[Bumped] Reflections on Round One of the Lambeth Invitations: Part Two

Very perceptive article.

Good article, and I appreciate your acknowledgement that out of the main GS leadership could come the seeds of a new Communion.

You are also right that “when a mid-sized parish affiliates with a non-Canterbury-recognized Anglican entity, without a regional cluster of Anglican community, it is forced to behave congregationally.”  That requires, particularly at times of succession, tremendous local leadership, something beyond what many churches are used to doing.

Your second option, remaining in Communion hoping that yesterday’s options, not today’s will come true seem to be a one year thing, since we will know for certain in that period of time if the invitations stand. That would suggest that bags should be packed and waiting by the bed.

What’s to say?  You’re 100% correct (sadly).

Sarah,

Thanks once again.  Unremittingly bleak is right!    But of course the bleakest prospects do depend on the assumptions you made here for the sake of conjecture—e.g., that Windsor is nothing more than a delaying tactic, that the Covenant process is more of the same, etc.

And although I confess I don’t know what lies within the deep recesses of Archbishop Williams’s mind, it’s my judgment that these sorts of dark-and-dreary assumptions aren’t justified by the evidence.  Several reasons:

—The Covenant process has been to the greatest extent led, at the request of +Williams, by Archbishop Gomez and Ephraim Radner.  Quite obviously, +Gomez and Radner envision the Covenant as a way to a truly catholic and orthodox Anglican Communion.  I daresay +Williams has given them his seal of approval for a reason.  This also seems to be the understanding of many senior figures in the Church of England.  (I’m thinking of the statements prior to Tanzania made by Bishop NT Wright and Bishop Scott-Joynt.  Also the existence of the upcoming ACI-Wycliffe Hall Oxford meeting this summer—thus demonstrating the confluence of the ACI position and most English conservatives.  People in England who share our theological convictions are normally much more sanguine about +Williams and the Covenant process, and they’re in a better position to know than we are.)

—Read Dr. Seitz’s comments on the Harmon-Kennedy audiofile this morning.  He’s quite solidly of the opinion that the Primates intend to meet and act after the Sept. 30th deadline they gave ECUSA.  Of course we’re not sure, but this seems to me also the most reasonable conclusion.  The Primates spoke with one voice (as difficult as that was!), set a deadline, and are now waiting for a response from ECUSA.  I cannot imagine that they would not respond in kind.  Very likely, that primatial response (along with ++Williams’s counsel to the HoB this September) will have a great deal of bearing on who finally winds up at Lambeth and under what conditions they get there.

—Recall what ++Williams said in Canada during his recent visit with regards to the HoB’s rejection of the Pastoral Scheme.  I quote:  “I’m still waiting to see what the Episcopal Church will come up with as an alternative.  The reaction was a very strongly worded protest against what they see as interference, but if not that, then what?  I’ve spoken privately to people in the United States and am waiting to see.”  That, to me, does not bespeak indifference on Williams’s part.  Instead, it indicates patience and a willingness to extend whatever charity is possible to ECUSA as it contemplates how to respond to the Tanzania requests.  But not indifference.  He’s not saying, “Oh, you rejected it, so we’ll back off.”  Instead, he’s saying, “OK, what’s your Plan B?  We’re still waiting.”  It’s an attitude that implies a definite response.  Which is…

—Probably not something that Canterbury feels he can do on his own.  The Primates made their requests, and my judgment is that they alone are the ones in a position to decide whether or not ECUSA has met them.  We have every reason to believe that Williams will live by that decision, whatever it may be.  Hence his “withhold” option and “first round” language.  Everyone knows that these invitations are tentative.  That fellow at Integrity Canada oughtn’t be so sanguine about what he can and cannot do.

Also—Sarah, I worry about floating the idea that a “new Communion” could come out of the principled stand of several primates.  I think your article yesterday was more correct about this, and that you’d probably be right to find a non-Anglican church down the street if you didn’t feel as if you could remain with Canterbury.  Not that whatever sort of church that would be would be unfaithful to the Gospel, full of wonderful Christians, or etc.  But like you said, it wouldn’t quite be right to call it Anglican.  It would be something else.  Perhaps not a bad something else, but something else all the same.  If whatever it was decided to bill itself as the “real” Anglican Communion, in contradistinction to the “Canterbury” Anglican Communion and the “liberal ECUSA and friends” Anglican Communion and the Anglo-Catholic Anglican Communion and the Reformed Anglican Communion—well, who are we kidding by that point.  Like you, I don’t feel that I’d want any part of it.  Probably at that point, I’d take a page out of Radner’s book, stay where I am, and just try to be faithful in whatever broken part of Christ’s church I happen to find myself a part of.

Very insightful.  The most significant point may be that the invitations starkly illustrate how meaningless it has become to be in communion with Canterbury.

Jordan,

Let’s say you are the pastor over a flock of newer Christians. Your bishop is a heretic and the Anglican Communion refuses to set up some form of Canterbury approved separate structure. In fact, Canterury itself is eaten away with heresy. When you leave your bishop will appoint a heretic in your place and, likely, he will lead some of those in your parish who have just begun to taste the truth of the gospel away from Christ and toward eternal damnation.

Is the “die in place” strategy still a faithful one in your opinion.

That clever Canon Kearon seems to have engineered an early release of the guest list for Lambeth for a particular reason which Sarah points out here; to relieve TECUSA and Canada from the pressure of non-invitation.  Is there any other reason for there to be any invitation announcement prior to Sept 30th?  Knowing one is likely to be invited despite ignoring the Tanzania Communique puts decisions in a whole new light; it allows TEC bishops to be more opaque and evasive in their resonses.

I have a hard time seeing a basis for your optimism, Jordan.  When you tell your child not to do something, and he does it, and you tell him again, I really mean it this time, and he does it anyway, ad infinitum, you quickly eviscerate your disciplinary authority, and your child learns to act accordingly.  Far dumber is to give your kid a chocolate bar after he throws his food against the wall.  That’s basically what Rowan Williams just did.

Anybody that stays in the Anglican Communion is very likely to live with the consequences: the brat ECUSA violently kicking your seat every 30 seconds, whether you or its parents like it or not.  And, it’s going to be a very long plane ride.

Interesting take on Dar es Salaam. Not exactly what I have heard.

Probably at that point, I’d take a page out of Radner’s book, stay where I am, and just try to be faithful in whatever broken part of Christ’s church I happen to find myself a part of. 

I can see the integrity in that decision.  However, it is hard to see how a Priest in such a situation could recommend any person, particularly any young family, to join the church given the state of the denomination. That leaves you essentially in a caretaker role for those that cannot leave, primarily the elderly.  That is a special call for a Priest, one that would require great humility and sacrifice.

Anne+,

Wonderful summary of why the de facto approach followed by so many personally faithful clergy, vestry, and parishioners is ultimately destructive, and indefensible.

APB

Matt (Anne?)—

If I thought that the very notion of Anglican catholicity and orthodoxy was a lost cause, then I imagine my decisions would indeed be made largely with a mind to local concerns.  But I think Radner is right in presuming that schism, even with very good reason (such as the one you just gave), is still a very unfortunate occurrence to be avoided if possible.  To be avoided always?  Well, no, as a Protestant I can’t say that.  But at this juncture of history, with the Thirty Years’ War and super-splintering of Protestantism far past what Luther imagined (he thought Jesus was coming back in the next few years)—with all that in mind along with Christ’s prayer that we all may be as one, I think that we have to think of schism as something to be avoided.  Not at all costs, no.  But avoided if possible.  Where that line is to be drawn is beyond my spiritual pay grade.  But I think Radner’s overall vision here is the better part of wisdom.

Phil—

Well, I’ve been posting here and elsewhere far more than I really ought to since the invitations went out in efforts to explain what my reasons for hope are.  And I do think of them as reasons for hope, not just optimism.  Optimism is a matter of optics; of looking at the world through rose-colored glasses and seeing what you want to see.  Hope is based upon reality, and though I’ll admit that it is hope and not certain knowledge, I think it is a reasonable hope nonetheless. 

To step back a bit: There is an assumption here behind much of the more dour predictions, I think, that the Holy Spirit is absent from the Anglican Communion to a very great extent.  Hence the at times near-absolute lack of trust that the Anglican Communion is an entity that can be “saved,” or is “worth saving,” or even exists as an entity whatsoever.  I understand how one can take this position from an American context.  But I am not yet there, and I think it is significant to note that many of our English friends are not there either.  Perhaps there are much greater judgments ahead for the Anglican Communion—perhaps God’s judgment upon us will indeed be complete and unremitting fracture, enmity, and darkness.  But I hope and pray not.  And I think there are good reasons to have hope that God has not yet abandoned our Communion entirely to darkness.  So long as that is the case, I intend to, with God’s help, endeavor to be faithful and to live in hope.

I do not believe that one could base a new communion on one man—a man who will be retiring soon—but one could potentially see the seed of a future communion—far into the future—based on such a principled, unified stand of integrity.

Well said Sarah, not just here, but throughout the article.  This quote, however, leads me to the question if basing our communion with each other on one man (who is not Jesus Christ) will ever work.

It doesn’t seem to be working very well with Canterbury as your article has pointed out.  Being of the Protestant garden variety of Christian, I’m also not convinced it has historically worked out so well for the Roman Catholic Church (no I’m not picking that fight again, just using the example).  Thus it probably won’t work with Abuja either.

This is why I’m convinced for both Communion and Federal Conservative the way forward is towards a more confessional Anglicanism that defines boundaries in beliefs and has concertina wire across the boundaries to keep heresy out.  This doesn’t have to be minutely detailed, but it should be collegial and with an understanding of what is acceptable and unacceptable.

We need both a “magisterium” (primates, Canterbury, Nigeria, ???) and a solid confession of faith that hold the center of our beliefs in place.  The magisterium enforces the confession, but the confession defines the boundaries of the magisterium’s decisions.  Currently we have neither as the magisterium of the four instruments of unity have been unwilling to enforce the confessions of faith (no fingers crossed for the Creeds and the 39 Articles).

It is my extremely humble opinion from the outposts of the hinterlands that having both would help the entire Communion begin to march back toward gospel-ministry and not waste our lives on internal battles while so many other lives are being lost apart from knowing Christ.  This will require men and women of courage to create and you may be right, this generation will only lay the seeds for a future generation to achieve this vision.

Oh yeah,

I’d be ticked, too, if Greg took off to the Caribbean with IRD jack and didn’t stop by to say hello and show us sunburnt beach bums what that jack can do to liven up life on a rock.  Just sayin’

The above Anne posts were really by Matt-you can always tell by subject matter. This is actually me, Anne, and I only wanted to say, as I was reading, that we could really use 1066 and All That’s easy categories of A Good Thing and A Bad Thing. In the case of RW I think he’s turning out to be A Good Man ending up, in his underlying and unrelenting decision to do nothing and Wait, becoming A Bad Thing for the Communion. Patience is a necessary virtue to keep on hand. But at some point, no action is the worst possible action. I thought you laid out RW’s mind and heart for inaction very clearly and helpfully, Sarah. Thank you.

Jordan,

I think that you have now taken Matt Kennedy’s place for unrelenting good cheer.  Another enemy for me to fight!!!  ; > )  [yes, just kidding]

Seriously, you seem hopeful about the Covenant Process.

But if the Windsor Process is a shell game, then why would I think the Covenant Process is anything else? 

With the failure to enforce the Windsor Process—over the past three years—why would I imagine that the Covenant Process would be “enforced” after 2009? 

With regard to “a “new Communion” [that] could come out of the principled stand of several primates”, keep in mind that I think that is a seriously unlikely thing to occur.

For one thing, several Primates would have to *announce* that they were departing the Communion [“so long, thanks for all the good times—please don’t show us out”]—not simply not attending a meeting or two, but stating that they would not ever attend any more meetings, not ever, we’re gone!

And then I added another key phrase to indicate my belief of its unlikelihood—“one could potentially see the seed of a future communion—far into the future”—and added a perch—“in my congregational, non-Anglican church.”  ; > )

Once again, Great Job Sarah!  (No Sword hacking your limbs away today either. )

Although I admit it is still possible to reverse Rowan’s actions and “withhold and withdraw” invitations, that scenario is looking like a 100:1 long shot.  I certainly would not put my money there.  I do however have more hope than you that an alternative “Communion”, not federation, could be constructed with its center in, shall we say Alexandria,  it would have to have all the earmarks expounded in the Windsor Report sections A & B. (Does anybody remember these sections?), it would have to have a covenant based on creeds, 39 articles and PB and it would have to have a collegial governing body such as the “primates”.  I will still hold out hope for this possibility.  Should that possibility not materialize, then I will mourn the loss of the Anglican variety of Christianity which I too think is the best expression of Christianity (loved that part of your essay, BTW).  At that point, I will be forced to be a congregationalist.  In the absence of a real “Communion”, in every sense of the word, there is no other choice.  At that point, like you I don’t think I would go to another denomination.  I would probably go to a non-denominational church where the gospel was preached and people lived lives like the early church. 

Many times in my Spirit over several years now, I have sensed that God was moving his church back to the way things were in the early days before the hierarchical church began.  Of course I can’t be certain of such spiritual promptings, but I will certainly go with them if indeed that is where we are headed.

[continued from above]

In many ways, your (sometimes-black-cloud-overcast) thoughts have parallelled my own.  Like you, I see the life manifestly going on in the nondenominational evangelical churches.  One can truly say to them, ‘you have the words of eternal life.’  But, try as my family and I have to make a permanent home there, we have found it a hard place to live in the long term.  When, after a long search through various non-denominational options in territory claimed by a militantly-revisionist ECUSA bishop, my family and I happened across a few dozen Anglican-inclined conservative evangelicals, we affiliated with them. 

It was tough to do.  My wife and I grew up very much in the midst of the old Episcopalian/Anglican way of doing things.  Our fathers each spent over a decade as the accountant and attorney, respectively, to one of the cardinal parishes of our ECUSA diocese; we grew up singing in traditional parish choirs, took theology and divinity degrees from well-recognised Episcopal and Anglican colleges, knew the verses and responses in the Book of Common Prayer by heart—we had nearly-Pauline credentials as cradle Episcopalians.

It was a bit of a shock, then, after canvassing all of our conservative Ex-Episcopalian friends and finding little interest or motivation to start any new, orthodox group, to wind up in a group of what in years past would have been described as Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail, in contrast to the cucumber-sandwiches-and-tea crowd.  Our fellow-churchmen in our new AMiA parish could not pronounce ‘collect’ to save their souls.  (Fortunately, we observed, that is not among the requirements!)  They displayed a deep suspicion of infant baptism; there was a time—likely now ended—in which lay Eucharistic presidency coexisted with the senior clergy’s process into full Anglican orders via Southeast Asia and Rwanda.  For quite some time, our clergy had no formal seminary credentials whatsoever.  Our arrangements to lease worship space from various churches were opposed, and on at least one occasion scuttled, by covert machinations from the local ECUSA diocese.

It has been awkward; it has taken some getting used to.  But—it seems to be working.  Our first seminary-trained clergyman was recently ordained.  “Collect” now gets pronounced correctly.  Finances continue to be tenuous, but as the Church demonstrated for its first centuries and continues to demonstrate in its most vigourous local manifestations, this is no fatal impediment.

Money is tight.  Pregnancy is endemic.  Our parish’s ethnic mix would be the envy of the UN.  We worship in rented space—and the volunteer efforts of most of the congregation are required in order to set up and take down the church setup each Sunday.  Last Sunday, I saw an eleven-month-old boy pushing a chair twice his height to the side of the worship space, to assist in the after-service cleanup.  Indeed, several months ago, when the leadership was arranging a volunteer-recognition event, they eventually threw up their hands and acknowledged that almost every member of the parish was involved in some kind of active volunteer ministry.

We are missing many of the seeming stabilities of ECUSA—but, I have to admit, it seems to be doing us a great deal of good.  Our senior leadership at the bishops-and-primatial level have been spectacularly accessible.  Our clergy have often had to take part-time employment in other fields—but they are nonetheless actively planting new churches already.  Our child-education work has been completely de-linked from anything traditionally Episcopalian, with great results—I have had the experience of having one of our parish’s four-year-olds correct me in conversation by reminding me that ‘all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.’  Recognising the sluggishness of Anglican evangelism in America, my wife and I have joined with another couple to co-lead a non-Sundays small group whose intention is to focus on expanding the parish’s evangelism, likely working through Michael Green’s book, Asian Tigers for Christ, by way of a beginning.

‘[O]ne could potentially see the seed of a future communion—far into the future,’ you wrote, ‘based on such a principled, unified stand of integrity. In other words, were the communion to fail utterly to discipline itself, and were a group of primates to recognize the catastrophic and inevitable loss of gospel, witness, and health that that failure means, and were that group to then depart the communion as a group . . . something fruitful might occur.’

I agree with you as to most of this.  I only question—and invite you, yourself, to question again—your pessimistic predictions as to timing.  Even now, there are—how many, five?  six?  seven?—primates actively involved in building that distinct Anglican presence you have in mind.  Though the differences exist, I have seen a remarkable cooperation that struck me as missing among the Anglican ‘Continuum’ before.  Two of our AMiA clergy recently—and without renouncing their AMiA orders—have taken paid positions in an Anglo-Catholic Continuum parish that was in need of clergy.  Reformed Episcopal Church (‘REC’) clergymen are regulars at our major services, and I can recall at least one occasion on which one was invited to preach when our senior pastor was out of town.  Cooperation may be uneven, but it is by no means nonexistent.

Anglicanism was dying, long before Gene Robinson, even before John Robinson, in large part due to a forgetting of its first love.  When (as in many landmark Church of England parishes and cathedrals), the clergy stop one at the door and ask one to leave unless one is ‘there for the service,’ you know that it has got the Great Commission wrong.  Too long Western Anglicanism rested on accomplishments of apostles and martyrs we’d be too embarrassed to invite to Sunday’s after-church coffee hour—and thereby fell behind other, more Jesus-centred nondenominational groups in changing minds and winning hearts.  I see the pending expropriation of our wealth, prestige, and buildings as a deep, if severe, mercy:  a corrective for a sinful sloth in which I myself participated to my shame.  We dallied too long in getting back to the basics?  God, in His mercy, is now doing it for us.  But—it seems that He IS doing it. 

Consider the lilies of the field; they neither toil, nor spin, but Solomon in all his glory was not clothed as one of these.  Consider the bees:  for years and years, North America’s bee colonies were filled with European honeybees, docile and bred selectively for their easy management and their proclivity for amassing vast endowments of valuable honey.  Then, in the 20th Century, some bees from an experiment in South America escaped and began making their way northward.  These bees had been irregularly cross-bred, combining African bee genes imparting robustness and disease-resistance with European genes that, it was hoped, would retain their honey-producing qualities.  The ‘Africanised’ bees that resulted were disappointing, from a honey-industry perspective, in that they did not build up the honey reserves to which beekeepers were accustomed.  They also displayed a level of—shall we say, initiative and assertiveness and aggression?—that made them very unpopular in some quarters.  After a few years, they were competing in North America’s warmer parts with the long-established European bees.

Then, some years ago, the European colonies’ young were decimated by a disease called ‘European foul brood,’ which turned the European bees’ youth into a putrescent mush.  Failing to make more of themselves—or to keep the youth they had produced—the European bees virtually died out over much of the landscape.  Interestingly, the Africanised ones were unaffected—with the result that in many regions, the only wild bees are now of the Africanised variety.

The Africanised ones seem to be doing just fine (or did, until the recent ‘colony collapse disorder’—it remains to be seen how that impacts wild Africanised bee colonies, so I’ll leave it conveniently out of my fable).  An interesting quirk of the Africanised bees is their (vexing to some) disinterest in living in traditional purpose-built hives; Africanised bees take up residence in hollow walls, under floors, in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth—in short, wherever they can.  This independence of real estate has done them remarkably well, as they spread, and divide, and multiply, and simply get about the business of being bees.  Those unsympathetic to the agenda of healthy bees may find them disturbing to encounter—sometimes seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses to their initiative and flexibility—but one has to admire them for at least their tenacity, and the initial successes of their efforts.

Sarah, you might also remember that Canterbury has been carrying on ecumenical dialogue with the Vatican for several decades now.  Frank Griswold himself was on the Virgin Mary Committee.  The RCs have believed all this time that the Anglican Communion was a cohesive international Church much like the RC Church.  It never occurred to them that people like Griswold and others spoke only for themselves and not for the entire Anglican Communion.  No wonder that many people are starting to feel “confused”.

Hi A.A. and thanks for your comment regarding your experience in your own church—sounds as if you are having fun!  ; > )

Remember, though, that my pessimism was on a slightly grander scale than that of a congregation.  I do believe that individual congregations can be successful—both in ECUSA and out of ECUSA.  But the bleak picture I painted was of something larger than a congregation.  I was looking to the long-term future of Anglicanism in the U.S. 

Here is the passage in which I describe what I suspect will happen, in the event of a fractured communion:

So I will say it again. Should the Anglican Communion fracture, with provinces pulling out, I believe that in the U.S. we will see two separate, non-thriving Anglican entities. ECUSA will exist—non-thriving—centered around a few clusters of already established large churches and in a few large urban “liberal” areas like Seattle, New York, part of California, and Washington DC. The rural ECUSA parishes—or those that are in mid-sized towns in more conservative areas of the U.S.—will die. In my own diocese, my rough estimate of Episcopal parishes is that fully 1/3 are in the process of dying right now. The people have simply left and gone to other denominations. Of course, we will always have some nice large parishes in big cities . . . but those cities will increasingly be “islands”, and all around the “islands” the seas will grow and spread.

In reverse, I believe that the same thing will happen in the U.S. for reasserting non-ECUSA Anglicanism uncoupled from a Communion center. Traditional Anglicanism will exist, centered around a few clusters of already established large churches and in a few large urban “conservative” areas—like Falls Church, Virginia and Plano Texas.

I think that the reasons for this are many and varied. But here is just one conjecture based on Anglicanism’s character. Its character, it seems to me, is in part dependent on two “ineffable” characteristics that are very hard to recognize when they already exist, but very hard to overcome or reproduce when they are lost. Those two characteristics are a need for stable, established hierarchy and a need for regional clusters of community. Although it is true that a local thriving parish does not usually recognize their need for those two things I believe that the need is still there.

For this reason, even when a mid-sized parish affiliates with a non-Canterbury-recognized Anglican entity, without a regional cluster of Anglican community, it is forced to behave congregationally. Without that cluster, it can easily be a one-generation [or less, based on its clergy leadership] church that slowly declines, then closes its doors. In a sense, a conservative ECUSA parish in a mid-sized town is hindered by the national Episcopal brand of extreme, gospel-less revisionism. But a conservative non-ECUSA Anglican parish in a mid-sized town is hindered by the lack of a stable hierarchy and supportive, regional cluster of community.

None of this should really be a surprise, when we think about it. If Anglicanism were actually congregational in its theology or ethos, there would be no challenge to thriving or growing without a stable hierarchy or regional cluster of community. But since it is not, in fact, congregational in theology or ethos, when a conservative parish is forced to act as if it is congregational, many more challenges surface and grow.

And with no “center that holds”, each Anglican entity will have competing interests, and the ability to “pull together” will be inestimably hindered, since it will be difficult for all the competing interests to discern in what direction to pull.

I refer to a national Anglicanism, not simply some Anglican congregations that are successful. 

Keep in mind, too, that I came to this conclusion over a three-year process of carefully observing and researching “what’s out there”—and I have to say, my discoveries, experiences, and observations were shockingly negative—something that I was quite unprepared for.

I’m afraid that I have to stand by my national assessment, in the event of a communion fracture.

But hey—I could be wrong!  I suspect that if we live to ripe old ages, we will know whether my suspicion was correct or not.

I wonder what will happen, on the Sunday morning in the not too distant future, when the doors of TEC churches open and no one comes in.  Hallowed halls with empty pews.  Perhaps through much of the Anglican Communion, but certainly here in the US.  What I see happening is that ALL sides in this argument have lost faith in the structures and heirarchy of TEC and the Communion.  Read what some of our own liberal posters have to say- some of them are as angered with the lawsuits, for example, as any reasserter.  Articles from Integrity (the organization) demonstrate that they have lost trust in the liberal bishops, those of us in the reasserter camp have little faith in the “Windsor” bishops.  No one is trusting in Cantaur.
In many ways I sympathize with the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The problems before us now are there because for generations his predecessors (and all of us) have assumed they would go away in time.  Small heresies were tolerated.  What difference did one Pike or one Spong make among so many bishops?  Now, in the US province, Spong’s theology appears to be becoming dominant.  The PB invites him to speak.  Those little heresies are now the “mainstream” opinion of the majority of bishops.  ++Rowan’s difficulty, I think, is that he is indeed a man of God and really does care for both the Communion, and for us as individuals.  His inaction is brought about by the fact that as bright as he is, even he can see no way out.  No matter what he does, he sees the Communion coming to an end.  There is not only no win-win compromise, all the available options appear to be lose-lose.  If he sides with the liberal wing, he loses half the church- as Nigeria and Uganda and most if not all of the Global South walk away.  If he sides with the conservative wing, he loses lots of financial support, but he also knows that the conservative part of the church in the West will be destroyed in a deluge of legal action.  Indeed, congregations will survive here and there, but dozens of bishops will be deposed, hundreds of clergy inhibited, thousands of individual vestrymen sued, and hundreds of thousands denied the use of the churches their families built.  If he stays in the middle, the whole thing may come apart because the tension cannot be maintained.
So, he plays for time, praying for guidance, asking God to show him how to find his way through the labyrinth to the one solution that will leave the Church intact.  I will pray for him as well.  But meanwhile, I will also prepare myself.  Frankly, I can’t afford to be sued, but would rather TEC take my house than destroy my faith.  And this is my advice to Cantaur.  Inaction will not save the Church. There is only one Way, one Truth, one Light.  There is only One who can lead you.  Follow Him.

Sarah - I haven’t read the comments on this article yet, but wanted to let you know it is the best you have written….hitting the nail on the head….....For me, the following line really jumped off the page:

“But the vast reaches of the country will have no such pockets at all.”

This IS the reality check…..thank you so very much

Sarah,

If I understand you correctly:

1) On the one hand, the Covenant process is doomed to failure.  Basically it is all a delaying tactic.  Thus whatever winds up being bound together in Communion by the Covenant will be little more than a more-or-less heretical muddle that does not care enough about truth to enact discipline and does not care enough about mission to evangelize.

2) On the other hand, if we give the Communion up as lost (as we should if we are honest with ourselves) we will not wind up with a faithful new Global South-centered communion or a new coherent orthodox American province, but instead a welter of enmity and competing interests.  Basically we will fracture into tiny little bits.  Nothing like Anglicanism will really last.

So, in conclusion: We’re all screwed.  We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.  Say a requiem for the church of Cranmer and Becket.  At least the funeral liturgy in the Prayer Book is pretty.

Now, if that’s the case, then I need to ask you in all seriousness as a brother in Christ: What are you doing?  Why blog?  What’s this for?  In five years’ time tops you’ll be in the evangelical free church down the street.  The best thing you can accomplish from your perspective is to convince as many people to join you as possible. 

Perhaps I misunderstand you, Sarah.  I hope so.  But this is why I wrote further up this thread about the underlying premise in these sorts of arguments: that the Holy Spirit has abandoned Anglicanism, and that what remains to us now is no more than the grim and bitter business of self-immolation in the awful and hellish absence of God.

I am troubled by that, Sarah.  I worry that it comes something close to despair.  E.g., that when you talk about pessimism on a “grand scale” about the “future of Anglicanism,” you really mean it.  I have a hard time thinking that you—normally so cheerful and uplifting—carry around this weight of despair underneath.  Especially because if that is really the case, I cannot make out why you blog.

Please understand that I say this with the greatest respect and concern.

The covenant process will indeed solve the orthodox Anglican problems. The Episcopal church is losing about 3% a year, let’s say 60 thousand a year. Probably, half dying of natural causes and half conservative fed up with the apostates. The covenant in its final form will come out in about 2010. At that time, we will learn that the covenant has been weakened sufficiently to be all inclusive (all at the table!) to include the TEC. The Global South will have walked. Then the meager few orthodox will be told to take a hike. No orthodox, no problems!

Sarah, sorry to seem to have ignored your rationale for pessimism on the broader-than-parochial level.  I’ll assure you, I didn’t intend that—the internet ate a big chunk of text, and some quotes from your good essay.  (Dios d’eteleieto boule!)  Given your manifest cleverness and observational skills, I’ll also accord a healthy respect to your years of observation of the national scene.

I’ve shared your pessimism.  For me, the ‘shrieking pain’ threshold was reached when I was a teenager—sheesh, the math is scary—almost 20 years ago.  I feel a little like C S Lewis’ Merlin in That Hideous Strength, who comes up with idea after idea of where the good guys might go for help, only to have each idea shot down—concluding ruefully that when the earths are stopped, the fox must face the hounds.  I went through a full set of Roman Catholic RCIA classes, but could never quite buy some of the doctrines upon which I had to admit that church genuinely insists.  I checked out the Southern Baptists; became a member of a PCA parish while frequently attending an Antiochian Orthodox parish for supplemental tradition and liturgy; regularly attended a Vineyard church, and tried uncounted non-denominational groups.  When I saw the writing on ECUSA’s wall, I even moved to England in what I now recognise as the naive hope that things were less far gone there.  AMiA, when it turned up, looked very much like it was 10 or 15 years too late.

Still—when one’s a part of a flotsam-field, and feels the sharks bumping one’s heels, one’s standards for seaworthiness of lifeboats go down.

Having crawled in over the gunwales of one of the local AMiA lifeboats, and having had a little chance to dry off, I have to say my pessimism is a little less severe than it once was.

Part of this is dissatisfaction experienced with other options, which dissatisfaction I hadn’t been able to foresee upon what I thought was my permanent bailout from Anglicanism full stop.  Part, though, has been due to some unexpectedly-favourable observations about the orthodox Anglican world.  It is these that lead me to believe that your pessimism (akin as it is to my own periodic pessimism) may be premature.

If Anglicanism is to survive, we need to get our acts together, in two senses.  Happily, I see some evidence that we can.

First sense:  the different orthodox Anglican entities need to get their acts together in the sense of coordinating their activities, recognising and abetting one another’s ministries, damping-down hostilities, and developing or maintaining a critical mass for sustained life.  The good news is that I actually see a surprising amount of this happening.  I’m amused to reflect that fully half the AMiA priests I know, I previously debated regarding the legitimacy and/or timeliness of AMiA (with them on the ‘con’ side.)  Then I look around and find among the REC and ‘Continuing Church’ Anglican or Anglican-like people many who think I waited too long.  The nice thing to observe is that the earlier disputes are very quickly being forgotten.  Though I do not see anything approaching universal cooperation among my city’s orthodox Anglicans, in the last seven years or so I’ve seen a lot of the competition and suspicion evaporate, and a lot more cooperation happen.  I’m seeing more mutual recognition of orders.  I’m also seeing everybody acting from an awareness of how the multiple ‘Continuing’ churches turned into dwindling groups of bitter octogenarians, and a healthy desire to avoid that.  Nigeria’s recent overtures to the REC and its recently-merged Anglo-Catholic sister group strike me as a very favourable sign—as does the regular participation in AMiA’s annual Winter Conferences by primates from provinces not involved in AMiA’s foundation.  To my mind, the real test of cooperation will be how AMiA and CANA relate in the middle-term future.  Right now, AMiA and CANA are small enough that they can operate in parallel without treading on one another’s toes.  If, as things develop, AMiA and CANA either merge, or, perhaps almost as satisfactorily, cultivate and maintain warm enough relations to work cooperatively as mutually-respectful sister organisations, I think it will indicate a success on this front.  Even if the two maintain identical-faithed organisations answering to different primates on opposite sides of town as no more real impediment to ministry than the parallel existence of two identical-faithed organisations answering to different primates on opposite sides of an arbitrary international border (which latter situation everybody acknowledges as legitimate and workable.)

Superb article.

At this point, I share the bleak assessment that the ABC will never permit TEC to be disciplined and that the various primates summits, the Windsor report, etc., are simply delaying tactics. It is possible that the optimists are right and that the ABC is playing a game to get TEC to exclude itself. Perhaps.

Releasing the invitation list now was a procedural and bureaucratic preemptive strike, a lot like submitting to the Primates the ludicrous report saying that TEC had complied with Windsor/Dromantine. The most positive development since has been Bp. Minns’ letter yesterday, combined with Abp. Akinola’s statement two days ago. Those statements serve notice that the ABC’s preemptive strike will be challenged by the GS. That is very good news.

Sarah is exactly right that, for better or worse, Anglicanism requires a stable hierarchy. I go further and say that, for better or worse, only the ABC has sufficient “gravitational pull” to pull together the various Anglican splinters now arising, such as CANA, AMiA, etc. Without the ABC, no other leader, not even the GS collectively, has the gravity to attract those splinters. Without the ABC, the splinters will remain splinters, and gradually die as Sarah predicts.

I am not all that impressed by the exclusion of Bp. Robinson. His presence or absence from Lambeth is largely symbolic. If the invitations stand, the revisionists have won a major substantive victory, whether or not Bp. Robinson attends.The revisionists don’t see it that way. The histrionic reactions concerning Bp. Robinson’s exclusion among the left is a puzzlement.

(Continuing)  I’ve seen some of this genuine common-cause-making happen here; I’ve seen it grow as those who are willing to crawl into the lifeboats grow more numerous with every further yard that the TEC/ECUSA/CofE ship slides into the deep.  I have seen many such inter-Anglican animosities evaporate.  I would not mind seeing more do so, of course, but there have been favourable surprises.  Part of it has something to do with technology and the developing habits of long-distance communication.  In my city, a number of Anglicans involved in different jurisdictions have worked cooperatively in clergy training; at one point we were looking at forming a jointly-run seminary.  I discovered that I could continue to be available to advise a church-plant I’d started, though I was 5000 miles away, because e-mail let me receive and answer a question within 30 seconds of the asker’s hitting ‘send’.  We get our news from Stand Firm, TitusOneNine, and Virtuosity, and even ECUSA bishops are quickly learning that an oppressive word spoken in their own office will soon be being read around the globe.  Where formerly geography could hinder the creation and maintaining of relationships, and precluded the pooling of resources, that is no longer the case.  Can a 50-person AMiA church-plant afford to send its leader off to General Seminary or Cambridge to read divinity for a few years?  No.  But that same AMiA church-plant is perfectly capable of arranging for that same leader to take Greek lessons from the TEC pastor across town, take a handful of extension courses from Trinity (formerly ‘Episcopal’) School for Ministry in Pennsylvania, e-mail Alistair McGrath of Wycliffe Hall in Oxford to ask his take on N T Wright’s work on justification, and set up a preaching class in cooperation with a seminary in Western Australia.  Fifteen years ago the tiny church-plant would have had its community of support much more circumscribed by mere geography—but that is no longer the case, and the recognition of common interests has gone a long way toward inclining distinct Anglican bodies toward mutual cooperation.

Are there divisions, hostilities, continuing animosities?  To be sure.  Will the mergers and cooperations outnumber the splits?  Time will tell; but I think it’s premature to conclude in the negative on that last question.  Women’s ordination is, I think, the point of greatest division, and the sooner that is addressed well, the better.

Second sense:  The other way in which orthodox Anglicans are going to have to get their acts together is in the sense of the acts situated between the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Romans.  Quite simply put, First-World Anglicans have got far too used to reliance upon heritage and the visible institutions of the Church to preserve life, and have forgotten how to do evangelism.  Now that ‘because Granddad used to do it’ is no longer a sufficient reason for anyone in the UK or the US or Australia to darken a church door, mere institutional survival is simply going to depend upon drawing more people in.  (Were institutional preservation not a sufficient reason, perhaps the prospect of rescuing countless souls from Hell could divert our attention for a moment?    )

This, I think, is the real obstacle.  Even the ‘Anglican Mission in America’ is woefully paralytic about this.  Some years ago, the AMiA engaged a consultant to see about how AMiA might get on with its primatially-mandated task of. . . um . . . obeying the Great Commission.  The consultant is said to have reported to a flabbergasted AMiA Bishop Chuck Murphy that AMiA’s members by and large had no sufficient interest in evangelism to get off our collective backsides—but that AMiA’s membership WERE deeply motivated to preserve a legacy of orthodox Anglicanism for our children.

This is starkly disturbing—at least as regards the degree to which even such officially-mission-committed orthodox First World Anglicans are unaccustomed to evangelism.  The same problem exists with at least equal strength in the other North American Anglican groups of whichI have any awareness.  (I do not know enough about CANA to assess it in this regard.)

But one thing is good about this:  it makes CRYSTAL CLEAR what needs to happen.  As long as Anglicanism in the First World is a less-than-zero-sum game of persuading the existing churchgoers to attend one denomination instead of another, sheer mortality dooms all groups equally, and the question of the relative merits of TEC/ECUSA, CANA, REC, AMiA, etc., etc. will very shortly be mooted by the death by old age of all involved. 

The bad news is that almost all of us are disinclined to do evangelism, and unskilled at it.  The good news is that Nigeria and Southeast Asia show that it can be done.  Make no mistake:  other provinces would not even be listening to Archbishop Akinola were he not undeniably presiding over a province that knows how to do evangelism successfully.  It is this inarguable success—and that alone—that has turned him into the most influential mortal in the Anglican Communion.  It must be done—and it must be done here.

So, if Anglicanism in North America is not (as I think it is not quite) a dead letter, what will its future look like?

I think it is undeniable that it will look very dissimilar to how it looks now.  Whatever survives will be almost unrecognisable in terms of being evangelical—in the sense of being controlled by a mission focus.  Far, far fewer of its resources will be devoted to maintaining the institution, and more to transforming lives.  Its churches will less and less be built of stone and in Gothic Revival style—though, like many, I will miss those quite a bit.  It will be accustomed to meeting in high schools and tents—and, especially, in private homes.  It will involve a much-higher degree of lay activity and evangelism than the Western church has seen within living memory.  Discipleship of the laity and education of the clergy will look less and less like the ‘send-you-off-for-three-years’-MDiv-study-and-then-presume- that-the-degree-proves-qualification-for-leadership’ model of the USA and (to some extent, and mutatis mutandis) the UK.  Clergy will likely be increasingly non-stipendiary—which will itself have several potentially-surprising ramifications.  It will look a lot more like those non-denominational churches to which many of us find ourselves attracted through lack of a viable Anglicanism.  But, at the same time, it will maintain a connection to the Church’s historical roots.

I agree that any Anglicanism that survives in the First World is going to look very different.  But I think that is simply a God-given given.  This does not drive me—yet—to any firm conclusion that God is giving up on the Anglican project in the First World.

RE: “Sarah, If I understand you correctly:

1) On the one hand, the Covenant process is doomed to failure.  Basically it is all a delaying tactic.  Thus whatever winds up being bound together in Communion by the Covenant will be little more than a more-or-less heretical muddle that does not care enough about truth to enact discipline and does not care enough about mission to evangelize.”

Hi Jordan—actually I stated something that you seem to be ignoring very determinedly.  ; > )

I stated that if the “Windsor Process”—which has been grinding along for three years now—was not enforced and there were no consequences for not adhering to it, and thus no discipline, then there is strong reason to suppose that the same is true for the “Covenant Process”.  As I thought I made clear—we are all waiting, now, to see if my suspicion about the Windsor Process is in fact correct.  We should know soon enough.

RE: “2) On the other hand, if we give the Communion up as lost (as we should if we are honest with ourselves) we will not wind up with a faithful new Global South-centered communion or a new coherent orthodox American province, but instead a welter of enmity and competing interests.  Basically we will fracture into tiny little bits.  Nothing like Anglicanism will really last.”

No Jordan—if we are *honest with ourselves* we will acknowledge that it is very *possible* that the Communion will not discipline itself.  If that is the case, yes, it will fracture.  And yes, my surmise—which certainly could be wrong but I doubt it—is that Anglicanism *in the U.S.* will essentially cease, save in a few pockets, should there be no “center that holds”.

Hence, what we do during this time of examining and watching is rather important.

But then . . . I am repeating my article, which I know that you have already read.

RE: “So, in conclusion: We’re all screwed.  We’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t.  Say a requiem for the church of Cranmer and Becket.  At least the funeral liturgy in the Prayer Book is pretty.”

Well—certainly Anglicanism is not the sum total of my life!  So I don’t think I’ll be ruined, Jordan.  But a good chunk of something important will be quite lost.  And yes, I tend to want to face those possibilities with a clear head and a firm heart—in advance.

RE: “What are you doing?  Why blog?  What’s this for?  In five years’ time tops you’ll be in the evangelical free church down the street.  The best thing you can accomplish from your perspective is to convince as many people to join you as possible.”

Wow—you and I do things for different reasons, I think!  ; > )

First of all—I enjoy writing and thinking and analyzing and synthesizing—I’ve done it in my job and in my play time. 

Second, while there is this small window of time [something that I have spelled out over and over and over in other articles] I think it is important for Anglicans to work hard for reform and renewal and right ordering of our common life in the Communion.  I think that it is the *right thing* to do.  It may not be “practical” or “fun” all the time—but it is the right thing to do.  And I certainly *do* attempt to “convince as many people as possible” to work hard in their Anglican area, for gathering, for forming, for strategizing, and for working.

Third, it is certainly true that the window of time is narrowing.  And in five years time I certainly give even odds [if I am still living, that is] that I will be in a free evangelical church.

RE: “. . . that the Holy Spirit has abandoned Anglicanism, and that what remains to us now is no more than the grim and bitter business of self-immolation in the awful and hellish absence of God.”

Well, it is true that there is a *possibility* that God has judged Anglicanism in America and found it wanting and decided to move on from that branch of Christianity in the U.S.  Surely you do not think it unreasonable for people to perhaps wonder if that is true?

And if that is the case, than anything we do in regards to furthering Anglicanism is for naught.

But two things here:  first, if that is true, I am equally certain that the Holy Spirit has not abandoned the individual Christians who are working for Anglicanism [however fruitlessly, if indeed the Holy Spirit has moved on from this church] and that He will cause us to grow and change to be more like Christ.  Second, of course, we cannot actually *know* that the Holy Spirit has “left the building” and so we can only do what we believe that God has called us to do—in other words, *the right thing*, which in my case is to work hard for Anglicanism until such time as I see that the Communion is not going to discipline itself.  And as I’ve said, we’ll see that fairly soon, I think.

RE: “I worry that it comes something close to despair.  E.g., that when you talk about pessimism on a “grand scale” about the “future of Anglicanism,” you really mean it.”

Well believe me, if I were in “despair” I would not have the energy to blog, think, work, or create.  ; > )  I would be lying in bed, morosely staring at the ceiling. 

But yes, Jordan, I *do* have some pretty hard thoughts about the “future of Anglicanism” in the U.S.  What I have said above in my comments is absolutely sincere.  It seems, though, that when I say such things, you feel angry, or frustrated, or challenged by it. 

It is quite possible to see those very difficult possibilities about Anglicanism in the U.S., though, and not “despair”.

Life is really hard.  Hard things happen.  Sometimes things really do fail or die or pass on.  The acknowledgement of that reality, it seems to me, is not “despair” but simply a clear-eyed attempt to look at truth in the face.

Understand I’m not saying that it is “truth”—but it is certainly a possibility of truth.

Like I keep saying . . . we’ll see.

But the door for recovery, Jordan, is closing.  The stakes are high.  And I’m working, and thinking, and analyzing, and writing.

Sarah,

  I realise it seems obtuse of me, but your articles on the hard things of Christianity are so much more relevant. (Our friends at the Economist would even call them trenchant).  I know, I know, o/s the thread, etc.  But they really are…

W. Blocker

Sarah,
God bless you. I share your love of being an Anglican. I was born and raised an independent Baptist (The Southern Baptists were going to hell ..... now that is really reactionary) and my family left that church because the elders caused a pastor to attempt suicide. Throughout my spiritual journey my soul cried out for order hierarchy. I found it in a small Anglo-Catholic parish and haver never looked back. I will not return to a congregationalist church. I will continue to serve as an Anglo-Catholic priest and will follow the motto of the Society of the Holy Cross, of which I am a member .... “No surrender. No desertion. Dig a pit for the Cross.” In my own mind (which some may say is not the BEST place to remain for a long time!) those who have broken the faith by playing God and rewriting Scripture and ignoring the traditions of the church, be they Bennison or Williams, are not Anglican no matter who they are in communion with. To be Anglican for me is first to be a Christian; to be an Anglican is to be fed by a particular kind of Spirituality that is fed by Sacramental worship and Prayer Book theology. It is within the order of the Mass that my body and soul most intensely encounters my Savior.
The Satanic agenda which threatens what is for me the BEST Christian experssion of faith angers me. ANGERS ME! And I will not quit until they pry my thurible from my cold dead fingers.

Sorry to ramble so much. But I do feel better now.
AP+

Second, of course, we cannot actually *know* that the Holy Spirit has “left the building” and so we can only do what we believe that God has called us to do—in other words, *the right thing*

‘Okay if I make another comparison to our red-headed step-brothers, the Presbyterians? 
A lot of people in the OPC, PCA, RPCNA etc will admit that the mainline Presbyterian denomination (PCUSA) is all but apostate.  It isn’t even a particularly interesting subject. 

Every once in a while though, you’ll hear stuff like:
- a PCUSA member doesn’t quite agree with things that are going on on the national level;
- a PCUSA parish considering leaving for another Presbyterian denomination;
- the PCUSA high mucky-mucks coming down like a ton of bricks on the “schismatic fundamentalists.” 

So .. the Holy Spirit has left the building?  Hmm..

Oh - my last pastor was raised in the PCUSA.  Married someone from the PCUSA.  Went to a conservative seminary, wanting to be in the PCA;  and ended up in the OPC.  I can confidently say that if half the pastors in the OPC were like him, ya’ll would be fighting to come into the OPC. 

“...Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness…”  (Judges 14:14)

Friends, I’m constantly suprised by the activity of the Holy Spirit.

Sarah thanks for the food for thought…we will continue to need these kind of discussions as we stand firm in the period leading up to and just after Sept 30…I wouldn’t begin to consider what will come after to much will change between now and then…

I do appreciate Sarah’s assessments and largely, the attempt at playing devil’s advocate. 

My caveat, though, is simply to be careful being an extreme pessimist just so you end up pleasantly surprised.  It’s ultimately bad for the brain cells.  I hate seeing good brains eaten up by depression when there are more positive alternatives.  Sometimes it truly is all in how you look at it. 

The bottom line is, we don’t know and must wait and see.  I’m hoping that 10/1 or shortly thereafter is a good day. 

I seem to recall this mood was the same just before the DeS Communique came out, and look what that was.  In my view, sitting in a black pit for the next four months is a bad idea. 

God is good, so there is always much to celebrate.

“God is good, so there is always much to celebrate. ”  - AMEN!

We do need to keep perspective.  Even if all Anglicanism is utterly lost, we have Jesus Christ who is all any of us ever need.

Sarah,

Thanks.  No, I’m certainly not angry with you… heaven forbid!  A better description is: at times nodding in agreement and appreciative, at times puzzled, at other times troubled.  You see, I am in agreement with you that it is a possibility that Anglicanism will cease to exist in any recognizable form.  Radner would say the same.  But what at times puzzles me is the apparent disconnect between thinking that nothing we do will work, and continuing on doing things anyway.  What at times troubles me are the times when it seems like you’re telling people that (almost certainly) nothing we do will help in the cause of “traditional Anglicanism in America,” as it says so boldly on this website’s logo.  I scratch my head and think, “Aren’t we supposed to be in the business of encouraging people to Stand Firm in Faith for Traditional Anglicanism in America? How does that work if we’ve decided that it’s 100-to-1 odds a lost cause?”  And then I look at the comments thread and see lots of people saying, “She’s right!  It’s all over.  Pack it in and go home.”  And I think that’s very sad to see.  Because for each person that decides that, the cause becomes that much closer to lost.

And of course… I don’t think the cause IS lost!  I think there are very good reasons to continue to Stand Firm in Faith for Traditional Anglicanism in America.  Which is why I love this website and its work, and visit it so often.  And it is also why I often feel led to attempt to set forward here the reasons for hope that we have.

Steve Schuh, President of Integrity Vancouver said:

“now General Synod delegates can discuss same-sex unions and vote their conscience without the threat of exclusion from Lambeth hanging over their heads.”

And maybe that’s why invitations now? If Canadian bishops were still unsure of their welcome at Lambeth, isn’t it possible they would vote, not what they really think, but what they think will get them onto the invitation list? We’ve already heard what TEC’s HOB really thinks of Primatial Vicars and other Pastoral Schemes. Perhaps as a result of the release of the invitation list we will also hear what the Canadian leadership really thinks about the Windsor Report recommendations for them.

But what at times puzzles me is the apparent disconnect between thinking that nothing we do will work, and continuing on doing things anyway.

Jordan,
In one sense, nothing we ever do will “work”.  We are powerless to do anything.  God is in control and His plans will be accomplished.  Nothing we could ever do could bring His will one bit faster or in any way impede His timetable.  We do what we do not because we believe we have the power to reconstruct the world, we do so because our Lord calls us to be obedient and to be His witnesses.  The fruit that results from any effort that we may expend for His service is entirely accomplished by His power not ours.  It is not about what “we do”, it is about faithfulness to the call of Christ.  And so we labor…

RE: “But what at times puzzles me is the apparent disconnect between thinking that nothing we do will work, and continuing on doing things anyway.  What at times troubles me are the times when it seems like you’re telling people that (almost certainly) nothing we do will help in the cause of “traditional Anglicanism in America,” as it says so boldly on this website’s logo.”

Well . . . I have written an inordinate number of articles regarding strategy and tactics—I’ll wager more than any other SF blogger by far.  So surely that counts as believing—and articulating—that some actions might work!

But on the other hand, Jordan, I think I sometimes feel a lot like a physician that offers a very serious diagnosis to a patient—about an illness that could be terminal if the treatment plan is not developed correctly and followed.  So, let’s say that the physician looks the patient in the eye and says: “I need to be honest with you, Mrs. Wiggleton.  If we follow the treatment plan, there is still a good 60% chance that you will not reach full recovery.”  The answer is not for Mrs. Wiggleton to throw up her hands and say “well, forget it—I’ll just go ahead now and lie down and stare at the ceiling.” 

To be honest about the tough times ahead of us seems to me to be the right diagnosis.

RE: “I scratch my head and think, “Aren’t we supposed to be in the business of encouraging people to Stand Firm in Faith for Traditional Anglicanism in America? How does that work if we’ve decided that it’s 100-to-1 odds a lost cause?” And then I look at the comments thread and see lots of people saying, “She’s right!  It’s all over.  Pack it in and go home.” And I think that’s very sad to see.  Because for each person that decides that, the cause becomes that much closer to lost.”

Those who have decided to pack it in . . . were well on their way to packing it in.  I suspect that most people know in their bones when they’re ready to go, and no amount of cheery words and hopeful prognoses will sway them. 

But this sort of touches on something that is somewhat vexing to me. 

Sometimes I hear communion conservatives seeming as if they are trying to talk up victories that did not in fact occur or deny the obviously bad things that are occurring.  They’re playing a game of “pretend” and when they do that, Jordan, it’s sometimes transparently obvious that they are doing that. 

When it’s not transparently obvious, it causes some people—somewhat ironically—to panic more as they come to the horrible conclusion that certain leaders are actually oblivious and unaware of the true nature of the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves.

It’s a bit like you are in a movie theater that is on fire.  A group of you are trying to get to a cluster of fire extinguishers and coordinate a fire brigade, led by someone who volunteered to “lead the way”.  When the “followers” notice that they are still milling about in the lobby, with no fire extinguishers to be found, they get a little nervous.

But the true panic begins amongst the followers when the “leader” begins speaking in a cheery tone about how the fire is not really as bad as he had thought.  Some people point out how high the flames are reaching, and how far they have spread—and the leader speaks about how cozily warm fire can be on certain occasional frosty days.  Some others point out that they have seen two security guards with oil soaked rags furtively dropping them near the exit doors and flicking their lighters—and the leader says that we need to keep an open mind and recognize that the security guards may be setting a “back fire”.

To me, when I hear someone honestly realistic about a situation, I relax and feel better.  I feel as if at least I’m listening to someone who has some knowledge about the problems.

Furthermore, when I write analysis articles I want people to know that I will try my best to be a straight shooter.  I don’t want people to think that I write what I write because I’m trying to pump people up or artificially motivate them.  I sometimes critique our own orthodox allies, as honestly as I can and with hopefully no malice.  It’s “risky” because frankly I have no desire to anger my own allies.  Sometimes I have angered people when I’ve expressed an analysis that is not uniformly positive towards various groups of fellow reasserting Anglicans—for instance, some “communion conservatives” could have chastised me about saying positive things about CANA, and some “federal conservatives” might have castigated me for mentioning the Lambeth resolutions and Carey statements that she light on the CANA situation; some might think that I should simply say nothing at all, particularly about the side that they are themselves on.  But I like to hope that if they are people of integrity, they will go home and brood for a while, and then acknowledge that my analysis—even if wrong—may be *reasonable* and fair.

But if I don’t write the truth as I see it, even when it is “disadvantageous”, then when I am positive or see some hopeful signs, people won’t believe me then either.

. . . If it makes you feel any better, I assure you that I could come up with far far more Glorious Pessimism about a Number of Important Matters Calculated to Drive Us All Into Clinical Depression!!!  ; > )

Sarah, you have written another fine piece.  I should have said that when I posted earlier today. It is sobering.  In some ways, it reminds me of the letter Bob Duncan sent out to his diocese recently.  And you are no doubt right, as is Jordan above when he says it is a 100 to 1 against us.  My own post above is rather melancholy.

But, upon reflection, I think I am with the Anglican Paplist on this one

“No surrender. No desertion. Dig a pit for the Cross.”
in hoc signo vinces Father AP

It is within the order of the Mass that my body and soul most intensely encounters my Savior.
The Satanic agenda which threatens what is for me the BEST Christian experssion of faith angers me. ANGERS ME! And I will not quit until they pry my thurible from my cold dead fingers.

AMEN!
Time to armor ourselves with the breastplate of Righteousness and the helmet of Salvation and let them sling their spiritual weapons and lawsuits at us.  Right now in Uganda or Rwanda or Nigeria, some poor kid is being beaten, or maybe killed, because he or she won’t deny Jesus Christ.  All that is being asked of us is that we stand up to a bunch of egotistical windbags and their lawyers.
And would somebody please do me a favor, and explain to the Archbishop of Canterbury the difference between Churchill and Chamberlain.

Sarah asks:

Do we really believe that, as much as Rowan Williams agonized and hesitated over the decision to deny recognition to Bishop Robinson, that he will withdraw invitations to bishops after a primates meeting late this year?

I agree with you that if the invitation list stands, the Windsor report has been a failure or a fraud, and a complete splintering of the communion becomes enormously more likely, perhaps even certain. But I’m not as pessimistic as you are about the probability that the list will stand. Why would the ABC specifically announce that “with the recommendations of the Windsor Report particularly in mind, I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion” if he had no intention of doing so under any circumstances?

I should just give up trying to figure out the ABC. It seems to me that every time there’s a statement or an interview from him, people on both sides of the dispute say “See, he’s on our side”, and other people on both sides say equally loudly, “See, he’s on their side”. If he is trying not to take sides, he’s doing an uncommonly good job of it. Whether that is the right way to tackle the problem is another question.

Well, I think we are agreed, Sarah, on not wanting to offer anyone either false comfort or unwarranted pessimism.  I certainly do not intend to do the former and I am sure you do not intend to do the latter.  I suppose it is helpful for readers here to hear both “sides”, as it were, and come to their own decisions.  Thanks again for your comments and all of the hard work you do here at StandFirm.

Two fatal flaws with the covenant:

The most egregious is that it takes too long. Text hashed out in Lambeth 2008. Synodic discussion 2009. Approval 2010. Don’t believe it! It will be dragged out like the “listening process” of Windsor. Much too important to rush into, don’t you know. There is an interesting new reference from the statistician of the TEC on growth found here. In it, they find that the parishes most likely to be declining are the predominantly conservative ones. (In the 11 conservative dioceses, the opposite is true). There will simply be no conservatives left when the covenant comes to fruition whatever its form. And if there are no conservatives, what is that final form going to be? Most likely not casting the TEC in too harsh a light.

The second flaw is that relies much too much on the erratic ABC. Strong leaders do not leave the followers floundering asking, “What did he say?” I would have to agree with the bellicose Bruno asking for the ABC to act more like Churchill. Churchill was one of the most astute statesman, manipulating his adversaries, but he did not leave his constituency in a confused daze. The invitation list makes it clear that it is his wish to include the TEC as it stands sans one into the covenant. Yes, we will have more clarity on Sept 30th. But there is lots to point to his not changing his tune too much (e.g., his essay on reading of Romans 1.) The global south have said enough. When (not if) they don’t participate in Lambeth 08, then again, the proposed covenant will be watered down to meaninglessness.

Thus, I argue against the covenant and those who advocate it. Such advocacy hurts the orthodox cause. What we need is an Anglican province of North America, now. The covenant is a distraction.

I wish everything on the internet was as thoughtful, original and analytical as your pieces today and yesterday.

It demonstrates how much better it is (a) not to be driven by speculation - your articles assume and deal with things as they are and (b) not to be driven by one’s point of view - these two articles are remarkably objective.

Sarah, thank you for your article.  Everything hinges upon what happens among the Primates this fall.  You are absolutely right, if Windsor and the Dar es Salaam Communique is not followed, who can have any confidence in the Covenant Process?  I’m not sure the ABC has been using these only to buy time from the very start. 

I think instead TJ’s thoughts on the ABC are closer to the truth.  The ABC started these processes with true hope for an acceptable compromise, but now that this doesn’t seem possible, and he sees no way out, he does not follow through on them but instead keeps buying time, hoping some unforseen compromise might arise.  The part that hits me hardest, however, is that he has bought time not just by dragging his feet, but by lying (ie. subcomittee report to Tanzania) at critical junctures.  Our best hope for a Communion solution is in the Primates, and of course that body is not as solid as one would like.

Prior to Tanzania I believed strongly in the need for a Canterbury led communion.  After the ABC’s betrayal, I care less and less about Canterbury.  As a priest I have exactly the same concerns as Matt, I have new believers and a heretical bishop.  Without confidence in the diocesan leadership, I’m acutely aware of the danger to my flock.  If I retire tomorrow, the parish will not be allowed an orthodox rector and the faith of our new believers may very well be subverted.  Tough times indeed.

The communique of Dar es Salaam was presided over by +RDW. It is not his ‘property,’ and the fate of the communique is in the hands of those who produced it, the Instrument of Unity called The Primates Meeting. People appear to want to give more authority to +RDW and then call him ineffective; or take it away because they don’t believe in him (today). All analysis requires being minded of the balance of powers amongst the Instruments, and while that is a maturing thing, it is not without its logic. At least to my mind…

I am not precisely sure where to post this comment, but this thread is about the best fit I can find.

It occurs to me that +++Rowan’s actions in releasing the list of attendees/non-attendees now, as opposed to closer to Lambeth 2008, is akin to what in the Artillery is know as “reconnaisance by fire”.

“Reconnaisance by fire” is where you lob a few shells into a suspect position (rather than putting your forces at risk by sending in a patrol) and wait for someone/something to scream, blow up or shoot back.  When that happens you know that someone/something is there and have an idea how big and bad it is.

By posting these invitations so far in advance of Lambeth 2008, it seems that the dear ABC is probing the oppossing party’s [rhetorical] positions for signs of life and how serious they are about maintaing their positions in the face of incoming fire.

I wish him well in this endeavor, because as they say in the Army, tracers work both ways (i.e., they point out your own position as well as what you’re shooting at) and friendly fire—isn’t (no matter who shoots at you, it still hurts when you get hit).

Not really a joke:
What is the difference between Bishop Kate and the Ottoman sultan?
answer: The Sultan let the Greeks keep their churches, excepting, of course, their enormous cathedral.

I offer this by way of saying that, while I think Sarah’s analysis is now the very best stuff on the web, I have come around to thinking Nigeria, not the primates, not the GS, not CAPA, but the Church of Nigeria, is the best hope going forward. I do so reluctantly because it is an admission that institutional Anglicanism is now “antichrist” in the sense the Reformers used the term.
(Disclaimer for those who seek my life to destroy it: I am a presbyter in the Episcopal Church and I intend to remain one. I remain under lawful obedience to the bishop of my diocese insofar as I am morally capable of carrying out that obedience. )
Comparisons which have been made to 1054 are inapt.
The proper date to compare is 1453 (May 29 in fact, a few days away)
I offer the observation that, by analogy, Abuja may, and I hope will, become a “Third Rome.”
Similarly, when the English threw off the Roman yoke, there was no intention of creating an “Anglican Communion” They simply sought to properly order the affairs of their own national church, to purify, and edify it. And to keep good relations with all with whom that was possible.
If Abuja stands by their simple and eloquent statement, they admit that they have no place, no invitation, to be part of Canturbury.
It’s about time.
For my part. I will function as well as I can, understanding that the Turks are in charge, that my life, death, and continued ministry is almost entirely in the hands of people on whose suffrance I depend and over whom I have no control or influence.
Under God.
By His will and inscrutable appointment.
I am happy to know that out there, at the edge of the world, there is a great and rising power where Christ is proclaimed boldly as peerless Lord and life-giving Savior.
It is enough.
It has to be.
P.S. While it would be emotionally satisfying to have a leader like Constantine XI, who, throwing aside his purple chausable embroidered with cloth-of-gold bees, boldly launched into the hopeless fray, his bright sword flashing in the darkling light, this is not to be.
Metaphorically (I say metaphorically, folks, I wish no one ill or harm) our “emperor” will probably succumb to a cup of poisoned tea at one of his endless “listening” sessions.
So it ends, not with a bang but a whimper.
P.P.S. short term pessimism and long term optimism seems to me to be the normal state of affairs for Christians, so I guess these are “normal” times, despite all the hand-wringing. To God be the Glory, now and forever.

It seems to me that Rowan has actually - for the first time - given himeself a real hammer. By asking for responses before September 30th he makes everyone say “yes I want to come” - despite conditions they don’t like. Then he can - if the Primates decide to - withdrawl the invitation. Makes it very hard to say “I really didn’t want to go anyway”. Now what has this done - The global south’s position is clear - particularly if they stand as a group - they can say we won’t come. Then if conditions change they can change their mind and will be welcomed back. This works best if Nigeria’s response is out there and everyone else responds with a private phone call to ABC. This requires a group response. ECUSA is in a much more difficult position - can they really say “Without Robinson we won’t come” - that would be the principled stand but I doubt they will do it. They will accept without Him (on the hope that he will come as a guest?). Now what happens if the Primates meet after ECUSA rejects all of DAS and decides to withdraw some invitations? They no longer have a principled response. They are the ones backed into a corner. Strategically - this is a very good move. Maybe even good poker…..

For a broader perspective on what is happening in world wide Anglicanism, I recommend reading though what Phillip Jenkins has to say in the Pew Forum article over on T19.
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/3134/
It’s not dated, although clearly the forum took place before the Lambeth invitations went out.  Still, the broader perspective on Anglicanism gives some reasons for optimism for the work of Christ in the world than we have been getting from the microcosm of TEC.  His demographics also support much of the speculation here on the sort of numbers TEC will have 10 or 20 years down the road.
PS- I seem to recall reading some of this before- I was thinking here on SF- but couldn’t find a “local” link to it.

Thank you Paul, you have said (much better) what I was planning on saying/asking this morning.  After the roller coaster ride from July, 03 up until now, this poker game that you have posited is about all we have left to hope for for the AC….

Okay, now I have to protest something on the “other side”, so to speak—this comment here: “And you are no doubt right, as is Jordan above when he says it is a 100 to 1 against us.”

Yikes!  I do not think I said that and I think that Jordan was merely quoting someone else.

I am not a betting woman, but I would put our odds at more like 40/60.

I think the upper hand is with the revisionists still—but hey, I knew that back in 03. 

But you know what?  If it were my life, and the physician just told me that the disease might well kill me at 60:40 in favor of the disease, I think I’d be saying “what’s the treatment, doc—I’m game for trying to add another case study to the research on the side of the “40”!”

If I didn’t believe we had a fighting chance, I’d say so.  But the words are “fighting” and “chance”. 

For the sake of Anglicanism and the Communion . . . I’ll take those odds!

Now that’s what I like to hear, Sarah! 

“Keep in mind, too, that I came to this conclusion over a three-year process of carefully observing and researching “what’s out there”—and I have to say, my discoveries, experiences, and observations were shockingly negative—something that I was quite unprepared for.

Sarah, you are analytical and honest. However, looking back at your statements three years ago at the beginning of your study, is it possible that you entered into the process with an intellectual predisposition against the “outsider” churches that were emerging and thus the possibility of a successful non-Canterbury rebirth?  We all know of ten or so large non-TEC Anglican churches with a demonstrated growth profile.  Were they among your negative experiences?  Admittedly, they are a drop in the bucket nationally and they are not located in the hinterlands.  But could they not become a prototype?  Look at the PCA’s growth.

Jordan, your citation of Fr. Radner in support of the “stay and fight” strategy is confusing to me. Fr. Radner wrote extensively and persuasively about the insider strategy, at one time calling the Global South interventions unhelpful.  Yet after the recent HOB meeting, even he concluded “there is clearly no real place left for conservative Christians within TEC’s official structures” and stating that those who remained in TEC would “have no directional place and probably future in this church.”  He also called for the Communion to “withdraw indefinitely its invitations to participate in general councils, such as Lambeth, the ACC, and the Primates’ Meeting” , something of course the PB has now rejected.

I certainly do not at all think the survivability of Anglicanism is tied to Cantebury. While the title “Anglican Communion” may, necessarily, be something tied to Canterbury, anglicanism is not. If these invitations stand as they do currently, I certainly hope that Anglicanism will move south leaving the Canterbury based Anglican Communion “Anglican” in name only.

But I don’t think that the CofE will for one minute wear the ‘Road to Lambeth’ hardline agenda.
And I don’t think that agenda is particularly ‘Anglican’ in the sense of the tradition of tthe English church - and that by definition is what Anglicanism is. if the Nigerians wish to transform it into a fundamentalist church, then clearly they will move away from the broad-church tradition in England.

Put it like this - the name says it all. Anglican. English.

It’s probably past time for a new name.

I submit that the old one has long outlived both its usefulness and its accuracy.

Well I pray that MM will become an Anglican will become an Anglican or even a Christian but I think as a church the CofE is as diverse as anywhere else.  I do know one thing: having seen what is going on in TEC, we don’t want to go there.

Thats the point, pageantmaster - it is very diverse - and much of it could not sign up to Akinola’s way forward. I’d say no more than about 20%. Can you seriously see the CofE agreeing to ban gay people in relationships from receiving Communion? Particularly given the recent Synod debate where a majority again stressed their wish for gay and lesbian laity to be fully involved in the church?

Well we could have a debate about what did or did not happen at Synod and bore the poor bloggers rigid but the presenting issues in the Communion are not about that. 

I am not sure that the Nigerians are what you call Fundamentalist having read Jenkings piece which makes it clear that it is so much more complex in Africa.

I’m not so sure. If the leadership of the Communion shifts to Nigeria et al, I can’t see the CofE as a body wanting to follow. Some will, but most won’t.

And it seems to me that the presenting issues are very much about where ther Communion as a whole is going. Do you seriously think there would be majority support for the ‘Road to Lambeth’ within the CofE?

‘Road to Lambeth’ is for CAPU.  Not sure all the GS would be happy to tootle off to Abuja either.

No, I meant the theological assumptions and practical implications.

Well that’s another thread, but I suspect most of the CofE would be perfectly comfortable visiting a Nigerian Church and might well learn something.

I still don’t know what to think about the invites.  They blindsided many and I’ve always found that that is what the Spirit does, so I pray that He is still involved with this church.

Prayer time.

Timothy,

I can’t speak for Dr. Radner.  But as I understand it, he is just as committed now to Communion decisions for Communion problems as he has been all along.  However, I think you’re right to detect a development in his thought as to what that likely will mean for the Episcopal Church as it is now constituted.  I think he sees it as rather unlikely that ECUSA will eventually sign on to the Covenant.  (Although obviously he hopes that they will do so.)  That means that ECUSA is on its way (if it keeps its present course) to lose its status as the full instantiation of the Anglican Communion in this country.  And that means that the Windsor Bishops and the Pastoral Scheme will likely first develop into a church-in-embryo and second become the official Anglican Communion presence.

That is what I understand to be the logic of the “inside” strategy, on the assumption that ECUSA will not decide to meet the primatial requests by Sept. 30th.  If they do, then the situation is changed, but that at present looks unlikely. 

This also assumes that the Primates’ Meeting is interested to maintain its authority as an Instrument of Communion; hence that the HoB’s impending rejection of the Tanzania requests will be met with consequences.  Many people on this site disagree with this assumption.  I do not, nor do a good number of observers whom I have come to trust.

Another point in favor of this strategy is what I see as its confluence with the intentions of most of the Global South.  While Archbishop Akinola does of course have a certain amount of influence, it seems to me that Archbishop Gomez is more representative.  (Really.)  From what we know of the Dar es Salaam meeting, it seems to be that the more separationist line taken by +Akinola actually did not meet with universal approbation from the other GS primates, who themselves were more willing to continue with the Covenant process.  It also seems to be the case that the dioceses and parishes in this country contemplating pursuing oversight from GS provinces are not uniformly attracted to Nigeria; and that these other GS provinces are more willing than Nigeria to view such oversight relationships as a temporary measure under the umbrella of a long-term Communion-based strategy related to Canterbury. 

All of which, along with other reasons, leads me to think that Communion decisions are the best way to solve Communion problems, and hence the best way to maintain both unity and orthodoxy so much as is possible.

P.S.—I am also not convinced by the claim that the Windsor process has not produced any discipline.  Many thought that before Tanzania but Tanzania indicates otherwise.  ECUSA was given specific requests, a firm deadline, and a promise of consequences.  The recent Lambeth invitations should not be interpreted so as to change that.  The recent comments by Archbishop Gomez (appointed by +Williams as leader of the Covenant process) in the C of E newspaper in my interpretation underscore his resolve in this matter. His is a very firm resolve that does not excuse the behavior of ECUSA and promises consequences, while at the same time does not envision solutions outside of the bounds of Communion life and the ongoing Covenant process.

RE: “However, looking back at your statements three years ago at the beginning of your study, is it possible that you entered into the process with an intellectual predisposition against the “outsider” churches that were emerging and thus the possibility of a successful non-Canterbury rebirth?  We all know of ten or so large non-TEC Anglican churches with a demonstrated growth profile.  Were they among your negative experiences?”

Hi Timothy—in answer to your first question, no it is not possible as I began my exploration with a strong bias *towards* “outsider” churches.

To answer your second question, when I refer to “my discoveries, experiences, and observations were shockingly negative” I did not mean to merely mean “raw numbers of people”—I meant that in a more holistic way.

Still, your examples merely fall right into my point, stated in the article:

“Should the Anglican Communion fracture, with provinces pulling out, I believe that in the U.S. we will see two separate, non-thriving Anglican entities. ECUSA will exist—non-thriving—centered around a few clusters of already established large churches and in a few large urban “liberal” areas like Seattle, New York, part of California, and Washington DC. The rural ECUSA parishes—or those that are in mid-sized towns in more conservative areas of the U.S.—will die. In my own diocese, my rough estimate of Episcopal parishes is that fully 1/3 are in the process of dying right now. The people have simply left and gone to other denominations. Of course, we will always have some nice large parishes in big cities . . . but those cities will increasingly be “islands”, and all around the “islands” the seas will grow and spread.

In reverse, I believe that the same thing will happen in the U.S. for reasserting non-ECUSA Anglicanism uncoupled from a Communion center. Traditional Anglicanism will exist, centered around a few clusters of already established large churches and in a few large urban “conservative” areas—like Falls Church, Virginia and Plano Texas.”

At any rate, I think that you may be making too much of my “predictive belief”.  It is a firmly held calculated belief.  And I think there are plenty of other “communion conservatives” who, if they leave, will be basing their church decisions on the same sort of calculation.  In fact, I would not be surprised if there were not clusters of “Federal Conservatives” out there who recognize what I am talking about with a start of uneasy recognition.

But—I could be wrong!  I think we’ll know, should I make it to a ripe old age.  ; > )  Please contact me, if you are alive then.

Okay, now I have to protest something on the “other side”, so to speak—this comment here: “And you are no doubt right, as is Jordan above when he says it is a 100 to 1 against us.”

Yikes!  I do not think I said that and I think that Jordan was merely quoting someone else.

I am not a betting woman, but I would put our odds at more like 40/60

Sarah,
Sorry (or should I say “Yikes!”), I did not mean to imply that you were a gamblin’ woman.  I guess I will have to confess to a “lack of clarity” and what I should have done was to say “I agree with your assessment of the situation” and put a period after that.  Then gone on to quote Jordan, and made clear that he was using the “100-1” as a rather extreme example.  But, as frequently happens to me when I am blogging, my keyboard was going faster than my brain, and obviously I wasn’t clear.  Still, your assessment as presented in the essay was pretty bleak.  But assessment aside, you have been a leader in this fight, and I have no illusion that you will be giving up anytime soon.
I hope the point I was trying to make in the body of my remarks came though.  I do not think it time to surrender, regardless of what the odds are.  Surrender has no point.  We are assured of victory in the end.  Whether in our lifetimes or in a thousand generations, I don’t know.  The internal politics of TEC or the AC won’t make much difference in the end.  Christ will come again in Glory.  Our job is to do our best to prepare the way for Him.

Sarah, even your 40-60 odds don’t discourage me.  Your assessment of the courage of Archbishop Akinola at Dar es Salaam was absolutely accurate.  My only point of disagreement with you (and my reason for some optimism) is my absolute certainty that Archbishop Akinola will not be alone.  I don’t know how many other primates will be with him, but we can with confidence count on the likes of Archbishops Orombi, Nzimbi, Kolini, Gomez, etc.  A new province in North America will emerge and it’s health and future will depend on the faithfulness of our God.  Dreaming?  Maybe.  Praying?  Yes.

OK, Sarah, I agree to come back to this site in fifty years, if my eyesight allows.  If I am right, and you are wrong, you will have **** to pay!

Sarah,

I think your article demonstrates the importance of moving from a localized Anglicanism based in Canterbury to one that, while local, is founded upon a confession. that would prevent the “what is good for the goose is good for the gander” sort of trade-off you envision above. South Africa might recieve an expelled VGR or KJS, but if there were a real confession in place, adherance to which determined your Communion status, the reception would be meaningless.

The “Signposts on the Anglican Way” statement just released in Singapore (Kendall Harmon posted the article yesterday, and it is at the Anglican Communion site as well as a small summary here http://northernplainsanglicans.blogspot.com/ ) proposes four marks of Anglicanism.
For this thread, the interesting one is “Ordered for Communion.” It connects the three orders of ordained ministry, the Instruments of Unity as currently existing, and various international ministries (the Mothers Union is noted specifically).
I identify with Sarah’s warning/observation that congregationalism is taking place.  One of the temptations in this whole mess, especially for isolated reasserter congregations, is to just keep on keeping on (and that is certainly the predisposition of many lay people where I am). 
I really long to be part of something greater.  The church is not me or my personality.  The church is not my orthodoxy.  I want to excite my people about apostolic visits, read them pastoral letters from orthodox, missionary leaders and connect them with brothers and sisters in Christ around the world.
Those things might seem like abstractions when a congregation is doing well (and ours is doing very well).  Lay people will always ask, “Why mess with success?”  Leadership is hard that way…even harder when the denomination is hostile and not worth the investment of effort.  Orthodox oversight would be such a blessing.
I don’t need the road to lead to Canterbury, but I need it to lead somewhere past myself.  I need to minister under the gift of Apostolic leadership (Ephesians 4), and the mere structure (to use David Ould’s term) is not enough for me.  I want the Apostolic message as well.

Jordan Hylden writes:

I am also not convinced by the claim that the Windsor process has not produced any discipline.  Many thought that before Tanzania but Tanzania indicates otherwise.  ECUSA was given specific requests, a firm deadline, and a promise of consequences.

“Son, this time we really mean it.” This is not discipline as any parent knows. As pointed by Fathers Kendall, Matt, and Geof point out in their roundtable discussions, the ABC’s invitations diffuse the situation. They are an attempt to avoid discipline of the TEC, yet again.

One of the signs of family dysfunction is when the parents talk too much, and do too little. The Anglican Communion has reached that point.

I still think that much will happen before Lambeth.  Thinking things through, one possibility, it seems to me, is that the global south will draw its own conclusions from this, and takes its own actions.  And what conclusion might they draw?  Well, it is evident that there has been no protection of the orthodox coming from the ABC.  And now, we have an undercutting of the primates as a whole.  The panel of reference useless, and the WR, and dromantine and DES communiques - essentially the will of the primates - all undercut by the invitation of TEC.  No visible promotion of the PV and PC scheme by the ABC, only apparent acceptance of the HoB’s rejection.  There is some nod to the invitiation list not being final, and maybe the HoB will have its own proposal back to the ABC, but ultimately, the well of trust has gone dry, and actions speak louder than words. 

So what might the global south primates do in this situation?  Well, consider that they now likely have concluded that (1) whatever the primates seek to do as a group, the ABC will not implement, (2) the ABC will not offer protection for the orthodox in the US, (3) there is little communion-wide consequence for anything that a province may do, and (4) the ABC appears to believe (as does TEC) that the global south will blink.  In the absence of action, then, might the global south primates meet after September 30 and stand up a new province in the US?  Unilaterally declare it so and order their actions accordingly?  What would the ABC do, not recognize it?  He already has effectively done so by not extending invitations.  Disinvite those primates and their other bishops from Lambeth?  On what grounds?  They probably weren’t going to go anyway.  Or maybe the global south primates will show up and change the agenda.  Or maybe the ABC will call a special primates meeting to deal with it and issue a communique.  Somehow, though, I don’t think the ABC is going to get any letters that say “I resign from the communion” over this.  He is just going to get more primates doing their own thing, and he can accept it or reject it.  So far, he has managed to encourage TEC acting independently.  He can blame no one but himself if the global south do not see things as forcing them to unilateral action as well.  At any number of points, he may have prevented it. 

I don’t really know.  I have no inside information.  Maybe the global south will blink (though I don’t think that is the way to bet).  I just sense that the ABC sought to put others in the situation of having to decide to exclude themselves, but his course has instead freed up the global south to do as they will and put the onus on him to divide the communion or not by rejecting or accepting what they do.

These many tens of thousands of words written on these many threads are really about “how much is enough!” We overly rejoice in the slightest positive, write volumes on the negatives, try to squeeze the last nuance out of various sayings and communications of Bishops, +KJS, +Rowan, etc., BUT “how much is enough.” Like being sick in bed, although you can watch TV and read, sooner or later you get tired of it. We all look to ‘those held higher’ (like SFIF Staff) for any signs of movement. We may all have our own limits, but the gates will open and folks will flee TEC, make no mistake, they will flee, and then the flood will start. It’s a trickle now, but getting stronger.

“In my own area, should the Anglican Communion fracture, I will leave my Episcopal parish and—like the majority in my area who have left ECUSA—will find another, non-Anglican entity in which to worship and learn and grow.”

“But like you said, it wouldn’t quite be right to call it Anglican.  It would be something else.  Perhaps not a bad something else, but something else all the same.  If whatever it was decided to bill itself as the “real” Anglican Communion, in contradistinction to the “Canterbury” Anglican Communion and the “liberal ECUSA and friends” Anglican Communion and the Anglo-Catholic Anglican Communion and the Reformed Anglican Communion—well, who are we kidding by that point.  Like you, I don’t feel that I’d want any part of it.  Probably at that point, I’d take a page out of Radner’s book, stay where I am, and just try to be faithful in whatever broken part of Christ’s church I happen to find myself a part of.”

<b>Why?  Sort of a Gotterdammerung attitude isn’t it?  Anglicans aren’t worthy to survive if the Canterbury led Communion fractures?

I understand why Episcopalians are angry at what is happening to their communion.  I don’t understand why that anger seems to extend to those who intend to live past the inevitable breakup.

When I read things like the quotes above it seems like an attack on my parish which has just celebrated this past September 30 years of existence apart from Canterbury.  We have thought ourselves to be Anglicans for all of that time and certainly not congregationalists, as we have been under the jurisdiction of the Anglican Catholic Church.  Indeed we could not have survived with out that stable hierarchy from which to draw clergy, and the guidance of a college of bishops to maintain doctrinal orthodoxy through a set of canons.

Anyone in the Atlanta area is welcome to come to our parish and see for themselves as to whether or not we are authentic Anglicans.<b>

Anglicancatholicpriest, I can’t speak for the second quote, since I did not write it—that was a comment by Jordan Hylden.

Therefore, I did not state that “Anglicans aren’t worthy to survive if the Canterbury led Communion fractures” nor did I indicate any anger at all towards those who are happily ensconsed in alternate Anglican entities nor did I opine that those Anglicans outside of the Communion were not “authentic” Anglicans.

The only thing that I stated was that I would be in a non-Anglican entity, once I leave the Communion.  I have written about the reasons for that decision extensively in numerous places on this blog.

I hope that this clarifies the distinction between the two comments you quoted above.

“Should the actions of Canterbury remain precisely the same, with no alteration, and ECUSA’s status remain precisely the same, with no alteration, we are living in the final days of a unified Anglican Communion.” SH - I believe this to be true.

Second, of course, we cannot actually *know* that the Holy Spirit has “left the building”....

I am surpised that I here this more and more. I think that we a christians are called to be every bit diligent about how God works, where his blessings fall, and our being in God’s will or out of it. (Of course I probably need to preface my comments that the majority of us are/were Episcopalians, and in the last 30 years there has been a decreasing emphasis on study and application of scripture.) It found it very, very interesting that Kenadll Harmon in his Denver talks quickly mentioned Jeremiah. It is a very timely study for our time as I think it lays out the case that the Holy Spirit (God’s active agent on earth) may have left the Episcopal Church (i.e. building). I find many parallels. Just to quote a bit from an OT Bible study I led:
Calvin wrote, “… Jeremiah had almost a continual contest; for the fiercest antagonists immediately presented themselves, whenever he threatened the people either with exile or with famine, or with any other judgment of God.”  Matthey Henry says the people are listening to false prophets who, “…encourage men to expect peace and salvation, without repentance,faith, conversion, and holiness of life.”  Sound familar?  Why would/do people believe such lies? Just two points for consideration:
1. The deliverance of Jerusalem from the Assyrians led to the “dogma of the inviolability of Zion”. The people and prophets believed that God would always under all circumstances protect the city of Jerusalem and the Temple, and that the promise of Isaiah to Hezekiah was a timeless and unconditional one. Jeremiah’s message that was precisely the opposite of Isaiah’s - the city of Jerusalem and the temple would fall to the Babylonians (Jeremiah 7:1-11). An example of this is found in Jeremiah 28, where the false prophet Hananiah quotes the words of Isaiah 10 to him with full confidence. However, Hananiah failed to consider the fact that protection was conditional (Hezekiah repented and eliminated religious beliefs) and therefore the message from God might be different. As Matthew Henry says, “Those who do not declare the alarming as well as the encouraging parts of God’s word, and call men to repentance, and faith, and holiness, tread in the steps of the false prophets.”  Lastly, it is even possible that these prophets were later disciples of Isaiah who were trying to preserve a tradition for its own sake without “standing in the council” of God (Jeremiah 23:21-22). Sort of rings a bell, huh?
2.  Israel has become accustomed to false religious and foreign cultural practices due to their subjugation by foreign powers. There were many cultures and voices drawing them from God that attempts to change/reform their practices had failed. Any parallels here?

Now, do I believe you can be faithful in practice in TEC and have the Holy Spirit move in you? Yes, just a Jeremiah was faithful. Do I believe the Holy Spirit has left the building? Yes.