Thursday, September 2, 2010

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Want to advertise on Stand Firm? Click here for rates and info

Archbishop’s (++Rowan Williams’) comments at the final press conference in Tanzania

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 • 11:27 am


Archbishop’s comments at the final press conference in Tanzania

20th February 2007

May I echo the thanks for your patience which Philip has already shared with you – we’re very appreciative of the fact that it is late and we’re all tired.

Also before I start, I went from one session just to check the BBC news and heard more details about he appalling bombing on the train in India and I know that all the Primates will want to put on record their grief and shock about this and their prayers for all involved and their families.

What I’d like to do is touch briefly – very briefly – on the issues in the final communiqué of our meeting. As usual, you’ll see elements there of narrative – this is what we did, these are the activities we shared and these were the subjects we covered. You’ll notice the reference there to the commissioning of our new representative at the United Nations, and following on form that, some discussion of future work that can be done on the Millennium Development goals by the Communion, especially in the forthcoming conference in Johannesburg in a few week’s time at which I hope to be present.

We also received and welcomed the report on Theological Education and identified a new project on interpretation of the Bible.

The business of following through the recommendations of the Windsor report covers, as you see, a great deal of our business and it touches on what we’ve called the listening process, and we had an extremely good discussion and report from Canon Philip Groves and a great deal of information about the variety of responses and perspectives around the world on these questions around listening to the experience of homosexual people and the challenges of equitable and patient pastoral ministry to them.

There’s a reference to the report on the Panel of Reference, you’ve heard something already of the Anglican Covenant, but it’s probably the remainder of the document, from paragraph 17 onwards that contains the meat of our recommendations.

In short, the feeling of the meeting as a whole was that the response of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church to the recommendations of the Windsor report, a response made at General Convention last year, represented some steps in a very encouraging direction but did not yet represent a situation in which we could say ‘business as usual’. What that means in practice is spelled out in what follows.

We’re still as a communion in a place where our doctrinal position is that of Lambeth 1.10 and where that position has been reiterated in a number of Primates’ Meetings, ACC meetings and a number of other fora. That hasn’t changed. However there are two factors which we needed to take seriously and engage with.

The first is this: the response of The Episcopal Church, while not wholly clear, represented a willingness to engage with the Communion and awareness of the cost of difficulty that decisions have generated, so our first questions is ‘how do we best engage with that willingness?’ How do we work with the stream of desire to remain with the Communion?

The second factor is the very substantial group of bishops and others within The Episcopal Church perhaps amounting to nearly one quarter of the Bishops who have spelt out not only their willingness to abide by the Windsor report in all its aspects, but to provide carefully worked-through system of pastoral oversight for those in The Episcopal Church who are not content with the decisions of General Convention.

So what you have before you is an attempt to see if there is, while the Covenant is being discussed around the Communion, to see if there is an interim solution that will certainly fall very far short of resolving all the disputes that are before us but will provide a way of moving forward with integrity. A system of pastoral care for the substantial minority in The Episcopal Church, an encouragement for them and others within The Episcopal Church in whatever desire they have to remain on stream with the rest of the Communion; and also, more importantly a way of beginning to negotiate a way through the very difficult situations that have been created by interventions from other Provinces in the life of The Episcopal Church.

We accepted the good faith of those responsible for such interventions, and we heard some very moving testimonies about that; at the same time they and we recognise that that can only be a temporary solution and the preferable solution is to have some kind of settlement negotiated within the church life of the United States.

Hence the recommendations of the Primates at the end; a proposal to establish a pastoral council; a responsibility shared between the Primates’ Meeting and the Presiding Bishop, asking those bishops who have already offered to take up this responsibility to provide pastoral care within The Episcopal Church for the conscientious minority and a challenge to both sides really, a challenge to The Episcopal Church to clarify its position; a challenge also to those who have intervened from elsewhere to see if they can negotiate their way towards an equitable settlement within the life of the North America Church.

You’ll notice that we also suggested, to pick up an unfortunate metaphor that’s been around quite a bit, the kind of ceasefire in terms of litigation. At the very end of the recommendations you’ll see that the very last paragraph that the primates urge representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it, to suspend all actions in law arising from this situation, None of us; none of us believe that litigation and counter litigation can be a proper way forward and we don’t see that we can move towards sensible balanced reconciliation while that remains a threat in wide use.

Those are the bones of what we’ve said here; I’d like to put it in the context of the Covenant process which you’ve already heard a little about and to suggest to you that what it amounts to is a package, not one single proposal, not one single scheme, but a way of encouraging and nurturing certain elements in The Episcopal Church a way of clarifying the challenge overall that the Communion wants to put to The Episcopal Church within that time frame during which the covenant will be discussed and we hope eventually accepted. Thank you.

Question concerning homosexuality; is it a gift from God or is it a sin?

The teaching of the Anglican Church remains that homosexual activity is not compatible with scripture. The homosexual condition, the homosexual desire, we don’t call conditions sinful in that sense.

Q Was the cost of keeping the communion together allowing other provinces to continue to trespass on the property of The Episcopal Church?

Well I think if you look at the communiqué you’ll see that that’s precisely the situation we’re trying to rectify and to well, to end. Now that’s not going to happen tomorrow, but that is certainly very explicitly there as a concern shared round the room.

Q What’s this we hear about you guys joining up with the Roman Catholic Church?

What’s this we hear about the end of the world … I think what you hear is a really rather remarkably garbled version of a document which has appeared recently which simply states where we are practically in the limits of cooperation between ourselves and the Roman Catholic Church a document agreed by Anglican and Roman Catholic bishops around the world and suggesting what can be done in pastoral practice; it amounts to no more than that.

Q [response of the (TEC) House of Bishops …] consequences of failure to spell out

I think it’s impossible for me to speculate about the House of Bishops in the US and indeed the Presiding Bishop is not in a position, as indeed none of us is in a position to deliver the whole of the House of Bishops we hope that they will. On the specifics on the wording – well, these are the terms that have been put to them, I think it would be rather difficult if there were a response in other terms.

On consequences, you’ll see there in the paper what seems a statement of bare fact; that if the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience – and that’s an important phrase because there are consciences involved – on both sides of this debate. If the reassurances cannot in good conscience, then in fact the damage is not repaired, and that has to affect some of the consideration we would want to give about the organs of the Communion.


Q Including invitations to Lambeth?


Among other things, that’ll have to be under consideration, I don’t pre-empt a decision but that’ll have to be discussed.

Q Archbishop Akinola … has he chosen to walk away from this?

Archbishop Akinola has declared that he is prepared to support this document.

Q What message is this sending to people in the pews who are tired of this … what would you say is the end goal?

The end goal is the Kingdom of God, isn’t it, and that takes a while. What would I say to people in the pews? I would say first of all that Gospel remains the Gospel –that is the love of God, the challenge of God the love of God promising absolution, the challenge of God requiring change. That doesn’t change and for people to go on in the baptised life, sharing Holy Communion, serving the world, there is no imperative bigger than that.

I said I went back from one session and put the news on and looking at the levels of human grief, terror and suffering around the world, it did seem to me that in many ways it’s quite difficult to persuade people that the Church – I don’t just mean the Anglican Church – has transforming good news when most of what people hear about us is our own internal divisions. There’s a lot in this communiqué about what else we’re doing, that is the other 97% of what the Church does in terms of the Millennium Development Goals and other matters. I do hope people will bear that in mind as the primary vision.


Q Primates concern about the problems of Africa; have they forgotten Africa?

God forbid! The discussion we had on the Millennium Development Goals, to come back to that again, focussed on many of these issues and we heard discussions not only of course about Africa, but certainly about Africa and other places. We heard about the challenge of corruption, the challenge of debt, the challenge of course about HIV and Aids, which is a major focus of a forthcoming conference in Johannesburg; and of course I had the privilege of being able to discuss some of these things with the President of Tanzania and with the President of Zanzibar during this visit and get some sense of what was being done in these terms.

Now one important fact here is that we have tired to reaffirm the capacity of the Church to deliver the Millennium Development Goals at grass roots level in a way that no other voluntary organisation can. This is a central theme in the thinking of many people in the Anglican Church at the moment and one of the challenges we have to rise to is whether we can better coordinate our work for development and in meeting these goals.

Q Primatial vicar – will he trump the canons? …What authority will this figure have?

Well if you bear with me while I try and explain what is admittedly a slightly complicated concept. The Presiding Bishop has declared willingness to entertain the notion of a Primatial Vicar. What you have here is the model that those bishops within the United States who have declared their willingness to abide by Windsor and so forth should be given the right to nominate a person who will act in the terms that they recognise as constituting and offering adequate pastoral oversight. To that person the PB will delegate certain power, but that person will be responsible to the council, the Pastoral Council that will be set up, as a means of communications with the Primates as a body. Now operating under the canons and constitutions; that’s a difficult one to be clear about.

Now you won’t have, shouldn’t have any bishop operating any canons and constitutions and the bishops we’re talking about, never mind for a moment the practice of TEC, the canons and constitutions as such don’t violate their conscience even if the practice does, so the challenge is to work out what that would mean, the proper degree of independence and critical engagement which I think is meant to be represented by the link to the Primates meeting as a whole, not just to the Presiding Bishop and the structure do TEC.

It’s an experiment; pray for it.

ENDS


18 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

A number of interesting things:

“We accepted the good faith of those responsible for such interventions, and we heard some very moving testimonies about that; at the same time they and we recognise that that can only be a temporary solution and the preferable solution is to have some kind of settlement negotiated within the church life of the United States.”  Not unlike the message in his Reflections.  The question remains whether TEC will take the primates up on this when they declined to take him up on it earlier.  At least this time there will be an answer by a date certain. 

“[W]e also suggested, to pick up an unfortunate metaphor that’s been around quite a bit, the kind of ceasefire in terms of litigation. At the very end of the recommendations you’ll see that the very last paragraph that the primates urge representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it, to suspend all actions in law arising from this situation, None of us; none of us believe that litigation and counter litigation can be a proper way forward and we don’t see that we can move towards sensible balanced reconciliation while that remains a threat in wide use.”  Pretty clear, and interesting he emphasizes this.  I suppose this moves it up on the priority scale. 

“Q Primatial vicar – will he trump the canons? …What authority will this figure have?

Well if you bear with me while I try and explain what is admittedly a slightly complicated concept. ....  Now operating under the canons and constitutions; that’s a difficult one to be clear about.
Now you won’t have, shouldn’t have any bishop operating any canons and constitutions and the bishops we’re talking about, never mind for a moment the practice of TEC, the canons and constitutions as such don’t violate their conscience even if the practice does, so the challenge is to work out what that would mean, the proper degree of independence and critical engagement which I think is meant to be represented by the link to the primates meeting as a whole, not just to the Presiding Bishop and the structure do TEC.”  It will be a challenge.  Message received!

“It’s an experiment; pray for it.”  Amen to that, brother.

[1] Posted by pendennis88 on 02-20-2007 at 10:59 AM • top

Nota Bene

Look at what ++Williams focuses on in terms of the “bones” of the Communique and PECUSA: PECUSA has to clarify, and the “Global South parishes” have to be ‘returned’ to PECUSA under the Primatal Vicar system.

This, for him, seems to be the heart of what was said re the Episcopal Church—and addressing jurisdiction-crossing draws a lot more of his attention in his “bare bones” summary than the few lines about “clarification”.

In a follow-up question, it becomes clear that the consequences for PECUSA’s failure to renounce its revisionism remains very vague and indeterminate.

Not only that, the communque itself, in addition to providing PECUSA with a number of other excuses for delay (e.g. “jurisdiction crossing, in violation of Windsor, is still going on”... and the ABC himself says here that won’t be fixed by September; plus, of course, all sorts of “procedure” and “we need diocesean convention” delaying tactics) has also this “conscience” opt-out clause:

if the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience – and that’s an important phrase because there are consciences involved – on both sides of this debate. If the reassurances cannot in good conscience, then in fact the damage is not repaired, and that has to affect some of the consideration we would want to give about the organs of the Communion.

So look for first complaints about other primates, then procedural delays, then appeals to “conscience” by PECUSA, all of which will be used as excuses to put off replying to this repeated request for compliance with Windsor until after Lambeth 2008.

Note, too, that the situation, if/when PECUSA is actually forced to expressly reject Windsor, is described as “remaining” strained… i.e. if PECUSA refuses, the status quo continues.

:
:

On the Primatal Vicar—which I think is the deathknell for the “traditionalists” not just in PECUSA but also the Global South parishes—look at what is said.

First, the solution is all about getting everyone back into PECUSA. The G.S. parishes are described as a

they and we recognise that that can only be a temporary solution and the preferable solution is to have some kind of settlement negotiated within the church life of the United States.

... it’s all about keeping everyone in PECUSA.

Second, the Primatal Vicar system is seen as temporary and ultimately inadequate:

they and we recognise that that can only be a temporary solution and the preferable solution is to have some kind of settlement negotiated within the church life of the United States.

Third, the question about the ‘status’ and ‘authority’ and under what ‘canons’ this P.V. will operate was met with a great deal of obfuscatory fudge, of which perhaps only the last line was at all clear: “It’s an experiment; pray for it.” He repeats that the P.V. will have only those powers willingly delegated by the P.B., and that the P.V. will be reporting to the Primatal ‘Council’ (which, remember, is 40% KJS-cronies and 60% compromise candidates):

To that person the PB will delegate certain power, but that person will be responsible to the council, the Pastoral Council that will be set up, as a means of communications with the primates as a body.

But just what “canons” this P.V. is operating under remains ambiguous at best… my money is on any authority being given to the P.V. being conditioned on remaining under PECUSA’s canons & General Convention.

:
:

In sum, then, I think that, judging on the ABC’s summary, the real “meat” of this Communique is not so much the call for PECUSA’s clarification (a clarification which will be postponed and fudged as long as possible) but is, rather, the Primatal Vicar system which will arrange for the surrendering of G.S. parishes back to PECUSA.

So I stand by my analysis of the Communique and its probably terminal impact on those ‘traditionalist’ Anglicans who are not in the Continuing churches - or, at least, the AMiA and maybe CANA.

pax,
LP

[2] Posted by LP on 02-20-2007 at 11:07 AM • top

Apb. Wms is maintaining the myth that there are or should be special exemptions made for the direction of a person’s sexual and emotional feelings and desires.  In Scripture, there are no such separate special categories, exemptions and exceptions for human beings.  However, in Scripture, there are only male, female, man and woman, those who are in Christ and those who reject Him. 

The concepts of sexual orientations and identities, choices of genders was congured up by the pan/homo/etc. sexual apologists c. the 1960s. 

The human sexual response is a complicated conditioned response that has much to do with family environment in early childhood and such subtle things as one’s parents’ relationships, their sexual, psychological, physical and spiritual health, how they related to you, how you were treated and/or affirmed by your same-sex parent, if you were molested and a multitude of other factors.
 
Biological and genetic causes have not been proven.
As with alcoholism, however, even if a person has an inherited trait or tendency, he is not exempt from the need to overcome it. 

Christ defeated the power of sin and can save to the uttermost, those who are willing to abandon their life of sin. 

I Corinthians 6:9-11.

[3] Posted by Theodora on 02-20-2007 at 11:11 AM • top

Hmmm…what if we were to make a slight change:

“The teaching of the Anglican Church remains that avaricious activity is not compatible with scripture. The avaricious condition, the covetous desire, we don’t call conditions sinful in that sense.”

blank stare

[4] Posted by tired on 02-20-2007 at 11:27 AM • top

Before I get into the response to the article, I would like to suggest that Stand Firm extend a “little stone bridge” award to Archbishop Peter Akinola and the other leaders of the Global South.  I think they held our bridge, and did much more for us than we ever had a right to ask of them.  While we here worry about whether TEC will seize our parish property or inhibit our clergy, they, their clergy and congregations face brutality, government repression, and in some cases a martyr’ death for their faith.  That they were willing to risk their own place in the church, not to mention the monetary “carrots” of TEC, to stand up for us is something for which we should be eternally grateful, regarless of what happens in the days and months to come.
——————————————————————————————-
I think the critical moments will come soon.  Will TEC (and its diocese) end the lawsuits against the Virginia parishes and others? Perhaps even more important: Will the Pastoral Council come into being?  If it does, this will maintain a pathway for the faithful to continue as Anglicans, regardless of what TEC does, and provide a structure within the US church that demonstrates the responsibility to a “higher authority” than the general convention.  Personally, I very much doubt that the HoB will endorse Windsor. They will indeed “walk apart.”  Hopefully, they will not go back on the word of their PB to allow the alternate structure for those of us who are Anglican first, and Episcopalians second.
Indeed, I will pray that this experiment works.  And I pray that the HoB will indeed see that unity in faith is a greater goal than following the political ambitions of one or another group, and remain in the Communion.  And I pray for those who will not be able to accept that this is the path that the Holy Spirit has directed for the Anglican Communion.
Thomas

[5] Posted by tjmcmahon on 02-20-2007 at 11:35 AM • top

tired: I think that the ABC was simply making the distinction between the tempation to sin and the sin itself. I hope that we can agree that being tempted to engage in sinful activity of whatever sort is not sinful in and of itself, it is a condition common to all men and women.

Regards, Conrad

[6] Posted by Conrad on 02-20-2007 at 11:42 AM • top

How about this as an experiment. Let’s spend the next six months setting up the mechanism for a second province in the US totally separate from TEC. Presumably it would include the Network, CANA, Windsor Bishops, all parishes and diocese who are now under the pastoral care of another province, and other groups who have left TEC.

Let’s set the ground rules, elect a PB to be, such that if on Sept 30, 2007 the TEC House of Bishops cannot in good conscience meet the demands of this communiqué, on October 1, 2007 a second province in the US, recognized by the ABC and Anglican communion instantly springs into being.

This has the advantage that the orthodox in the US will be able to stay steady in the boat between now and Sep 30. On Oct 1, either TEC has renounced gay blessings, gay marriages, and gay ordinations, or there is a new orthodox home, separate from TEC for the orthodox Anglicans in the US to go to.

I do not expect Schori etc to support this, we need to just do it. We will probably still have fights over the property etc, but at least it will be clear that TEC chose to walk apart from the Anglican Communion.

Matt, Greg, Sarah, Bill Witt, Kendall Harmon, other bright theological bloggers and posters, what do you say?

[7] Posted by BillS on 02-20-2007 at 12:03 PM • top

LP, and others,

Read closely, parse, if you will,

they and we recognise that that can only be a temporary solution and the preferable solution is to have some kind of settlement negotiated within the church life of the United States.

The message here is NOT ‘within the life of the (Episcopal) Church of the United States’; but, rather, ‘within the <u>church life of the United States’</u>. 

To me, this gives rise to the hope that, if TEC fails to comply, the mechanism is already in place in the PV and the Primatal Council, to provide for ‘some kind of settlement negotiated within the church life of the United States’.

May we all be reunited in faith, this side of Glory.

[8] Posted by Chip Johnson, cj on 02-20-2007 at 12:07 PM • top

If there were no deadline for HOB action, I would agree with the bleaker assessments about what happens to GS parishes… BUT… if anyone thinks the GS primates will just hand over their flocks, not gonna happen… because the HOB will never comply to the Primates satisfaction… Hence the PB’s (alleged) tears.  The “bottom feeders” have shown remarkably more evolved brains than she had previously given them credit for…

Whether +++Wms. actually believes TEC can turn back or whether he is simply playing out the process will become immaterial.

First order of business is to kick the can to the HOB, as I said 48 hours ago.  That will certainly cause a trainwreck very soon, and any thoughts of transfer back to TEC will be dust in the wind.

As a few have rightfully noted, the “Vicar” will be accepted as Primate sooner rather than later.  The Primates have claimed 49% of life… the next 2% will come…

What happens to existing TEC parishes in non Windsor dioceses will be a different story… not optimistic on that one.

Once the HOB rejects the package, assume more scorched earth policies from 815 for property and vestries and clergy.

TEC will balk.  The GS will hold.  AMiA and CANA will grow.

Don’t forget the GS primates are not concerned with our stained glass or endowments… they already are on record with that.

Before you see the glass as half empty now, ask yourself how many Anglicans around the world are busily reading _To Set Our Hope on Christ_ as the new catechism?... answer:  none.

New Anglican studies programs are opening, with Anglican bishops ordaining previously-barred candidates.  New churches are being planted.  This will continue.

It will not be smooth or easy.  It will happen.

[9] Posted by hoping against hope on 02-20-2007 at 12:11 PM • top

As one praying for (mostly Anglo Catholic) friends remaining in TEC up to this point, I appreciate the Archbishop taking the time to address this issue and these questions. And as one who used to work with young children in preschools, I realize it is a lot better to go ahead and tell them what you want them to know and answer some obvious questions in the manner you want to, rather than have a “discussion” errupt. (Always knowing that young children have very good minds and memories and once a topic has been brought up, it will be brought up until they are satisfied—but hopefully after you’ve had a chance to prepare yourself for full conversation!)

I just don’t recall Jesus leaving His disciples with “it’s an experiment, pray for it.”

Go and get your ashes tomorrow if you haven’t begun Lent yet!
From St. Theodore the Studite’s comments concerning the beginning of the Great Fast:
This is what our forefather Adam suffered when he was tricked by the serpent; for when he touched the forbidden food, he found death instead of life. This too is what all they have suffered who from then until now have been similarly deceived by the dragon. For just as he, who is darkness, transforms himself into an angel of light, so he knows how to transform bad into good, bitter into sweet, dark into light, ugly into beautiful, deadly into life-giving; and so the all-evil one does not cease to lead the world astray at every opportunity.
http://southern-orthodoxy.blogspot.com/2007/02/on-fasting-dispassion.html

[10] Posted by Margaret in Orthodoxy on 02-20-2007 at 12:28 PM • top

BillS—
(at the risk of rushing in where “bright theological bloggers and posters” fear to tread!)
It seems possible to me that the proposed pastoral council would be just a few tweaks away from the “experimental” province you propose.  When the time comes, cutting the tie with KJS and announcing its PB would just about do it, no?  Is there anything in the communique or schedule that would rule that out?

[11] Posted by Rich Gabrielson on 02-20-2007 at 12:54 PM • top

My first reaction to the situation is the same as LP’s!  We agree!  wow…  this could be the first step in the life of a new Communion….

If the Episcopal Church’s new majorities in the HOB and HOD have been violating their own canons for 30 years to press their agenda, they will say anything on paper, sign it, and then do as they please, because they are not disciples of Jesus, they do not require his cross for discipleship, they are laissez-faire social libertarians.  They have demonstrated a casual relationship with the Scriptures, the Great Commission, the Apostles teaching, as well as a willingness to stand and recite the Nicene Creed every week, while crossing their fingers or whatever, while they privately respect other “vehicles” to God other than Jesus.  Their gospel is that everyone is loved and accepted by God, so do as you please!  Don’t expect His blood or His cross to transform you…. simply self-actualize!  (Unless, of course, you dare to disagree with their libertarian theology… if so, then, please go, and don’t try to take property with you… it’s OUR PRECIOUS!

[12] Posted by Christoferos on 02-20-2007 at 01:08 PM • top

BillS, you state:
“Let’s set the ground rules, elect a PB to be, such that if on Sept 30, 2007 the TEC House of Bishops cannot in good conscience meet the demands of this communiqué, on October 1, 2007 a second province in the US, recognized by the ABC and Anglican communion instantly springs into being. “


I won’t (by a long shot) put myself beside the people you name as a theologian, and forgive me if I am reading something into your statement that you did not intend, but my answer to what you propose is this:
The Primates of the Anglican Communion worked diligently and, with God’s help, put forward a plan to preserve the Church.  What is asked of all of us, is that we now do what we can, as laity or clergy, to carry that plan out.  Let us form the structure we have been asked to form.  Let us inform our congregations of what is happening.  Let us go about the work of the Lord, and bring people to Christ as best we can.  And let us pray for the Church. If it comes to that (that is, if the HoB does what most of us expect and rejects the recommendations of the Primates of the Communion), the faithful bishops can meet on October 1 or soon after and elect a primate, or take such other action as the Communion requests or authorizes.
Let us take action calmly and deliberately and within the structure set out for us by the Primates in the communique. Pray for a peaceful, unified outcome, but be prepared, if God wills, to abandon the stained glass and embroidered vestments and real estate to TEC, -and start over with a good priest, the Book of Common Prayer, a Bible, unleavened bread, a jug of wine, and some two or more who are gathered in His name- the rest of it is just “stuff”.
Thomas

[13] Posted by tjmcmahon on 02-20-2007 at 01:09 PM • top

Thanks for your reply. What I hope to do is to stimulate thinking outside of the “small box” of the communiqué.

The communiqué has outlined a way forward, but it is not the only way forward, nor does it forbid any other ways forward. The positions of both sides is well known, and nothing will change that. Without bold action now, I fear that on Oct 1 the House of Bishops will be right where it is now, there will be words of stretching, tearing, breaking the bonds of communion, there will be further study and discussion, to be taken up at Lambeth ’08 to be reviewed at Gencon ’09 and on and on.

In the meantime, the faithful orthodox members of the Anglican church give up, and wander away to other Churches or the golf course.

We do not have as much time as the primates seem to think, in my opinion. We need to take bold action now so that we can establish a separate province out of the reach of Schori.

[14] Posted by BillS on 02-20-2007 at 01:22 PM • top

LP, are you sure you didn’t mean to post to David Virtue’s site?

[15] Posted by recusant on 02-20-2007 at 01:32 PM • top

BillS wrote:

What I hope to do is to stimulate thinking outside of the “small box” of the communiqué.

The communiqué has outlined a way forward, but it is not the only way forward, nor does it forbid any other ways forward….
We do not have as much time as the primates seem to think, in my opinion. We need to take bold action now so that we can establish a separate province out of the reach of Schori.

IMO we should leave “thinking outside the box” to the revisionists and work within the structure set forth in the Communique and Schedule. Isn’t thinking outside the box, and taking unilateral action, what got us into this mess? I will guess that the Primates have not shown us all the cards in their hands. For orthodox Anglicans in the US to go off on a tangent now could do more harm than good. I have only read the documents once, but it seems to me that the Primates’ proposal could, with a few tweaks, form the basis of a separate province, as Rich Gabrielson said above.

[16] Posted by kyounge1956 on 02-20-2007 at 04:03 PM • top

Salve Chip!

You say:

The message here is NOT ‘within the life of the (Episcopal) Church of the United States’; but, rather, ‘within the church life of the United States’.

I’m afraid I can’t agree with this optomistic spin, precisely because of ++Williams’ own words.

Look at the following paragraph, which “unpacks” what ++Williams means by “within the church life of the United States”:

the preferable solution is to have some kind of settlement negotiated within the church life of the United States. Hence the recommendations of the primates at the end; a proposal to establish a pastoral council; a responsibility shared between the primates’ Meeting and the Presiding Bishop, asking those bishops who have already offered to take up this responsibility to provide pastoral care within The Episcopal Church for the conscientious minority.

What he means by “within the church life of the United States” is “within The Episcopal Church”.

pax,
LP

[17] Posted by LP on 02-20-2007 at 06:32 PM • top

BillS:
An excellent first step in vigorous, aggressive assertion of our hopes. I maintain great faith in ++Orumbi, ++Akinola and the rest who actually represent the Anglican Communion. They will see us through IF WE ARE READY and have shown the courage and dedication to plan for the New Anglican Reformation.
What we must NOT do is to rest on our efforts to date. I am very worried that the idea that the fight is won simply does not take the measure of the Worthy Opponents capacity for mendacity, obfustication, deceitfullnes, deception, media manipulation and yes lies when required. They will never lie…Unless they have to. Leave them to their own devices they will cobble something up for the Primates that could destroy all of our work.
This idea has great merit. The concept of a “shadow cabinet” is well understood by the Brits of course. It is an honorable and reasonable institution in a parliamentary sytem, where leadership may change at any time and the Loyal Opposition must be prepared for leadership without warning. This has the merit of enlisting the activist laity and clergy in a developmental task. It will serve notice to both the apostates and the Primates that we are preparing for implimentation of the Reformation to take place. How convenient that they have provided us with a date.  To get this done by say June is critical so that it is fully functioal by Sept. 30. I am willing to sign up now. Any one else?
For Lent, I will fast from complacency, cowardice, laziness, blog fatigue, unreasonable dependence on weak kneed priests and bishops. Together, of course, from an assortment of other harmfull things such as single malt whiskeys. 
Let’s do this thing.

[18] Posted by teddy mak on 02-21-2007 at 08:05 AM • 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.