Fort Worth: Making Realignment Happen

One definition of insanity is performing the same action over and over, expecting a different result. Fort Worth, at the least, has demonstrated they are not insane.

I’m with Matt+ here. ++Canterbury is pulling a Neville Chamberlain, Peace At Any Cost. The result is predictable. Just look at what happened with Chamberlain.

BTW Matt+, what is the current status of San Joaqin? When is their discernment period over? How will their response differ from Fort Worth? A lot of conjecture, I know, but that just might be the next “Big Story”.

the snarkster

Matt,

The biggest part of this story that troubles me is based on +Schofield’s comments after the Nov ‘06 meeting with the GS primates.  At that meeting, which believe +Iker attended, the GS primates asked the network bishops present to submit to their authority for “timing” of alternate oversite.  I say this very carefully because I don’t want anyone in Pittsburgh to file another suit against +Duncan for the document that was signed.  No diocese has left, no diocese has submitted to a foreign primate.  They agreed to let the GS call the shots on timing and coordination of effort.  The feeling sited yesterday was that the Pastoral Council was the GS plan.  It has now been shot down by the HOB. 

My concern:  +Iker and FW are departing from the strategy/request of the GS primates.  As you stated, this will likely lead to the destruction of the orthodox voice within TEC.  It is now time for all Network diocese to take a stand.  San Joaquin is ready to go.  All we need is one more Diocesan Convention and we are ready to go.  What other diocese is ready?

Good analysis, Matt+.
I had the privilege of having Mass then a brief breakfast with the good bishop this morning, by the way.  He wryly smiled when I remarked that he had a busy day yesterday.

“My concern:  +Iker and FW are departing from the strategy/request of the GS primates.”

Disagree. The GS has been ahead of the American church, not the other way around.

Has anyone considered that the real responsibility for the current state of affairs might lie not with the revisionists who lead ECUSA (who have been quite open about their goals and strategy), but rather with the institutionalist conservatives who insist on remaining yoked to ECUSA and Canterbury at any cost?

God bless Fort Worth for being willing to do something more than just talk incessantly. Unfortunately some other parts of the Network seem to be showing signs of Boiling Pot Syndrome.

RE: “The declaration of the Diocese of Fort Worth signals the end of an effective and workable exclusively “inside” strategy.”

No, it merely signals that the Diocese of Fort Worth no longer intends to work inside.  Understandably so.

But what that [continues to] mean is that the divide between those “inside” and those “outside” will grow.

Those working the “inside” strategy will continue to work the “inside” strategy.  Those who no longer wish to do that will continue with an exclusively “outside” strategy.

And the two strategies will continue to move farther and farther apart, with more and more of a divide.

RE: “A distinct minority of the orthodox primates are willing to stand firm for Communion discipline of the Episcopal Church even if it means defying the wishes of the Archbishop of Canterbury.”

No, a “distinct minority of the orthodox primates are willing to stand firm for [Provincial] discipline of the Episcopal Church” which as we know is not the same thing at all as “Communion discipline”.

But . . . various provinces have exercised discipline as *provinces* [not as the Communion] over the past four years and that has gotten them precisely nowhere.

Truth is, as you say, Matt, the GS is divided too.  Some—like some Network bishops I might add—want to wait on a *Communion-endorsed* realignment.  Others—like some other Network bishops—wish to move ahead without a *Communion-endorsed* realignment.

Those moving ahead without Communion-endorsed realignment will continue to grow the divide between the two parties—which mirror one another in both ECUSA and the Anglican Communion.

Which brings me to Timothy’s repeated false claim: “The GS has been ahead of the American church, not the other way around.”

Timothy, two or three Global South primates—you know, the ones *you* like—have been “ahead of the American church” [and the rest of the GS primates as well as Canterbury] and no doubt that will continue.

In the end we get this: 1) a Canterbury-led communion, and 2) two or three GS provinces who are willing to leave the Anglican Communion.

It was all probably inevitable, and I suppose that’s fine.

I suspect that all the orthodox on the blog can agree that in large part it comes as a result of the dithering of Rowan Williams.

Sarah,

I did not at all say that those inside would stop working from the inside. I do think it is the “end” in the sense that an exclusively inside strategy will probably fail.

Bishop Iker and Fort Worth have, I believe, waited very patiently for relief from Canterbury and/or the GS primates. In the meantime, being realists, they have also been active in planning and charting their own course in case there is a need to stand for the faith on their own. I do not believe their path will be guided by TEC, the ABC or the GS, all of which, through hindsight, have seemed relatively impotent against the heresies of TEC. (The GS as a group; strong and Christian individual primates notwithstanding) I do believe San Joaquin and Quincy, at the very least, will join in the path Fort Worth decides on, but they may not. I think we should remember that Fort Worth is by far the strongest and most unified anglo-catholic diocese in TEC. I would also look for a breakdown in any barriers between FW and the continuers who hold the catholic view of WO. I believe this move is already taking place, perhaps through entities within Forward in Faith.
      Of course one could envision a group beyond critical mass if the continuers, Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin et al moved out together. Sweet. And regardless of what liberal spewage appears claiming the impossibility of such happening, I think it is very possible.

Solid analysis by Fr. Kennedy, as usual.

Food for thought: to whom is this statement targeted? I submit as follows:

1. Network Dioceses. Ft. Worth, and Matt, are right that TEC is hopeless. Any realignment that requires TEC’s cooperation will not happen, period. This cripples the Primatial Vicar Plan, as envisioned by the Presiding Bishop and probably by the ABC. If realignment is going to happen at all, the Network Dioceses are going to have to take the initiative and force matters. This will be risky, and will trigger the wrath of 815. Ft. Worth is brave to start the ball rolling on what we should all call the “Ft. Worth Plan”. The other Network Dioceses, and perhaps one or two of the stronger “Windsor” dioceses, will have to have the courage to join the Ft. Worth Plan, or shut up about realignment. If no one joins, Realignment (as an organized transformation) is dead. This is the last boat leaving Dunkirk.

2. The Global South. Ft. Worth’s plan requires the cooperation of at least one Global South Primate. Joining the Ft. Worth Plan will incur the wrath of 815 (forget the $$$), other Primates, and probably of the ABC and will require courage. I have confidence that our GS brethren and sisters have ample courage for their role here. They have already proven their courage many times over.

3. The ABC. I said on another thread, and believe, that it is clear now that the ABC will not lead realignment. It is possible that he might still recognize it, if somebody else does it for him. If the Ft. Worth Plan develops critical mass (say all 7 network Dioceses) and has a sponsering GS Primate, and the support of at least a substantial minoriy of all the Primates, the ABC will be forced to choose between TEC and its allies, and the Ft. Worth Plan and its allies. That’s not a bad place to position the Gracious Lord of Canterbury.

You know, I keep hearing again and again how every little twist and turn in this saga is some signficant manifestation of a really deeply thought-out strategy that will trump the revisionists and establish an orthodox Anglican province in North America. Forgive me, but it is indeed starting to resemble “Dunkirk” from where I sit—people getting out whenever and however they can. And it’s worth remembering: at Dunkirk, the British left most of their materiel on the beach as they left.

Maybe I’m just crabby today. Carry on.

“...at Dunkirk, the British left most of their materiel on the beach as they left.”

But, they lived to fight another day.

My opinion is the Fort Worth is bravely facing the reality that ECUSA is lost. There is no longer any hope for reforming ECUSA within the lifetimes of most of us. It has departed too far from Biblical Faith. A predominately Anglo-Catholic Diocese existing outside of ECUSA has great potential to heal the splits within orthodox Anglicanism.

The majority of the Continuing Churches are Anglo-Catholic. What we need here is stability and if Fort Worth, and possibly Quincy and San Joaquin leave the Episcopal Church, I believe that there is a stong possibility of at least some of the Continuing Churches to enter into communion with them and begin the healing process.

As I stated on another post as a Continuing ANglican priest I could easily consider myself to be in communion with Bishops of the Dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy, and San Joaquin. And I am praying that if they leave many other continuing Anglicans would feel the same way I do.

Anyone w/any sense will look at the numbers and the dollars in TEC and realize that there is a very small number of dios—mostly south of Carolina—which can wag any TEC dog that comes along, using dollars.  These dios are passive now.  They can become viciously active if/when they are motivated.  Orthodoxy has marginalized itself in these dios for years with its scorched earth image of “war or death, preferably war.”  When the message becomes “war or truth, preferably truth” these dios will rise up like the Scots-Irish stock of their roots and treat the infidels to one rude awakening.  In the meantime orthodoxy would do well to get its act together.

Fr. Kennedy, to my mind your analysis hangs on two highly speculative premises, one positive and one negative, and for neither of which have I seen any concrete evidence. In fact I think both assumptions fly in the face of the facts as we know them now.

First:

This college, if I am correct, could form the basis for a new Anglican province that would bring together, loosely at first, many of the various Anglican bodies that have broken with the Episcopal Church and, if it includes all the Network bishops, exist, at least partially, within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Episcopal Church. A straddled provincial structure, if you recall, has been central to the Network strategy since 2005. My guess, and it is only a guess, is that this is the sort of structure that will emerge after September 30th.

As you say, to cultivate unity and target an alternative primatial structure was the stated goal of the ACN from the beginning. In fact the ACN by its own lights should have become the proto-structure of this hypothetical “college of bishops.” This was the point of the “common cause” partners, after all—the first unifying gesture among the disparate Anglican Acronyms, within and outside of Anglican and TEC structures. But from everything we’ve seen in the past few months, and what little behind-the-scenes news I’ve been able to scrap together, it seems the unity that the ACN once boasted of is now a thing of the past. For your hypothetical college of bishops to emerge, it seems to me the ACN would have to perform an 11th-hour rally, or some other structure must announce itself and perform the same unifying work that the ACN has apparently failed at. Such a college could not just spring up fully-formed like Athena from the head of Zeus, there will have to be numerous preliminary negotiations and compromise, precisely the sort of thing the ACN was supposed to be doing all along. If I have to eat crow on this one, and your college does appear, I’ll do so with a smile on my face and a song in my heart. But to be quite honest, I don’t see this happening, not in the near future, not in the next 12 months.

Let’s enumerate the divisions within the Anglican Acronyms at the moment: there’s the rumored split right down the middle of the ACN itself,  a 5-diocese block breaking ranks and seeking APO outside of the all-but-defunct DES-recommended path. We have division within the Anglo-Catholic ranks: Ft. Worth apparently intending to intend to seek out APO, Quincy not following, and apparently for the moment San Joaquin abstains, courteously. Then there’s the African question: CANA moving so aggressively that many speculate it is positioning itself as a rival to ACN, and AMiA, who for all CANA’s recent headline-grabbing, claims the largest Anglican parish in North America, Christ Church Plano, among its assets. Historic theological divisions among the conservatives have become more pronounced, and most importantly the future diocesan structure of any coherent North American Anglican province becomes more tangled and geographically irrelevant by the month. This college of bishops that you claim will emerge will have to resolve a Byzantine maze of ecclesial and theological oppositions in a manner we have never seen done in the history of Anglican splinter groups.

Then there’s a great deal of speculation in the negative side of your analysis:

++Canterbury exploited this division in Dar es Salaam and he is using it to good effect now. In his most recent interview, the Archbishop indicated very clearly that he intends to hold off on any action, disciplinary or otherwise,

Did he say this? First, I didn’t read his statement this way at all. I saw it as a reference back to the DES statement which called for all precipitous dividing actions, legal actions from 815 and border-crossing from Africa, to cease and desist. Second, it’s not up to him whether or when TEC is disciplined, it’s up to the primates.

You continue:

...until the Lambeth Conference which is, as we all know, being designed to constitute more of a retreat than a reckoning. The majority of primates, orthodox and heterodox, will accede to his wishes.

This is one of the more speculative and frankly reckless statements I’ve ever seen from you. More worthy of certain other Anglican journalists I could name. “As we all know”??? Neither you nor the rest of us know anything of the sort, much less with the kind of casual offhand confidence you’re projecting here. As if anyone who disagreed was in denial. As if all the Archbishop’s statements to the contrary were irrelevant, disingenuous. In The Challenge and Hope the +++ABC stated his intent for Lambeth:

if we are to continue to be any sort of ‘Catholic’ church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.

“Directly and fully.” That’s +++William’s stated intent for Lambeth 2008. Whatever else his failings, it has always seemed to me he understood that we could not postpone the question forever, that there may, and probably will, come a time when one province finds itself outside the Communion structures that define Anglicanism. But first comes the hard work of giving definition to those structures.

+++Williams has proposed a plan and has begun the proceedings for moving forward to flesh out these structures. The ACN and the American conservative leaders, on the other hand, seem divided and panicked and oblivious to the fact that, even if they can unite under one banner, they will have to address the exact same ecclesial issues that the Covenant and the Windsor Process are designed to address. The divisions are as pronounced and nearly intractable within conservative circles as they are throughout the Communion at large, and yet no leader has emerged to address these issues in the manner that Williams has, no leader within any of the Anglican Acronyms has even broached the issue.

Again, I’ll be happy to be proved wrong, but I’ll need a lot more concrete evidence before I’m nearly as sanguine as you are about the possibility of any “college of bishops” emerging. Until then, it seems to me your entire analysis hinges on unjustified speculation, and I believe still that the Windsor Process remains the only game in town.

but it is indeed starting to resemble “Dunkirk” from where I sit—people getting out whenever and however they can. And it’s worth remembering: at Dunkirk, the British left most of their materiel on the beach as they left.

Quite a good analogy. Let’s take it further…

From the soldiers’ perspective, they were getting out any way they could. From their country’s perspective (government and Subjects alike), they were being rescued. They got out on boats from not only the UK government, but Joe and Jane Doe who had a small fishing vessel or cabin cruiser. Granddad’s cruiser (still afloat in St Mawes) has a brass plaque on it as having been to Dunkirk 3 times and rescued 47 in total. So that’s point 1: the perspective of the soldiers was not the same as the perspective of their rescuers, and in fact the soldiers had help waiting offshore, ramshackled as it was.

As pointed out above, they lived to fight another day. Point 2.

Along with them went multitudes of other nationals; French, Dutch, Polish. Though hardly of large numbers to compose armys of their own, these were people with a determination to make it work, to win. More determined than the British (at least at the time of Dunkirk, though Sea Lion and the Blitz certainly changed a few British hearts). Point 3: A core team of the most committed and dedicated found safety to regroup and redeploy.

Though it took a couple of years, evenutally the Allies (mostly the US in this respect) finally brought the necessary equipment to replace that which had been abandoned. Point 4, then, is equipment is replacable and significantly so with strong alliances.

Point 5. There were hundreds upon hundreds of casualties. Getting on a boat didn’t mean it wasn’t overload and might swamp or capsize in the Dover Straight. Simply being on a boat didn’t stop rough weather from breaking its steerage, leaving the boat to be thrown up on some pretty nasty rocks on the other side (if you didn’t drown from broken limbs preventing you from swimming, you died from a crushed skull). There was no protection from straifing or torpedoes. Yeah, there were HUGE casualties that never made it back.

Point 6 is there would have been more casualties without the evacuation. Far more casualties. And not just in lives of soldiers, but in governments.

Ultimately, point 7 is the most curious. I know there are explanations as to why the Germans held back from overrunning Dunkirk. Yeah, I’ve read them. They don’t add up. There isn’t enough to explain the long delay, the pitiful attempts at the occassional straifing of the beach, the sporadic shelling. It never fully made sense about their delays in finishing-off the Brits when they had, over many, many days, every opportunity to do so. So I’m wondering, why the delay from TEC? We have the recent Property report alledging consipracy to defraud and steal assets. We have bishops doing and saying things that go further than some previous bishops who got slammed with “Abandonment of the Faith.” I keep thinking Bruno, but I never see Bruno coming from 815. Why the delay?

Yeah, Dunkirk was a military defeat for the Brits, but amazingly it was also a defeat for the Germans who failed to capitalize on it. Dunkirk was also a grand success in human government and freedom. There were basically 2 options: Capitulate or find some way to retreat and regroup. Personally, having seen how my world is better off as a result, I’m eternally grateful to the Brits for refusing to yield, and that gratitude goes beyond the UK government to all the mom and pop boaters who risked their lives. I’m grateful not only for the GS bishops, the Network bishops and the Continuing Churches, but also for the pewsitters in those groups who pray for and support efforts to reestablish a Godly Province on American soil.

I think Dunkirk is an excellent analogy!

I said:

his college of bishops that you claim will emerge

I do retract this—you stated clearly this was only a guess. But nevertheless a guess upon which the whole point of your essay hinges.

Sarah, you are right, ++Orombi of Uganda and ++Akinola of Nigeria are among my “favorites.” However, you can also include in that list ++Kolini (Rwanda), ++Venables (Southern Cone), ++Nzimbi (Kenya), I like much of what ++Malango has done (although Zimbabwe is a notable exception).  Along with the former Primate of S.E. Asia, each of these has helped birth or adopted a non-TEC US Anglican church.  Others, like ++ Akrofi (West Africa) and Fidele (Congo) broke communion with TEC after 2003; the latter has made statements that make ++Akinola look shrinking violet.  Does anyone believe that these Primates are disappointed by Fort Worth’s action?

Even ++ Gomez (West Indies) has predicted that failure of TEC to meet the Sept. 30 deadline for compliance with the Communique will result in a rupture between the West Indies Province and TEC.

These are the outspoken leaders of the GS, representing the bulk of Anglicans.  Fort Worth is in no way getting ahead of these Primates.

*I acknowledge that there exist certain GS Provinces, such as South Africa and, perhaps, the Philippines, that will either support TEC or otherwise oppose action when push comes to shove.

Dave,

I am about to walk into a bible study and then morning prayer. I will have to reply in a more detailed way later, but let me just take issue wiht this paragraph:

“This is one of the more speculative and frankly reckless statements I’ve ever seen from you. More worthy of certain other Anglican journalists I could name.”

The para to which you refer has to do with my characterization of the upcoming lambeth as more retreat than reckoning. Have you read or paid attention to the various announcements about the lambeth planning process released on ACNS. I’ll link them when I return, but, in fact, that is precisely the sort of conference being designed. The ABC very early on proposed that the upcoming conference be geared around conversation and dialogue. This will be quite far from the legislative meetings we’ve had in the past. As for my statement that most will accede to his wishes not to discipline, that is based on the well reported events that took place in Tanzania. We would not have the communique we do had it not been for the fedcon primates in that meeting. They were a distinct minority and they still are. The rest were more than willing to accede to the Subgroup report.

“As we all know”??? Neither you nor the rest of us know anything of the sort, much less with the kind of casual offhand confidence you’re projecting here. As if anyone who disagreed was in denial.”

Did I say this? No. You are, here, doing the very thing you accuse me of doing.

More later

In the middle of turmoil it is far easier to get support (both inside and outside) for an organization that exists than to get support to create an organization. For this reason, I hope that Ft Worth will be the catalyst to form a second independent province in the US and in the words of Nike, just do it.

The GS has time and again told us that they will support us, but that they cannot come in and provide the solution. At the same time that the Windsor Bishops were meeting in Camp Allen the GS said that they would support a second province in the US. We ended up with a PV in the communique because it was the best that they could do and get unanimous support including Schori.

PV is now dead and may it rest it eternal peace because it would not have solved the underlying problem that TEC has marched off the cliff and is not coming back to any recognizable form of Biblically centered Christianity.

As someone said, the best way to predict the future is to create it. We can only choose among available choices. Orthodox takeover of TEC is not an available choice. TEC changing direction is not an available choice. The choices are to live within TEC, knowing that we will continue to be part of a left wing secular organization dressed up as a religion, or to leave.

At Dunkirk the choice was stay on the beach, and face certain slaughter, or leave, and live to fight another day, even though the exact form of the fight, or who the allies might be, or what the ultimate outcome might be, was very uncertain at the time that the decision had to be made.

We are at a similar point. We can stay in TEC with the certain knowledge that in the future we will have more of the theology that we have now. Or, we can form a second province, get all we can into the lifeboat, even if it leaks a bit, and head for safer shores. We hope that once in the life boat, others will help with the rescue.

However, we must first get in the life boat ourselves, without waiting for someone from the outside to bring the lifeboat to us.

The time is now. Sept 30, Lambeth 08, GC 09, GC 12, GC 15, GC 18, and Lambeth 18 is not going to bring a different result.

Be Bold. Stand Firm. and Just Do It.

Once again, it is easy to agree with Matt on all points.  No wonder we all come here to get the news and analysis, SF has the best reporters! 

As to the “controversial” Colledge of Bishops, remember that all the alphabet players have stated a goal of regrouping after reaching their point of safety.  The whole point of their existence is to be loyal to a grounded, unchanging, central authority!  Thus, the College of Bishops will not be difficult to form and all the key players are likely to be in constant dialog already - if this blog is busy imagine what the email transcripts would look like… 

The new mission for the Strategery lessons is how to form a structure that can shelter departing parishes and individuals who are in hostile dioceses.  Because the next phase of the battle is to weaken TEC and strengthen the alternate structure so that the Communion begins to see a viable alternative for their attention.  There are many parishes waiting patiently and silently to see a way forward which they cannot create on their own.

Perhaps the real gift of Tanzania was the very simple recognition of the existing protesting alphabet entities - a big switch from TEC history like those departing over WO.  That seemed easy to do at Tanzania and the next step of recognizing an alternate structure will be easy for the primates as well.  But it would not have been easy to recognize a single, unified entity at Tanzania had it existed at the time.  I believe that would have been far too much for the weaker primates.

Take heart Sarah, I see the possibility of someone’s grand design.  And many of us who have left will come back, but we left slowly for our own reasons at our own pace and we will return in the same way, which will also take years.  We have not forgotten our core values but they are tempered by the needs of our families and our calling and the missions we are presently on; the current tasks we are engaged in just like you; fighting or working for the Lord, all according to His plan.

Interesting that Dunkirk is mentioned.  I agree it is a great analogy.  On another thread, someone also mentioned Neville Chamberlain.  I can’t help but link these two in our current situation.  All I have to say is thank God that Chamberlain was removed and Winston Churchill became Prime Minister or we’d all be speaking German now.

Fort Worth’s apparent change in direction can only help. Each major defeat of 815 adds to us and detracts from them. It is not fragmenting, it is leading. I hope San Juaquin, Quincy and Pittsburgh follow suit before 9/30. This will serve to convince +++ABC and the Primates we mean business, and that there is a structure forming in North America that can succeede TEC. I continue to maintain that +++Rowan will serve as a referee rather than a leader. I continue to maintain that ++Akinola and the GS are absolutely the real power center of Anglicanism, and that +++Rowan knows that. If he looses them, he looses the Communion. Further, there will be a real possibility that his own CofE will begin to fragment. There are tens of thousands of conservative churchmen there who are no great respecters of +++ABC.  Better for him to get along with us, no joke.

Keep hitting them with bad news and tactical surprises. Their levees are leaking, there’s a flood coming, and they are the ones who will be looking for life boats.

Diocese traditionally have had geographic boundaries because they were formed in the day when travel and communication was arduous and slow. In todays world of jet travel and the internet, we do not need to constrain the definition of diocese to a particular geography.

I live in Savannah. There is no reason that Christ Church in Savannah could not be part of the new Diocese of Fort Worth under Bishop Iker in a new province. He can communicate instantly across the diocese with e-mail, and in two hours, God and Delta willing, can be in Savannah.

Be Bold, Stand Firm, and Just Do It

Dave,

you said:
“Did he say this? First, I didn’t read his statement this way at all. I saw it as a reference back to the DES statement which called for all precipitous dividing actions, legal actions from 815 and border-crossing from Africa, to cease and desist. Second, it’s not up to him whether or when TEC is disciplined, it’s up to the primates.”

What a selective reading of DAR which not only recognised CANA and the AMiA as entities with which the Windsor College was called to come to negotiated terms for exisitence within the colleg, but also, in fact, acknowledged, in keeping with the DC, the the legitimacy of border crossings, so long as they are not initiated externally, given the current state of affairs and called for them to stop only on the condition that TEC cease and desist.

Secondly the ABC’s interview is telling. He wants nothing to happen until Lambeth.

DAR set a deadline of Sept 30th for TEC’s compliance. They have not complied. According to DAR, that non-compliance provides room and space for interventions. Compliance was the condition set for stopping them. For the ABC to call for interventions of all sorts to stop subsequent to TEC’s rejection of DAR, indicates that he no longer thinks DAR is in play.

Finally, as I pointed out in the article, yes, it is somewhat up to the primates to discipline. But as we saw at Tanzania the majority primates will follow the wishes of the ABC, even the orthodox ones. And as for the intent of the ABC, again, I refer you to the TLC reports coming out of Dar. The only reason the communique looks the way it does is because of the courageous intransigence of about three to six primates.The rest were willing, in keeping with the Sub group report, to and declare TEC compliant.

So while it is up to the primates in one sense, in truth, the majority will be swayed by the ABC.

For Matt Kennedy:
Re above:  “Did he say this? First, I didn’t read his statement this way at all. I saw it as a reference back to the DES statement which called for all precipitous dividing actions, legal actions from 815 and border-crossing from Africa, to cease and desist. Second, it’s not up to him whether or when TEC is disciplined, it’s up to the primates.”
Why is the question of TEC’s discipline up to the primates?  The presuppositions here are 1. That the primates are a juridical body.  2 That they have authority to execute punishment.  How do you arrive at that?

EmilyH,

The section you quote is not mine. It is Dave’s.

However, the fact is that the ABC can and some have argued will, at the urging of the primates, determine who will and will not be invited to lambeth and which primates will attend future primates meetings. If , by some miracle, the ABC were to disinvite non-Windsor compliant bishops to lambeth and disinvite KJS to the next primates meeting then, regardless of what TEC might claim, TEC would effectively be expelled from the communion.

The only reason the communique looks the way it does is because of the courageous intransigence of about three to six primates.The rest were willing, in keeping with the Sub group report, to and declare TEC compliant.

This is my understanding as well, and I’m not forgetting the sick feeling I had all week that week, until about 5 or so on friday when the first part of the statement was released. But I think that week is a great object lesson: we could have speculated, and with very good reason, that the primates were about to endorse the commision report. But they didn’t. And here we are again: we don’t know yet what will happen after Sept. 30 or at Lambeth. And I personally don’t see how the primates or the ABC could possibly not discipline TEC, after issuing that statment, and expect to have any integrity, or retain any trust within the evangelical or catholic communities. A fudge at Lambeth would doom the Communion, and I think Williams knows this. Is it possible? Yes, maybe even likely. But we don’t know what will happen, and precipitous action, as well as the eroding confidence in the Windsor Process is beginning to manifest itself as a self-fulfilling prophecy, fostering a run-on-the-bank mentality rather than deliberate action and unity.

If we feel the gig is already up, and the primates feel that we feel the gig is already up, and dissolution is inevitable, they may begin to wonder—what’s the point? If the conservatives are leaving anyway, before Lambeth and before the deadline and before we’ve had a chance to respond to TEC’s non-compliance, and they refuse to abide by our deadlines and are going outside of the Windsor Process, then why bother with new statements and processes? If I were a primate, orthodox or otherwise, that’s precisely the question I would be asking myself. In short, I’m worried that your analysis has all the characteristics of a self-fulfilling prophecy, and one with dire consequences for the future of Anglicanism. And if the gig IS already up, and The Windsor Report and Covenant are dead letters, then conservative leaders should plainly say as much right now and begin moving forward with an alternative plan, probably outside of any future connection with Canterbury, if they hope to keep all the various parties from fragmenting completely.

Am I speculating as well? Sure. I’m speculating that the primates will have the integrity to abide by their own communique and follow through on real discipline. I’m speculating that the ABC really meant what he said in The Challenge and Hope. And I’m speculating that the ACN and CANA and AMiA are as divided as they appear to be, that there are no emerging structures forthcoming. If any such structure were in the works, why would FW do what they did this week? Again, such unifying work is what the ACN should have been doing all this time. The Windsor Process, hanging by a thread as it is, is still to my mind the only hope on the horizon for avoiding the total fragmentation of Anglicanism in North America.

EmilyH, obviously everyone is sort of making it up as they go along.  However, the ABC knows that he is firstly the primate of England and secondly the primus inter pares.  He is graciously taking that role seriously and sees himself as shepherd but not Decider.  To that extent, he will look to one of two bodies to determine what to do: the primates or the Lambeth conference.  He seemed to say a month ago that he would agree to whatever the primates said, but he has now plainly said Lambeth is the deciding entity.

In many ways, it is good that Williams is not taking on a papal role for which he was not elected/chosen, because he is an academic with strong reappraiser ties.

For Matt Kennedy….  Because the ABC has convening power, I can see that he would have control over the packing of the court if Lambeth if Lambeth is the judicial power.  But Dave’s comment (sorry I thought it was you) contains the presupposition that both judicial and executive powers are those of the primates and I simply can’t see how he gets there.  I absolutely agree with you, the ABC gets to invite whomever he chooses but does that make Lambeth any kind of judicial or legislative power.  I realize that Lambeth fails to include the voice of the laity.  As both a female and a former RC, that’s a problem for me.  That’s WHY I left.  These issues are especially relevant to me right now because I am thinking very hard about the covenant draft.  Despite what Sarah may think of “progressives” and I feel she thinks I am one, I am really willing to study hard another point of view.  My brother is the pastor of a Presbyterian mega-church.  Herr Doctor is very bright, his arguments are good.  He is a bit on the heady side and I’m more on the heart side.  But I am more than willing to try to understand his and your point of view.  I do history and political science with a strong legal option.  That is why I am more than willing to let someone off the hook who may not lead with this point of view.  I inherited it but don’t necessarily act out of it.  I joined the Episcopal Church because of the family of relationships, and the liturgy.  These are heart issues.  For most of my church family, the issues about church politics are irrelevant.  They don’t give a hoot.  “Dogma” and “doctrine” do not define their religious experience.  It’s the family with whom they pray and the liturgy which somehow articulates the community they experience.  But I will keep trying to “understand” you.  I keep trying to understand my brother too.  Not because it’s really important to me but because it’s important to you.  What is crushing to me is when the primates or others will not share the table with me because I may not be pure enough or smart enough.

Dave,

“we could have speculated, and with very good reason, that the primates were about to endorse the commision report. But they didn’t. And here we are again: we don’t know yet what will happen after Sept. 30 or at Lambeth.”

But we do know the numbers now, which is important, and we also know what the ABC is willing to do.

As for the possibility of no discipline and retaining integrity. Many, prior to Tanzania, (and I was one of them) were saying that they could not fathom how KJS could possibly be seated as an equal and ++Rowan Williams, at the same time, retain his integrity.

But not only was he willing to seat her, he went to bat for the subgroup report that would have exonerated TEC.

I agree that such a move would call into question his integrity. I just think that the question has already been called.

I’m sermon-writing now and will get back to the question of AMiA. CANA, and Network unity in a moment

But Dave’s comment (sorry I thought it was you)
contains the presupposition that both judicial and executive powers are
those of the primates and I simply can’t see how he gets there.

I appreciate EmilyH’s biographical post—helps me understand a bit more where she’s coming from, and also why she keeps appealing to the specific delegated powers of the ABC and ACC vs. the primates. What has to be understood is that the structure of the communion is in flux. The communion itself exists because of an accident of history—the slow retreat of the British Empire—rather than a deliberate ecclesiastical project with well-defined boundaries. What we’re going through right now is the difficult process of giving the implicit structures explicit definition.

The current crisis is less about sexuality than it is about addressing weaknesses in the Communion as it is now structured. Objections like the ones EmilyH (and others like Nigel Remember-the-Synod-of-Whidbey Taber-Hamilton) make, that perhaps we’re violating Anglican tradition, redefining it into something it was never intended to be ignore the fact that Anglicanism has been something it was never intended to be for over 200 years. So appeals like EmilyH’s, that the primates are overstepping their boundaries, or even that the ACC’s authority carries more weight because it is representative, fails to understand the historic transitional moment we’re in. ECUSA’s flouting of Lambeth 1.10 (not to mention Schori’s recent prevaricating re: the DES statement) has exposed a structural flaw that must be addressed. The primates meeting has emerged as a kind of conciliar body that is midwifing the birth of the new structures (the need for which having been articulated by the ABC and the Windsor Commission).

If and when the Covenant becomes a reality, the primates meeting may or may not retain the kind of authority it has now, or it may become a kind of senatorial body that oversees the Covenant, like Congress overseeing and modifying the Constitution. We don’t know yet. In any case, EmilyH’s juridical objections are something of a non sequitur. It would be kind of like someone at the Constitutional Congress in 1789 objecting to the First Amendment because freedom of religion was not part of the Articles of Confederation.

The facts of the matter are these: (1) for Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin the issue of WO is as important as that of SS, or at least for their bishops (two out of three are whom think that “ordination” of women to the priesthood is an “impossibility”—and probably all three of them—even though two of them—and probably all three—“ordain” women to “the diaconate); (2) this being the case, the fact that Sarah has adduced more than once in response to my comments, that the Global South Primates agree thaat one can “agree to disagree” and “remain in communion,” while true, is irrelevant to these bishops, such that; (3) if they do get out or try to get out, they are hardly (as I wrote previously) going to content themselves with escaping from the ECUSA “prison” only to check themselves into a “half-way house” where they will still have to live in communion fellowship with those who practice WO.  These bishops see themselves, if one were to press the issue, as “Catholics who happen to be Anglicans” rather than as “Anglicans who happen to be Catholics”—and they are scarcely likely to content themselves with extricating themselves from the Very Broad Church of ECUSA only to content themselves with the Slightly Less Broad Broad Church of those who can live with (if they don’t still applaud) GC 1976 as opposed to GC 2003.

Sarah also sings the line of how delighted I would be to see the break-up of the Anglican Communion.  That is true; I would be delighted to see what has been an unstable juxtaposition of incompatibilities held together by Erastian glue finally expire from (as the Marxists would say) its own inner self-contradictions.  And I see it beginning to happen now.

RE: “. . . if they do get out or try to get out, they are hardly (as I wrote previously) going to content themselves with escaping from the ECUSA “prison” only to check themselves into a “half-way house” where they will still have to live in communion fellowship with those who practice WO.”

Well if that is the case, you need to further narrow your list of Anglo-Catholic primates and delete Archbishop Akinola from your original list—since he also is willing to “live in communion fellowship with those who practice WO” namely through CANA.

Which was what I said in the comment to which you are referencing . . . originally . . . which was why I said it.  ; > ) 

To not be in a “half-way house” the Anglo-Catholic bishops will need to carefully discern which anti-WO Primates to be under who won’t then turn around and found convocations allowing WO.  And . . . you know . . . since all the Primates have agreed that WO is not communion-dividing, that might be challenging.

RE: “Sarah also sings the line of how delighted I would be to see the break-up of the Anglican Communion.  That is true; . . . “

We already knew that.

Always good to point out the motivations behind certain commenters’ analyses.  ; > )

“even if they can unite under one banner, they will have to address the exact same ecclesial issues that the Covenant and the Windsor Process are designed to address.”

Valid point, but they would do so without having to accomidate the lowest common denominator, TEC and in an environment less controlled by the ABC.  ++Rowan revealed his hand with the Task Force Report, and regardless of how someone feels about Fort Worth, etc. it is unreasonable to believe that he is now going to lead a process that results in a covenant that by its nature effectively excludes TEC. 

Its amazing how the debate has shifted. Just a few months ago, everyone was saying that the process was working, and that it was assumned that TEC would not get invited to Lambeth if it rejected the Communique. I guessed incorrectly that TEC would agree to the Communique’s demands (or something close to it), with its fingers crossed, to get that coveted invitation.  TEC must have known better, because it said “NO” almost immediately (actually “**NO”), and within weeks it became clear that they were going to get an invitation regardless.  Now people are expected to believe that a ++Rowan led Lambeth, where he greatly influences the agenda, schedule and format, will be the event that results in a definitive discipline. 

If I hadn’t seen the Task Force report, maybe I would buy it.

I still think the process might still work and I certainly do have hope that this Windsor process will lead to discipline soon.  I am not quite as pessimistic as Matt, but I agree with him that pressure needs to be put on the ABC and so I am happy with Ft Worth’s move and hope more follow.  The GS primates also need to hold together and stand firm and I certainly have faith that they will.  Rowan may want everyone to come to Lambeth, but that simply is not going to happen. He will certainly push for this, but the GS primates will not spend the thousands of dollars to attend Lambeth if the ECUSA bishops are invited.

It should be pointed out that, with sufficient firmness from the _Primates and the cooperation of the ABC (both of which are, admittedly, subject to question), this FW action does not really preempt the Communique, which already acknowledged that independent parishes would eventually come under aegis of the Pastoral Council and (gradually?) move away from the various overseas bishops towards a coherent North American ecclesial structure. 

From that point of view, if the pieces of the Communique can be picked up and reassembled without the cooperation of 815, FW has not abandoned the Communique structure but simply changed category from “dissenting Episcopal” to “overseas Anglican,” though of course it’s the first entire diocese to do so.

By the way, is it likely that the departure from ECUSA of an entire diocese will lend some strength to Truro/FC’s legal argument based on Virginia’s “church split” statute?

So everyone is right back where it started:  The way out will be separation from TEC and ABC and the old Anglican communion for the truly orthodox over in the USA and the primates elsewhere.  Probably the mainline carcus of TEC/AC will be the largest and the come outers will be small and probably initially fragmented.  Whether the truly orthodox primates can pull the troops back together will be seen later.  Of course it may be hard to reassemble the troops once they have tasted the liberty and freedom of congregationalism and small clusters of fellowship.  This will depend on the spiritual energy of the new leaders.  If God blesses then over time the new denomination will be a significant force in the Lord’s Kingdom.  The corpse of the original denomination already is of little significance in the world Christian movement.  After giving up the idea of being catholic through the ABC and the AC, you may just have to be content to be in the One True Church that all Christians have always enjoyed.  Freedom from the rotting corpse and the subsequent spiritual energy and blessing from the Lord will allow you to forget the flesh pots of Egypt eventually.  IMHO

Matt, you came to this conclusion before I did:
An exclusively internal strategy is, necessarily, a dependent one. And, since it is dependent on a corrupt body (the Episcopal Church), a divided body (the primates) and a thoroughly undependable leader (the Archbishop of Canterbury), it is destined to fail.

However, not because of the ABC.  I have long held that he is undependable.  What has changed my thinking is the primates.  They do seem divided and I don’t see the kind of unified action that I have long hoped for happening.

So, despite what I regard as the good theology of the ACI, when even Ephraim Radner basically says it’s time to jump ship, I have to agree.

Everyone on this thread.

Listen to what Bishop Orombi says on the other thread in his interview.

since it is dependent on a corrupt body (the Episcopal Church)

This side of the Pearly Gates, aren’t all bodies (ecclesiastical or other) “corrupt”?? 

I have been persistenly bothered by the unspoken “once we’re free of TEC, we’ll have ecclesial bliss, the Perfect Church which will always be right” tone of things.  When another issue comes down the pike in 10 yrs, 25 yrs, whenever, will the answer again be to split?  “I follow Peter”  v “I follow Paul,”  or as demonstrated in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, those who disputed whether the gourd or the sandal were the holier thing and represented the “true” message.  Didn’t take long at all. 

If TEC is   expelled from the AC, and if some other group of practicing Anglicans is recognized as the Canterbury-affliate in the US, what then?  What of those who aren’t that group - what will the process be to absorb those who want to be part of it?  Who will draw up the procedures?  What if everything implodes and C’bury is no longer relevant to the new group?  Who then becomes the PIP (primus inter pares)?  Venables?  Akinola?  one of the others from Africa?  Prob not Duncan or other Yanks, as it’s the American dioceses and parishes that have felt so under the gun - some time under a friendly overseer wd be healthy bef getting involved in the leadership aspects. 

But whatever the body is, it   will be corrupt.  What other choice do we have?

This side of the Pearly Gates, aren’t all bodies (ecclesiastical or other) “corrupt”??

Fallen, imperfect - yes, that’s why liturgies have a general confession.  And such churches can be called to account and work to mend what is broken in their teaching and practice.
But some (and this is the complaint about TEC) are apostate.  The refusce correction, discipline and reform. 
So new bodies will have flaws and failings, but they can be faithful in their proclamation of the Gospel.