in this regard is to make an assertion utterly impossible to sustain.

Part III: Expression of Regret

The most fascinating aspect of the Group’s discussion of the expression of regret found in General Convention resolution A160 is the fact that the Group recognizes that, standing alone, the expression is inadequate. But, the group argues, when read in the context of B033 (addressed in part 1), Resolution A160 represents a sufficient response to the Windsor Request. Here is the relevant paragraph from the Group report:

The group was unsure how these words should be understood. On the one hand, there does not seem to be any admission of the fact that the action of consenting to the particular election at the centre of this dispute was in itself blameworthy. On the other, there is the use of the strong language of “apology” and the request for “forgiveness”. These words are not lightly offered, and should not be lightly received.

Taken with the apparent promise not to repeat the offence (Resolution B033 discussed above) we believe that the expression of regret is sufficient to meet the request of the Primates.

First it should be noted that A160 was passed before, not after, B033 and was not at all intended to provide a contextual framework for it. B033 was created behind closed doors overnight before the last day of General Convention. A160 was passed a day or two before. So reading A160 in light of B033 is at the very least somewhat problematic.

But second and more significantly (as was demonstrated in part 1) B033 does not in fact represent a “promise not to repeat the offense”.

No “offense” is mentioned in B033. B033 is merely a promise not to elect or consecrate “challenging” candidates. It is completely non-specific.

How on earth the Sub-Group can take the very non-specific language of B033 passed on the last day of General Convention and assert that the obvious failure of A160 to admit and express regret that the Episcopal Church had caused offense or breached the proper constraints of the bonds of affection specifically in the events surrounding election and consecration of the bishop of New Hampshire is somehow rectified by a promise not to elect or consecrate challenging episcopal candidates is mystifying to say the least.

The two resolutions taken together do not compliment one another in the slightest. They merely present more fog.

The short history of the Episcopal Church’s response to calls for an “expression” of regret is replete with avoidance, rationalization, and defiance. But it is instructive.

The House of Bishops issued a Covenant Statement on March 15th which stated the following:

“We express our own deep regret for the pain that others have experienced with respect to our actions at the General Convention of 2003 and we offer our sincerest apology and repentance for having breached our bonds of affection by any failure to consult adequately with our Anglican partners before taking those actions (HOB 2005, para 2)”

This expression of regret was an attempt to answer the invitation articulated in WR paragraphs 134 and 144. But it was inadequate in that it did not publicly recognize and express regret that “the events surrounding the election and consecration of the bishop of New Hampshire” had breached the bonds of affection. Rather, the bishops expressed regret for causing others pain, apologized and even “repented,” for breaching the bonds of affection by “any failure” to adequately consult with their Anglican partners.

This expression of repentance did not specifically acknowledge the actions, identified by the primates, which led to the breach for which the bishops suggested they were truly sorry. The House of Bishops’ expression failed because it was both non-specific and non-committal.

More than a year later the 75th General Convention (2006) passed Resolution A160 which represents the Episcopal Church’s answer to the first Windsor request articulated above: an invitation to express regret:

A160 (Concurred): Expression of Regret
Resolved, That the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, mindful of “the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ” (Windsor Report, paragraph 134), express its regret for straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another.

EXPLANATION
This resolution addresses the invitation of the Windsor Report that "the Episcopal Church be invited to express regret" for breaching the proper constraints of the bonds of affection (Windsor Report 134). It concurs with and affirms the language of the House of Bishops' expression of regret, thus signaling our synodical intentions to remain within the Communion.

By contrast, the language of the Windsor request is as follows:

“the Episcopal Church (USA) be invited to express its regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached in the events surrounding the election and consecration of a bishop for the See of New Hampshire, and for the consequences which followed,” (WR 134)

The language of the Windsor request requires a public admission and expression of regret:

1. that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were “breached” in the events surrounding the election and consecration of the Bishop of New Hampshire and

2. for the consequences which followed.

Resolution A160 fails to comply with the Windsor recommendations on several levels.

First, A160 fails to publicly admit that the proper constraints bonds of affection were “breached.” Rather, A160 asserts that they were only “strained” despite the clear warning of the primates in October of 2003 that the consecration of V. Gene Robinson would cause a tear in the fabric of the communion at its deepest level.

Second, A160 fails to specify which events in particular caused the breach. It generally points to the “events surrounding the General Convention of 2003” but does not mention the consent to the election of the bishop of New Hampshire which was given in that venue as specified by the Windsor Request.

Third, by pointing generally to the events surrounding General Convention rather than the events surrounding the election, consent and consecration of the bishop of New Hampshire, resolution A160, significantly, excludes the consecration itself which took place in November 2003, approximately three months after the “events General Convention” were long over. Perhaps the event of the consecration might be identified by implication in the phrase, “and consequences which followed,” but such an implication is impossibly oblique and thus such a reading tenuous at best. The phrase seems far more consistent as a referent to the consequent “strain” in relations.

Fourth, the apology offered in the second half of the resolution “to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion” recognizes that some were offended and, further, recognizes that the Episcopal Church did not accord sufficient importance to the impact of her actions. But the strength and adequacy of this apology is significantly reduced because the nature of the “impact” to which it refers is cast in doubt by the context of the preceding sentences discussed above. Given its context, at best the expression represents an apology for taking actions without due consideration that ended up “straining” the proper constraints of the bonds of affection, not for the action itself.

Finally, the explanation makes it clear that this resolution’s expression of regret “concurs with and affirms the language” of the House of Bishops’ expression of regret which, as we have already seen, is itself inadequate.

Though clearly inadequate, Resolution A160 won approval in both the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops.

Summary:

The Communion Sub-Committee findings betray a serious lack of study and care. There are gaping inaccuracies and unwarranted assumptions throughout the document. The mistakes are so glaring that the work appears more motivated by apologetic concerns than investigative care.

I pray the primates reject it.

35 Comments • Print-friendly • Print-friendly w/comments • Share on Facebook

Comments:

As I wrote on another thread, we have three simple questions:

Are non-celibates still being ordained?
Are same-sex ‘marriages’ still being celebrated?
Did TEC apologize for what it did, or merely for the pain it caused?
The answers are clear and simple.
The Report is hogwash—a grade school child could see that.
I hope and pray that the delay and impotence that plagued GC 2006 does not carry over into Tanzania. It’s now or never, as Elvis said, and time’s a wastin’.

[1] Posted by Rick Killough on 02-15-2007 at 05:43 PM • top

Among those primates that are very informed about conditions within TEC, this may be the make or break event that pushes them to decide a new orthodox communion is in order. And, if they do, count be in!

[2] Posted by David+ on 02-15-2007 at 05:50 PM • top

Oh for the love of pete, Matt. What is the rush with the refutation stuff? Patience. The primates are still meeting. Let ‘em work without our commenting. Afterwards, there will be time enough to refute, repudiate, repent, retreat, retread, etc… You do realize that all of our judgments over here are starting to make it sound like only those of us “in the know” have any brains at all.

OK OK I know you’re just calling it like you see it and you’re entitled to your opinion, which is almost always a very good one, but just once, can we keep our fingers off the keyboard for just a little while? Do we have to Press Release everything (see AAC post)? Can we have a little faith in our global leaders (who by the by we’ve been putting all our faith in up until today)? Peace my hard working brother! I am enjoying the heck out of the video updates.

[3] Posted by Widening Gyre on 02-15-2007 at 05:58 PM • top

RE: “Oh for the love of pete, Matt. What is the rush with the refutation stuff?”

Hey, wait a minute. Greg posts an article [excellent] a mere hour or so after the report’s release. I post one a few hours later, and Matt comes after me. Why accuse *him* of the rush??? And dont’ you think it’s a little late to be saying “let ‘em work without our commenting”????

It appears to me that Matt has been snoozing gently, while Greg and I have been rushing around writing responses.

Matt’s really good at this kind of analysis.

And frankly, Widening Gyre, I do not have “a little faith in [most of]] our global leaders”—but what does that have to do with Matt’s writing an article—unless you think the Primates are reading the article??? ; > )

And if they are—then kudos to Matt for posting it tonight!

[4] Posted by Sarah on 02-15-2007 at 06:10 PM • top

Is there a record of how many dioceses have (either overtly or indirectly) rejected B033 since GC ‘06? I remember reading a few during the flurry of Diocesan conventions, but I’m pretty sure there are more than a “few”. Would this not be an example of testing “…the way in which the Episcopal Church lives out these resolutions.”?

[5] Posted by GillianC on 02-15-2007 at 06:12 PM • top

Let ‘em work without our commenting.

Maybe we wouldn’t be in this mess if we had been a more free with our commenting some years back.

[6] Posted by oscewicee on 02-15-2007 at 06:26 PM • top

Excellent work, Matt. Obviously some hard, fast, clear-thinking (and, I suspect, somewhat tedious) work was needed here—and you have provided it. Whatever happens in Tanzania, I think you have done God and His Church a service today.

And, hey, if things don’t work out, and you end up looking for a line of work that’s more honest than the Episcopal priesthood is threatening to become, I will without reservation recommend you to any law school in the world. It’d be a better place if more in my profession (that of law) were as disciplined in their thought and writing as you have demonstrated here.

[7] Posted by Africanised Anglican on 02-15-2007 at 06:35 PM • top

I’m wondering if “uncertainty” is a code word for the fact that the subcommittee disagreed. I’m also wondering who kept the minutes, who compiled the report, and who provided the technical legal analysis of GC2006 action.

At any rate, as I posted elsewhere - in reading the TLC article about the events of the day, I was struck by Abp Chew’s comment.

...primates and conference staffers from across the theological spectrum agreed the day had been a productive start to the debate over The Episcopal Church, but that no clear course of action had taken hold of the meeting.. However, “whatever happens, we still will be friends,” Archbishop John Chew of South East Asia concluded.

Friends? Just friends? “Whatever happens?” Not brothers and sisters in Christ. Interesting.

[8] Posted by tired on 02-15-2007 at 06:35 PM • top

Well done, Matt. Particularly devastating are the words of the A161 resolution explanation, which give the lie to the idea that the vague wording of B033 somehow ‘broadens’ the prohibition to encompass other unacceptable behaviors. As I predicted at the time, it is now allowing revisionists to simultaneously purge orthodox clergy while leaving open the door for more actively homosexual bishops.

This entire report was a sham and a disgrace to the Communion, the GS and to reason itself.

[9] Posted by Jeffersonian on 02-15-2007 at 06:52 PM • top

I agree, Sarah, that Matt is really terrific at this sort of analysis. He also writes well, as you do. But are you folks really surprised at this turn of events? What did you expect? And my main question continues to be: Do you have a plan?

[10] Posted by Laurence K Wells on 02-15-2007 at 06:59 PM • top

RE: “But are you folks really surprised at this turn of events? What did you expect?”

No, not surprised at all. Do any of the posts indicate surprise? ; > )

We expected exactly this.

Keep in mind, our team survived and imbibed and fully absorbed, on site, 10 solid days of these sorts of shenanigans at GC 2006. You are talking to battle hardened people who have also been through diocesan conventions and hosts of other minor “process” battles.

I’m not certain what you mean by “do you have a plan”—please refine or expand.

[11] Posted by Sarah on 02-15-2007 at 07:08 PM • top

Sarah,

First, I said much of the same on the thread about the first report about the group’s report. Second, I said much of the same on Greg’s post. Third, Matt and I, well, we have history over this sort of thing so I hope he takes it as furthering our ongoing discussion and meant purely in friendship. Fourth, I would never be so foolish to post a negative comment on your thread. You think I’m nuts? You actually know where I live. Plus, I need your help recruiting a new rector to our parish (although who knows what will happen during the remainder of the Primates’ Meeting). I am still hopeful.

[12] Posted by Widening Gyre on 02-15-2007 at 07:19 PM • top

Well, I certainly am not surprised. Looking at the signatories I would have been surprised rather if something like this hadn’t appeared. After all, as I pointed out in response to the breaking article, something like this happened at Lambeth 98, and almost every meeting of the Primates or the ACC since then, revisionists have tried to hijack the agenda. Whatever David Virtue’s limitations in terms of tact, he has been noticing this for years.

I was a little surprised to see RW sign on, but . . . he did appoint Archbishop Carnley (a complete revisionist) to head the POW, and Archbishop Eames (the Chair of the Windsor Commission, and also a revisionist) went on a US junket awhile back, congratulating (then) ECUSA on how well they had done in abiding by the Windsor Report.

The clincher will still be how the Global South responds. Kigali was a three base hit, and the bases are now loaded. It’s the bottom of the ninth, and the revisionists just pitched a curve ball. But the Global South is warming up in the batter’s box.

[13] Posted by William Witt on 02-15-2007 at 07:28 PM • top

Sarah, you describe yourself and your co-religionists as “battle hardened people.” While I sincerely admire your courage, may I humply point out that the Reasserter party has been on the losing side for well over a generation.

You ask me to clarify or amplify what I mean by a “plan.” Well, three days ago I wrote:
“Thinking out loud…... What if, in spite of the high hopes and earnest expectations of many neo-Anglicans, nothing much really comes from this meeting in Tanzania. Just suppose, very hypothetically, that the GS bishops cannot muster enough votes to make an impact, and no “discipline” of any significance is inflicted on TEC. Try to imagine that Dr Schorri is seated as a primate and welcomed gallantly by the majority. My question for this scenario (and I’m not qualified to make a prediction): What would the self-styled “reasserters” (those whom I call neo-Anglicans) do next??????
It seems that a great weight of expectation is placed on this meeting, quite possibly too much. Kendall Harmon is right in urging a degree of caution (hope I didnt misquote you, Kendall). When I see people seriously proposing a decree of sede vacante on TEC, I begin to wonder about their grip on reality.
My real question, frankly, is whether the Neo-Anglican movement has the strength of conviction to “go it alone,” without the GS bishops waving their truncheons over KJS’s head. The famous “line in the sand” has been moved so many times that I can easily imagine VGR being labelled a Windsor bishop as he makes “common cause” with Duncan, et al., against child sacrifice.”

When the Tanzania meeting fades into history next week, VGR will still be bishop of NH, KJS will still be PB, homosexual weddings in ECUSA churches will still be reported regularly in the NYT, priestesses will still offer strange fire on the altars of The Lord, and a theologically adulterated liturgy will be prayed in “orthodox” parishes.
So how long will you put up with it? Will you wait for a Great Rescuer to appear out of Africa, or will you be able to take action for yourself?

[14] Posted by Laurence K Wells on 02-15-2007 at 09:24 PM • top

One of the things I learned from compiling primate prayer profiles is that some African provinces receive money from ERD, and some do not. The two provinces represented on the subgroup do. I am not in a position to know whether this was a contributing factor in any decisions made.

[15] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 02-15-2007 at 11:03 PM • top

RE: “So how long will you put up with it? Will you wait for a Great Rescuer to appear out of Africa, or will you be able to take action for yourself?”

I’m going to assume that this question is rhetorical, at least to me, since I have clearly, and lengthily, and onerously delved into the questions about this in 13 “strategery 101” articles that are rather long.

I have repeatedly stated that, should I discern that all hope that the Anglican Communion will discipline itself is lost, then I will leave the Anglican Communion and find the congregational church in my region that is able to 1) winsomely present the gospel to pagans, 2) intelligently disciple and form believers, and 3) participate in renewing and interacting with the culture with integrity.

Until then I will work—without waiting for rescue—on helping renew and reform various entities within ECUSA. I am quite happily taking action for myself already.

[16] Posted by Sarah on 02-15-2007 at 11:22 PM • top

Sarah, honey, you rock!

[17] Posted by AnnieCOA on 02-15-2007 at 11:29 PM • top

Sarah writes and speaks so lucidly, and especially after seeing the picture on the StandFirm updates, that I keep expecting to hear her speak with an Oxbridge British accent!

[18] Posted by APB on 02-16-2007 at 08:21 AM • top

“I’m going to assume that this question is rhetorical, at least to me,...”

No, Sarah, with all due respect, my question was anything but rhetorical.

“should I discern that all hope that the Anglican Communion will discipline itself is lost, then I will leave the Anglican Communion…”

My question stands: what will it take to convince you that the Impaired Canterbury Communion is hopeless, and for all pracical intents and purposes, apostate?

I will not debate with you (de gustibus non est disputandum) your Plan B to find a congenial Protestant church to join. You could do worse. But if you do not feel that Anglicanism, as a form of worship, doctrine and spirituality, is worth preserving, then why all the pain and suffering? Why persevere in a battle that has been going the wrong way for over a generation? Yes, Sarah, you have written “onerously,” but I tell you in love, the “onus” seems self-inflicted.

This reminds me of an RC priest friend of mine who was counseling a young man addicted to ladies of the evening. After many hours in the Confessional, the young chap called the padre late one evening to say he was at a lady’s apartment. She had stepped across the hall to acquire drugs. The penitent asked his Confessor what he should do, since he didnt what to be rude or unkind to the young lady. The priest told him in plain language: just put on your pants and get out of there. That’s my suggestion to any Episcopalian who fancies himself or herself orthodox. Put on your pants and get out of there.

[19] Posted by Laurence K Wells on 02-16-2007 at 09:12 AM • top

RE: “No, Sarah, with all due respect, my question was anything but rhetorical.”

I see that my giving you the benefit of the doubt was in error, then—it really was as foolish a question as I had thought originally, since I have clearly answered that question dozens of times in my articles.

Feel free to read them if you really want an answer to your question.

Otherwise, I’ll know that you’re just playing a rhetorical game.

RE: “My question stands: what will it take to convince you that the Impaired Canterbury Communion is hopeless, and for all pracical intents and purposes, apostate?”

Answered clearly above in the comment thread.

RE: “But if you do not feel that Anglicanism, as a form of worship, doctrine and spirituality, is worth preserving, then why all the pain and suffering?”

Huh? No idea what you are speaking of. An incoherent question.

RE: “Why persevere in a battle that has been going the wrong way for over a generation?”

Your definitions, not mine. Feel free to continue believing as you do about “battles”, “wrong ways”, and “generations”.

RE: “Yes, Sarah, you have written “onerously,” but I tell you in love, the “onus” seems self-inflicted.”

Huh, again? When one writes articles, it is often onerous. Of course the “onus” of writing articles was “self-inflicted”. It’s called “deciding to write an article”. Thus, the onus of writing articles is “self-inflicted”.

RE: “That’s my suggestion to any Episcopalian who fancies himself or herself orthodox.”

Ah, now we reach the real point of the questions.

Just to affirm again—Laurence K. Wells—I have no interest or concern in your opinions about my “orthodoxy” or not. You can call me a “Protestant Liberal Heretic”, a “Griswoldian Spongess”, a “Bastard Anglicanish” for all I care, and it makes no odds to me. Even were you the “Potentate of All Definitions of Anglicanism or Orthodoxy”—which you are not—I would not care.

I’m sure you’re happy where you are. That’s cool by me. But if you think that your descriptions or definitions or rhetoric has the slightest impact on me and other fellow Episcopalians like me . . . beyond the seconds that it takes for me to write this reply . . . you are wrong.

The real question for all the blog to reflect upon is why does a man who is happily ensconsed in his own Continuing Anglican church work so feverishly on this blog at attempting to harass and bait and snipe at all of us non-orthodox heretics here on this blog, at least one of which does not share the foundational theological beliefs of Continuing churches?

I promise you that if the Continuers begin a Continuing Church Orthodox Blog For Real Anglicans, I will not toddle over to adjure them to come join CANA, the AMiA, nor ECUSA.

Try me! ; > )

[20] Posted by Sarah on 02-16-2007 at 10:05 AM • top

SF rarely descends to sarcasm, vituperation, and ad hominem attacks, so it is painful to observe it in one of the more astute thinkers and writers. It is, for you, a long and painful week, and I understand why you are more testy than usual.

You do not seem to grasp why I point out that your party has been on the losing side for not just this week, but for a generation. Your retort is “your definitions, not mine.” So let me break it down for you, Sarah.

“Losing” means getting voted down on every important vote at every GC since the time of James Pike. Clear enough? “Generation” means the last 3O years. Does that help?

Yes, I am happy where I am. It is obvious that you are not happy where you are. My prayers are with you, Sarah.

[21] Posted by Laurence K Wells on 02-16-2007 at 11:24 AM • top

I’m sorry to say, but I think LKW is right. TEC cannot be cleaned up because TEC likes being dirty. The events of the past few years have only confirmed my decision to leave this grimy, apostate institution for the confimes of AMiA. I hope the faithful across TEC come to a similar conclusion in the coming weeks.

[22] Posted by Jeffersonian on 02-16-2007 at 11:49 AM • top

Gosh, after 2003, I never once thought TEC could be cleaned up. I had held out hope for the communion as a whole. But that hope will die if TEC escapes discipline.

[23] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 02-16-2007 at 11:53 AM • top

Matt,
If we walked out of Tanzania with a province for the faithful orthodox in the US, would you be satisfied with this accomplishment or is it imperative for you to to see TEC punished as well?
Personally, it seems that the Global South has stated previously that there is impaired communion with TEC. In the grand scheme of things, why shouldn’t we walk away from Tanzania with a new province and just be happy. Why should we insist on punishing TEC. While I wholly bbelieve that what it has done is wrong, I wonder if we are not be obsessed by this pursuit.

[24] Posted by richardc on 02-16-2007 at 12:01 PM • top

Lurker here,
It appears to me that LKW is an alternate persona of TBWSF or whatever his initials are. Might be easier to refer to all such as ‘trolls’ and get it over with. In business we refer to this as being an ‘internal assassin’; you can waste a lot of time dealing with these folks, and meanwhile the real work doesn’t get done.

[25] Posted by RichardP on 02-16-2007 at 12:07 PM • top

RE: “. . . ad hominem attacks. . . “

Please list for me the “ad hominem” attacks in my clear comment to you, keeping in mind that ad hominem attacks are ones that attack a person’s character.

RE: ““Losing” means getting voted down on every important vote at every GC since the time of James Pike. Clear enough? “Generation” means the last 3O years. Does that help?”

Nonsense. Losing means losing for centuries longer than that . . .
; > ) . . . sin triumphs often in churches, sometimes for centuries at a time. I’m glad that you broke down what *you* believe to be unacceptable “losing”—I think it’s been much longer than that. Why your definitions of unacceptable “losing” should concern me, again, I do not know. Human beings fight for lots of things, whether they think they will “lose” or not.

I might, for instance, point out lots of “losings” that I believe the Continuing churches to have endured and then adjure you to “stop fighting losing battles in the Continuing churches”. But I do not.

For each person, the level of acceptable “losing” or unacceptable “losing” is quite unique and particular. William Wilberforce, for instance, lost throughout his entire life.

RE: “It is obvious that you are not happy where you are.”

And you are incorrect, LKW, as much as you shockingly appear to wish that this were true.

God has poured out his blessings on me in my life, through my association with Anglicanism and the Episcopal church, through this blog, over the past three years in the battles that are being waged, in my personal circumstances, in my family, my cat Charmer, my dog Brand, the friends and allies that I have made, the gifts that He has given my in my own few talents, the beautiful outdoors, running and tennis and sports, great reading, the times I spend huddled with good cooking and movies with my friends, raspberry cornmeal pancakes, and on and on and on.

As I have noted earlier in this thread, I continue to find your continual harangues of those who do not share your theology, and now your speculations about other’s attitudes, troubling and puzzling from one, again, who is happily ensconsed in his own Continuing church.

I will continue to observe this, as I find the time to respond. And I stand behind every word of my previous comment concerning your opinions about my orthodoxy.

Let us know when you get that Continuing Church Orthodox Blog For Real Anglicans.

[26] Posted by Sarah on 02-16-2007 at 12:37 PM • top

RE: “Lurker here,
It appears to me that LKW is an alternate persona of TBWSF or whatever his initials are.”

No, he is not TBWSF. And he actually is not a troll.

When he can contain his seeming frustration and anger, [based on I don’t know what], he can reflect very well on theological issues. There have been some fine threads in the past, as he and Matt have skirmished with ECUSA reappraisers, particularly over at titusonenine.

[27] Posted by Sarah on 02-16-2007 at 12:43 PM • top

Lurker,

Lawrence Wells and Tom Woodward are two very distinct individuals, from divergent streams, in this continuing debate. Each has their own unique slant on the issues, and both are very erudite. Matt has conducted lengthy debates with a more liberal Tom in the past, and Lawrence is a frequent conservative debater.

There are a few trolls on this blog, but seldom heard from.

[28] Posted by Chip Johnson, cj on 02-16-2007 at 12:50 PM • top

It may be frustrating and it may cause anger to note that a branch of Christ’s church is cutting itself off from its lifeblood, the Bride of Christ which is His Church here on this earth.
Blanket statements about “this direction” or “that direction” in which to go to escape ECUSA/TEC’s heresy may also be frustrating and unhelpful to the children of Christ because each individual child needs to be praying and seeking God’s will for his/her life.
Sarcastic comments concerning Christian worship will inevitably lead to the ways of the world, which is where ECUSA/TEC hierarchy reside for the most part.
We must pray and trust the Lord to show us how He would have each person He created worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.

[29] Posted by Margaret in Orthodoxy on 02-16-2007 at 12:52 PM • top

In my most recent posting to this article I meant to say “the children of God, our brothers and sisters in Christ.” Sorry to be so sloppy!
I meant to express the thought found in this quote from St. Basil the Great:
“As our body cannot live without breading, so our soul cannot keep alive without knowing the Creator; for the ignorance of God is the death of the soul.”

[30] Posted by Margaret in Orthodoxy on 02-16-2007 at 12:58 PM • top

Okay, that should be ” as our body cannot live without BREATHING…” I’ve got to take a break—I don’t know how you guys do this!

[31] Posted by Margaret in Orthodoxy on 02-16-2007 at 01:00 PM • top

Here is word from an HONEST liberal:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17796#comment-1858308

I agree that the report is flawed and does not accurately represent the mind of the Episcopal Church. This was the trouble with B033 and other gestures at appeasement. They send unclear signals. The Episcopal Church does not intend to comply with the proposed moratorium on same sex unions or the provisions of B033 which concern only consent to the election of bishops for long. Whatever usefulness Windsor had (I don’t think it ever had much), is gone because the realignment crowd insists on using it as a litmus test. I think this probably was the intention of some of the drafters. Others (Eames/Dyer/Morgan) have presented it as the beginning of a process.

Truth be told, compliance with either moratorium is not possible in the long term (As the Presiding Bishop seemed to indicate in her remarks to the Urban Caucus) and anything resembling a moratorium on blessings was rejected. About the most you’ll see us repent for is the unintended (but forseeable) effects of our actions in 2003 and following.
We should come right out and say that we are convinced that the NH consecration and C051 were not only permitted but required of us by God. If anyone doesn’t believe that, then it wasn’t worth it. If you do believe it, then the consequences of GC2003 are worth it, because we are moving forward in mission in obedience to our Lord. How can you apologize for making a careful discernment and then acting upon it? Marilyn McCord Adams has been particularly clear on that score.

The Episcopal Church will continue to welcome, uphold, and sanctify the lives and ministries of lgbt clergy and people and eventually another of them (and another, etc.), with a partner, will be elected and confirmed as a bishop. Also, eventually there will be a rite for same sex unions (perhaps the marriage rite, perhaps a parallel rite) within the BCP. What remains uncertain is the status of those who cannot or cannot yet accept these developments. I suspect this is a fight for the middle. It is also a fight over a brand: Anglican.

I admire Kendall’s call for clarity. We ought to be capable of frank speech with one another. One of the things I admire about the new Presiding Bishop is that she is much clearer and more forthright than her predecessor (I’m an admirer of his also but a tendency toward duplicity was a weakness, not an uncommon one among bishops). As Luther once said, the theology of the cross calls a thing what it is. Bishop Katharine has played by the rules of the old game in lending her support to B033, but she has sent very clear signals that it is a regrettable, temporary measure. I wish that she had never pushed for it. I have a feeling that it will be her last effort in this direction and that she felt she was going the extra mile. I also believe that she will come to regret her decision and that she already regrets the pain it caused.

Bill Carroll is to be commended for writing this. I only wish that this could be read out for all to hear in Tanzania.

[32] Posted by jamesw on 02-16-2007 at 01:13 PM • top

Sarah: Just for the record (before I sign off to leave town for the week-end—the first time I’ve been away from my parish on a Sunday for over two years), I do not consider you anything less than an orthodox Anglican Christian. I apologize for the poor choice of words, “those who fancy themselves orthodox,” which you took personally and then went off on me. I do appreciate some kinder language in later postings.

Orthodoxy for me is determined by the formulations of Nicaea and Chalcedon, which Isurely know you heartily subscribe to. Actually, you and I are in general agreement on most things, apart from That Issue, and, more broadly, on the best strategy for being faithful Biblical orthodox Anglican Christians in a difficult time in history.

I know you just don’t like CC. Quite probably, you have ample reason not to. There are lots of CC I don’t like either. Lots of them don’t like me. But perhaps we (you and I) can be friends.

I do think you should check your Merriam-Webster again for its definition of “ad hominem.” This phrase denotes the logical fallacy of attacking a person’s character. This is not necessarily moral character. Using language like “silly,” “harangue,” “harrass, bait, and snipe” is clearly personal. This is personally directed and I find it disappointing.

[33] Posted by Laurence K Wells on 02-16-2007 at 03:59 PM • top

RE: “I know you just don’t like CC.”

Untrue. There are many CCers that I respect, and I have enjoyed interaction with them. Although they are not CC I was just on the phone last week with an REC person and there were *many* CCs of all stripes at the Mere Anglicanism conference three weeks ago. We had great fellowship.

However, as I have said many many times, we do not share the same theology on several crucial points. That is what I have been clear about and CCers have also been clear about that with me and others.

RE: “This phrase denotes the logical fallacy of attacking a person’s character.”

I agree. That is what I said above when I said “keeping in mind that ad hominem attacks are ones that attack a person’s character.”

RE: “Using language like “silly,” “harangue,” “harrass, bait, and snipe” is clearly personal.”

No, not agreeing with and describing a person’s actions and statements is not attacking that person’s character. It is merely expressing an opinion about that person’s actions and statements—not the person himself . We do this all the time when we speak of the statements and actions of revisionists, for instance, without attacking the revisionists’ character. I think, for instance, that the Rowan Williams sub-group report on ECUSA’s [non] compliance with Windsor to be one of the most disgraceful actions that I have seen over the past four years of this debacle. But describing the report as “disgraceful” does not state that Rowan Williams is “a disgrace”.

The opinions that I expressed about your statements on this thread were that one of your questions—after carefully asking for clarification—was foolish, since I have repeatedly answered that question on this blog and that another question was incoherent and that I could not respond to it. The rest of my statements concerned why I was not disturbed by whatever your thoughts were on my orthodoxy and my curiosity over why you were, specifically on this thread and on a few others over the past month, making bating, sniping, haranguing, harassing comments to Episcopalians on this blog.

I do not consider you yourself, as a person, to be a fool, or incoherent. But I do consider your comments on this thread to have been “bating, sniping . . . etc, etc”.

You are certainly free to bait people and let them know that you disapprove of their actions with regards to the Episcopal church . . . but then, people will respond.

Perhaps, on another thread, we will bury the hatchet, er, figuratively speaking, of course.

I also need to acknowledge that this conversation is horribly off-topic, and I have participated in making it so. I apologize to the blog for this. I should have not responded on this thread.

I will try to do better the next time this happens.

[34] Posted by Sarah on 02-16-2007 at 05:23 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.

Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.