Breaking: Church of Uganda will not Attend Lambeth (if current invitations stand)

I’m glad ++Orombi is standing strong. I’m sad it looks like ECUSA problems will become truly a global issue and divide the Communion.

I wonder if this is wise.  Seems to me that a number of principled Windsor bishops didn’t turn up to the HOB leading to the pragmatic having open season on their brethren.

If principled provinces stay away from Lambeth, many will sign with releif; it gives the pragmatic a clear field to foist an ACC governing body on the rest of us under a Covenant or what ever else they are up to.

Stay and fight your corner gentlemen!

sigh not sign

The church in Uganda has deep friendships with the churches in Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, and Kenya because they all were part of the East African Revival of the 1930’s.  They still celebrate the Revival.  Uganda’s actions will impact the others.

Turn up - its not going to be a Hug-in.

Stay away. The Church is not some sort of European legislature where heresy and orthodoxy stand together in some neutral category and rightness is determined by power differentials. The very fact that bishops who deny the bodily resurrection, the virgin birth and the second coming will be present is a travesty, not to mention Lambeth 1.10. If the invitations stand Canterbury has lost the ability to discipline and has, therefore, ceased to bear the marks of the Chruch. It will, indeed, have become a parliment of heretics.

Pragmatism is always the more effective stand-but you lose the moral high ground.  I appreciate ++Orombi taking this stand and sticking with it.  I would still like to see Uganda represented though.

BTW, Matt+ on a thread a while back you mentioned that you were leaving TEC.  Where to?  Or did I misread that.

I, too, agree with Uganda’s decision.  And it’s good that they are dispelling any illusions right now that they will attend anyway.

+++Rowan will have something to think about on his sabbatical.

+++Rowan will have something to think about on his sabbatical.

I find it impossible to believe that ++Rowan has not already foreseen this.

I agree with Matt. TEC’s presence at Lambeth would be an endorsement of heresy and, as Orombi has pointed out, a clear sign that the requirements of the Windsor Report have been binned.

To turn up would be to recognise them and their right to be there and thus to deny all we have fought for.

This statement is superb news across the board.

First, the statement is the right theological position, for the reasons Matt stated supra.

Second, if the ABC’s invitations reveal his intention never to discipline TEC, the statement will make clear to the ABC, and to the C of E, what they will be losing by joining TEC.

Third, if the invitations are the ABC’s maneuver to pressure TEC into complying with the Dar communique, or disinviting themselves, this statement strengthens the ABC’s hand when he meet our HoB in September.

One of the earlier readers commented that if the liberal American bishops had any spine, that would stay home in solidarity with VGR. Between the Americans and the GS, we all know whose spines are made of stronger stuff. I argued in link, that Rowan Williams has implicitly dis-invited the GS community by his early invitations.

RW has said that he would leave the decision on who comes to Lambeth up to the primates. He then preempted his own statement with the early invitations to everyone. What the GS primates need to do is hold RW to his word and make the price of admission to Lambeth ‘08 to be acceptance of Lambeth 1.10 and the first two items of the DeS communique (no ordinations of actively homosexual bishops or blessings of SSUs).

Christopher Seitz pointed out that the importance of Lambeth ‘08 was the discussion of the covenant. Now, I am not a big fan of the covenant (too little, to late by the time of final acceptance in 2011 or beyond). But if the Americans participate in Lambeth 08 and the GS don’t, the final wording of the covenant would read something like, “Everyone should love each other, and do what they feel best. Have a nice day.”

Understand that Fr. Matt but it gives the loonies a clear field to take over the asylum.

Pageantmaster,

If the invitations stand, they already have.

Matt:  you beat me to it.  Couldnt log-in quick enough.  Thanks.

Brian,

We are still negotiating so I am not at liberty to answer your question at this point.

They are a small bunch of aged baby-boomers, now in positions of power trying to keep peddling the discredited theology of the 60’s and 70’s.  They are out of touch and need to be resisted as firmly as they fight with venom and with canons.

IMHO

Excuse me,  but… My Bishop ROCKS!

Pageantmaster:

If this were a business meeting, then you would be correct.  However, how much time have we wasted trying to be politically savvy in the Kindgom of God?  And what REALLY has it bought us - especially in this corrupt denomination?  It’s like a course in “How to waste your time, weaken your witness, and loose your vision 101”. 

I think this is the point of Jesus’ parable about the unjust servant - he was REALLY politically savvy - but he was STILL corrupt to the core.  Jesus makes the statement that this is the ‘wisdom’ of the world - and I think avoiding it at all costs is a good plan.

If this story is accurate in describing Lambeth, then they certainly will not miss much by staying away.  It is disturbing how inculturated and worldly the discussion issues are.

How sad that the AC has fallen so far - I am tempted to compare it with civic minded, secular charities…

Matt:

Will keep you in prayer - know that’s not a fun place to be. 

However, as a priest friend of ours said, “Once you get to the other side, the sense of freedom is overwhelming.”  So, long dark tunnels - but there are an end to them.

Fr Matt

I also - so sorry it has come to this.

GB

The Road to Lambeth CAPA document is far more severe than Windsor.  It demands “repentance” on the part of TEC, not “regret” as stated by Windsor and, I believe, the removal of Robinson, not a promise not to consecrate more gays as bishops.  Unfortunately, I think that Orombi’s stand makes it very difficult for Windsor compliant” bishops and all others in the Communion.  They now know that Windsor is not enough.  The measure of Communion is CAPA’s.  If they live in Asia or Central America, they had no input into the framing of this document.  And they can reasonably question how, or if, their voices will be heard in the Anglican Communion of the GS. 

Another signal? According to a recent new article:

“Mr Abraham Yisa, Board Chairman of CANA , who was in the U.S. three weeks ago to attend the enthronement of Minns told NAN “that Canterbury had no right to choose who goes to the Lambeth or not’‘.

If not he, who then?  I am also wondering about the consensus of the meeting of Central American and Carribean bishops reaffirming their Costa Rican position, opting for unity and neither end of the GS/GN polarization.  Will Gomez emerge out of this as the new voice of communion conservatives, vs +Akinola or +Orombi?

Burundi and Tanzania are not at all likely to ‘do what Uganda’ does, even if one believes Uganda is in fact staying away. I think it is far too early to know who will be definitively invited. +RDW has allowed himself room to take counsel and the TEC is still under observation by the Primates. It is unsurprising that, given all that is at stake, the upcoming months will be critical. This is the first time the Communion has had to work out the relationship between one Instrument (+Canterbury) and the desire by that same instrument to work within the Primates Meeting ang give it enhanced authority, rightly. Desire to pull these two apart is shared by parties at opposite ends of the spectrum. In either case, the Communion would collapse. I guess I am more hopeful than many in believing that the majority of the Primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury will join up and show the way forward. That is what has been happening thus far. Warnings from Uganda and Nigeria are important. Departures and/or elimination of Canterbury as an Instrument of Unity, however, would have major ecumenical fallout. People on extreme ends of the spectrum focus primarily on TEC and yet what is at stake, finally, is the Anglican Communion as a providentially located, catholic, evangelical missionary movement with important ecumenical work to do.

Archbishop Orombi is a Lion of the Faith.  After the sorry performance of Rowan Williams, does anyone seriously think that any Anglican Covenant would be of any more use than the Windsor Report has been ?  Exactly HOW has the Windsor Report affected who has been invited to Lambeth 2008 ?  Has the “Windsor Process” ultimately made any difference ?  Unless the GS Primates override the Cantaur invitation list, going to Lambeth will be a totally useless waste of time.  It is time to cut ourselves loose from Rowan Williams and move forward with a restored Anglican Leadership of Godly Primates.  And although we are not under his oversight, Henry Orombi continues to stand at the very highest pinnacle of our respect and admiration.

Emily:

“Windsor compliant” bishops - there is no such thing - all we have here are a majority of bishops who are TEC compliant.  You wait and see most of them are going to troop right along after Head Lemming Shori right off the cliff of apostasy (OK, that was a very silly analogy - but a great mental vision).

If not he, who then?

I have an idea - why don’t the people who actually WANT to follow Jesus and His Commands go - as a criteria - that will take TEC right out of the mix…  Seems to me, this IS the ultimate criteria for going or not.

Eclipse - I rather think it is a business meeting, although dressed up as a holy huddle with its wacky Zulu small groups.  Business as was Dar.  If the GS had not turned up to Dar what would have happened?

It is important not to allow the ACO to set the agenda.  People should sign up to Lambeth by 31 July, withdrawing later if it necessary.  If the plan is not to call a primates meeting as previously promised, perhaps the primates will consider calling one themselves, Lambeth or ACO notwithstanding.

FWIW

In November 2003, after I was told by my local TEC parish to bow the knee to VGR or get out (effectively telling me to get out), I visited my old parish in California (St. Luke’s of the Mountains, now under Ugandan jurisdiction and out of TEC, being sued for its property).

During that visit, Abp. Orombi (then “Fr. Henry” to us) bear hugged me and told me it would all work out. My priest had told Fr. Henry my story, so I guess I was one of the early American witnesses on all of this.

I believed Abp. Orombi then, and I believe him now. He is indeed a lion of the faith, and I look forward to partying with him in heaven some day. How wonderful to know that he has “chosen this day whom he will serve,” and he will serve Christ!!!!!!

++Orombi and others are simply making clear the obvious truth which the Continuing Church movement recognized decades ago—to wit, the “Anglican Communion”, as currently constituted, is an empty shell and not worth the sacrifice of theology and souls required to stay “in” it. Look at the cesspit which TEc has become—and how it has strangled and corrupted traditionalists who have stayed with it for the sake of “being in the Anglican communion”, while the mainline Continuing churches (APCK, ACC, UEC, ACA) have, despite their current jurisdictional divisions, remained solid on Christian belief and Anglican practice.

++Akinola rightly observes that Lambeth has become nothing more than an “episcopal jamboree” with heretics and apostates welcomed into fellowship and driving endless “discussions” and “listening” to hoodwink traditionalists and continue to push the poly-sexual anti-Christian modern agenda.

As the past decades have shown, any partly traditionalist or orthodox resolutions passed there will simply be selectively ignored by the apostates and unenforced by the ABC—so there really is no point in going.

The fact that the ABC will not do anything to enforce the mind of the Communion, the fact that flagrant ignoring and abandonment of past agreements has no consequences, means that ++Orombi and others have rightly judged that further attendence is not merely pointless, but downright counterproductive to the mission of the Gospel and genuine Anglicanism.

pax,
LP

He has Brian, he has. What he now needs are the rest of the GS provinces to state their support of “The Road to Lambeth” paper and declare their non attendance at the 2008 Jamboree. What is now needed is for Ft. Worth, Quincy, San Jose, Pittsburgh and the ACN to follow through on locating a new Province for 9/30. What is now needed is for some of the Windsor Dioceses to begin that same process. Give +++Rowan these essential things and look to the future with some confidence. He is a referee in this process, not the prime mover. He has craft and guile aplenty, but needs the backbone we can give him.

I doubt that the Windsor Dioceses will do much until TEC is dis invited or the communion breaks up this October. They have too much fondness for an old love that can never be rekindled, the Episcopal Church. When they see what a shrieking harridan their great love has become, that reform is impossible, they will abandon her to her diseased madness and do what they should have done years ago. Their moral feebleness precludes them leading but they could be good followers. I feel better as the days pass. Even if +++Rowan is a closet revisionist, the sheer numbers of those holding the line as the tiny TEC walks off will be his excuse.

Again, I still wonder if those of you who are on the way out TEC’s doors BEFORE there is anything really in place except the alphabet soup of the continuum are acting precipitously.  At one point, Sarah said if TEC isn’t disciplined (or, as it now seems may happen, the Communion disintegrates), a viable orthodox Anglican voice would disappear from North America, since most people are going to go to the nearest nondenominational-Pentecostal-Methodist-Presbyterian-Baptist-Roman Catholic church that they share basic Christian orthodoxy with.  In other words, if you’re gonna jump ship, it helps to have another vessel nearby or else you will die in the freezing waters of the North Atlantic.  And my friends, if the alphabet soup of the continuum were viewed as viable vessels to swim to, a significantly larger number of refugees would have flooded there already, and there would be more genuine cooperation and movement toward a unified Anglicanism than we see now.  As it is, the three strongest CANA, AMiA, and REC are nonstarters because the first two should have merged already to produce more strength in numbers for what is lacking in perceived legitimacy by quite a few (not just in the revisionist camp, I might add), and the last one has been relatively stagnant since it formed over 100 years ago, thus not very compelling as an alternative.  And the rest all appear quite sickly, camping out on the territory they staked out after St. Louis, when they should have joined forces and been proactive as in mission as much as they were proactive about women’s ordination and the 1928 prayer book.

Additionally, none of these groups is equipped to help middle of the road congregations who are basically trapped by lawsuits if they want out, or radical revisionism if they stay.  Frankly, they don’t have the stomach, spiritual maturity, and energy to take a stand.  Old standbys will stay till they die and buried in the churchyard, young families will go to Our Lady of the First Baptist Firebaptized Fellowship Community down the road, and the moderate-leaning orthodox will be hung out to dry in the desert of liberal theology. 

It makes me sick that no one is doing this thing right!  Be bold, take TEC back, even if it is a reconstituted one and we have to fight for the name.  Enough canons have been broken by the revisionists that we can honestly say they are no longer legitimately representative of TEC and we can have an extraordinary convention of the willing to kick the bums out and start over.

Let’s also remember that if the Ugandan bishops are not attending, that means that Sandy Miller, the Ugandan bishop in the Diocese of London, will not be attending either. He is a Bishop of Uganda working as the Assistant Bishop of London. And he was appointed as such will the full support and blessing of ABC. That will make for very interesting discussions in the Diocese of London HoB.

And another thing, if we’re all now supposed to give up and run for the hills, then why the hell do we even bother blogging here, shut the sight down and let Sarah keep the profits for her book.

Zoomdaddy,

Cut it with the condescending references to Baptists and other evangelical denominations. Anglicans have absolutely no standing to look down our noses at any Christian body. We are the ones with the multitude of non-celibate gay clerics and gaggles goddess worshippers. Talk about planks in the eye.

An Archbishop (with the unanimous backing of his Church’s House of Bishops) says he is going to do something, then puts in writing that he is going to do something, then spends the next year reaffiming this statement, then when push comes to shove, he actually does what he’s been saying he would do.  And now many people seem surprised.  I think that demonstrates the problem with TEC in a nutshell. A bishop actually doing what he says he is going to do is so strange to us that when one actually takes action consistent with his words, we are stunned.  Regardless of their stands on the issues, if all the bishops (or even more than half) in this church had the character of Abp. Orombi, we would not be in the mess we are in.  I am going to trust that when all is said and done, he will do what is best for the Church of Uganda and for the Anglican Communion.  I will pray for the Church of Uganda.  I will pray for the Anglican Communion.  The one “opinion” I will state on whether or not Uganda should go to Lambeth, and under what circumstances is this:  A man who speaks the truth can discern the true will of the Holy Spirit, one who prevaricates cannot.  Henry Orombi speaks the truth.  When Lambeth opens, whether he is there or not, I think he will have made the right decision.

They have too much fondness for an old love that can never be rekindled, the Episcopal Church. When they see what a shrieking harridan their great love has become, that reform is impossible, they will abandon her to her diseased madness and do what they should have done years ago. Their moral feebleness precludes them leading but they could be good followers.

Brilliant and spot on! ! !

Father Kennedy,

I reread Zoomdaddy’s comments and I did not see a swipe - merely he listed where Anglicans are going because there is no real unified Anglican alternative - in fact it appeared his comments were favorable as to their orthodoxy.  If there was a swipe it was very inside baseball or may have been unintentional.

Well, if all Lambeth is going be is a gigantic “group hug”, everybody should just stay home and play with their crystals or whatever. It would save a lot of money and aggravation.

the snarkster

Yeah, Matt, didn’t see Zoom being condescending. AND I really like the idea of holding a special convention and making big declarations about the location of the real church. I know it will never happen, but its an impressive idea.
But even so, I see no reason for real Anglicanism to die in America. If we all agree in advance that it will die, well, then, of course it will die. But, what if we tried believing and trusting in God to grow something beautiful.

If I misunderstood you Zoomdaddy, I apologize…I thought you were mocking with this phrase:

Our Lady of the First Baptist Firebaptized Fellowship Community

Dr. Seitz, re:

This is the first time the Communion has had to work out the relationship between one Instrument (+Canterbury) and the desire by that same instrument to work within the primates meeting and give it enhanced authority, rightly. Desire to pull these two apart is shared by parties at opposite ends of the spectrum.

I fail to see how the Lambeth invitations “enhance” the authority of the primates’ meeting; in fact, it is very difficult to argue they do anything other than cut the primates’ actions at DES off at the knees.  The idea that Williams would withdraw anything more than a bare handful of invitations, if that, is hard to credit, given the apparent determination to find a way for even Gene Robinson to be present for cocktails.

It appears that the desire to separate Canterbury from the primates resides in more than the “ends of the spectrum.”  De facto, it is shared by Rowan Williams himself.

RE: “Again, I still wonder if those of you who are on the way out TEC’s doors BEFORE there is anything really in place except the alphabet soup of the continuum are acting precipitously.”

Zoomdaddy, I think that you are talking to people who believe that there will indeed by nothing “in place”—and that’s okay with them.  I understand that feeling.  I think I and others have done enough writing to analyze why people are leaving as they are—whether to other denominations or to Anglican groups.  They really do not believe that there will be a communion-solution.

I agree with much of your comment about the Anglican groups out there—and about most people going to non-Anglican groups anyway.  But let’s face it—some have decided that the sinking ship is far worse than the icy waters or the various lifeboats.  And I understand that too.

I do appreciate this comment of yours:

“Additionally, none of these groups is equipped to help middle of the road congregations who are basically trapped by lawsuits if they want out, or radical revisionism if they stay.  Frankly, they don’t have the stomach, spiritual maturity, and energy to take a stand.  Old standbys will stay till they die and buried in the churchyard, young families will go to Our Lady of the First Baptist Firebaptized Fellowship Community down the road, and the moderate-leaning orthodox will be hung out to dry in the desert of liberal theology.

You are exactly right.  ECUSA is filled with moderately conservative parishes who over the past four years have done precisely nothing.  I marvel at it, I really do.  If a small group of laypeople had formed and if they had worked hard enough, they would own the vestries, the convention delegates, and would be vigorously networking with all the other moderately conservative parishes out there.  They’d be doing this because . . . their backs are against the wall and they “got no place to go” . . .

I hope for their sake that they are workin’ hard!  Because when all of this shakes out, unless their is a group taking action and strategizing . . . their churches will simply die on the vine.

I am really sorry.  But the word for the past four years for Episcopalians has been “consequences” . . . and there will be consequences all around.

Actually Matt+, Zommdaddy’s “Our Lady of the First Baptist Firebaptized Fellowship Community” would be a glorious work of Christ. One that would exemplify John 17:21 but certainly would take the power of the Spirit to bring Anglo-Catholic, Baptist and Pentecostal (maybe a touch of pure non-dom mixed in) into harmony.

What happens to TEC in September when they reject all things Windsor? Will this effect their status at Lambeth?

Oh yes, and for the record, I am pleased at Uganda’s statement.  I think that Rowan Williams needs to know that there will be consequences as well.

And both Uganda’s and Nigeria’s statements seem to indicate that—ultimately—they are willing to leave the Communion entirely.

I’ve always said that in the absence of Communion-discipline, it would be best for the orthodox provinces to leave the Communion.

It’s not a good thing—but in the absence of a Communion that has a boundaried, disciplined, ordered identity, it’s the next best [or least worst].

Even were much of the Global South provinces to depart [and that is something more than “we’re not coming to Lambeth”] . . . the pulverization that that will do to orthodox ECUSA congregations will be devastating.  Should the communion remain undisciplined, and then divide, most of the “moderate” dioceses *might* see one parish or two parishes leave.  The other moderately orthodox parishes in those dioceses will simply divide, with small groups going to other denominations, and small groups remaining to die.

Sad—but . . .  consequences.

What happens to TEC in September when they reject all things Windsor? Will this effect their status at Lambeth?

If only we knew, brothers and sisters, if only we knew.

For all practical purposes, of course, TEC has already rejected most of Windsor, and ignored the rest.  They have moved on to rejecting and ignoring the DES Communique at this point.

Matt+ said:

Stay away. The Church is not some sort of European legislature where heresy and orthodoxy stand together in some neutral category and rightness is determined by power differentials. The very fact that bishops who deny the bodily resurrection, the virgin birth and the second coming will be present is a travesty, not to mention Lambeth 1.10.

Here’s what I don’t get about your “all or nothing” approach, Matt. It’s completely anachronistic. It’s as if ECUSA hadn’t been denying these very things for decades, as if this was a development that happened last week, and now, lo, shocked, Shocked!! I am to find heresy in this establishment. Political events have begun moving the Communion in an orthodox direction, things seem to be going “our way,” at least much more so than one could have hoped, say, circa 1995, and all of a sudden we get all bellicose and demanding. As if a return to orthodoxy within Anglicanism could be immediate, with no transitional stages at all.

I understand that for many, the Robinson affair has been the final straw, and I respect that. What I don’t understand is this notion of entitlement, as if Lambeth 1.10 were inevitable and inviolable, rather than the first sign of hope in decades. It’s politically unrealistic to think that something as large the Anglican Communion could be purged of decades of heretical drift in 3, 5 or even 10 years. If that’s too slow then let’s move on now and give up this pretense that we’re fighting for anything resembling unity around Canterbury.

But there’s something unrealistic and almost comical to demonstrate outrage and offense at ECUSA’s heresy 40 years after Pike, 30 years of Spong, 15 years after Righter…either let’s be politically savvy and accept that things must transition over time, or let’s move on and attempt to create something new. But let’s not demand something that simply cannot happen, and no one in their right minds ever thought could happen, i.e., a fully orthodox litmus test for Lambeth attendance.

After reading the agenda for Lambeth, I couldn’t see why any orthodox bishop would want to waste their time by attending such a TEC agenda inspired time together.  It totally ignores the elephants in the livingroom.  Throwing a nice tea party while the ship sinks is not going to solve anything whatsoever! And, given ++Rowan’s going back on his word that the Primates would determine the invitation list rather than himself, it appears to me that the Archbishop of Canterbury has now thrown his weight squarely to the side of TEC come what may.  And what I hope will be “the come what may” is an alternate Anglican Communion Conference of the orthodox provinces to form a new Communion and let the liberal western portion of the Communion die its sure and certain death by itself. Nigeria has already redefined the term Anglican (without the AB of C).  It is time for the rest of the orthodox Christians in the Communion to do so as well.

I keep thinking that so much of this is premature.  We need to keep in mind that there’s so much we don’t know right now.  For instance:

1) We honestly don’t know what +RDW intended by issuing the Lambeth invitations as he did.  Prof. Seitz can make a good case for one interpretation; Fr. Kennedy can make a good case for another.  But the truth is: We don’t know.  And whatever he thinks now, we don’t know how he’ll react to:
2) The upcoming Canadian synod and the ECUSA HoB meeting in September.  +RDW made a special trip to Canada in order to point out how crucial Canada’s decision on same-sex marriage is for the Communion.  He’s coming to the US to do the same.  What will he say to us?  What will Canada and the US decide?  We don’t know.  What will he view as the appropriate consequences?  We also don’t know, and it probably depends to a great extent on something else we don’t know, namely:
3) The reaction of the Primates to ECUSA’s response to the Dar requests.  Will they ignore it with a wink and a nod?  Probably not. Will they call an emergency meeting and demand that the non-Windsor-compliant bishops excuse themselves from Lambeth?  Possibly.  Or something in-between?  Maybe.  We just don’t know.
And that all has bearing on:
4) Who eventually will wind up at Lambeth.  +RDW has left himself the opportunity to “take counsel,” to “withdraw” the “first round” of invitations, and spoke about the necessary “trust” that is a pre-condition of a successful Lambeth conference.  What do these things mean?  Do they mean that those who reject Dar es Salaam (e.g., probably a large portion of the ECUSA HoB after Sept. 30) won’t get to go to Lambeth?  Or does +RDW intend his invitations to stand as they are, even though he doubtless knew it would mean losing a large portion of the Global South?  We don’t know.

All in all… there are SO many things we don’t know as of right now that I don’t see how we could possibly give a definitive pre-judgment on “Rowan Williams” or “a Canterbury-based communion” or “old ways of doing church” or “the Primates” or a lot of the other things I’ve heard talked about.  Like Mr. Zoomdaddy and Mr. Pageantmaster, I worry that some of us are prematurely making judgments that may turn into self-fulfilling prophecies.  And that, as Sarah Hey worries, there actually isn’t anything on the other side waiting for us.

Matt, LP, et al are right.

What’s the point in showing up to Lambeth for “strategic” reasons if the decisions are never actually implemented? The Covenant would be no different than Windsor…

If the Anglican Communion proves to be a sham, it’s far better for orthodox provinces to leave than continue to give it legitimacy with their presence.

While I’m not a big fan of David Virtue’s, the link given by tired above (http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3260/#58012) is really a must-read.  Virtue makes this conclusion:

[Ian] Douglas also said this: “...it’s a gathering of bishops in communion with the See of Canterbury. That gathering of bishops is nothing more, nothing less than that. In other words, it’s not some grand episcopal synod that is to effect policy for a global, unified singular Church.” In short we have no common faith or doctrine, no common understanding of morality. We have nothing except an invitation from Dr. Williams who can pick and choose whomever he likes to come. Be thankful if you got an invitation. One doubts that Thomas Cranmer would agree with Dr. Douglas.

If this is the intention – have an expanded version of a Friends-type bull session at the local coffee shop – at a time when the Anglican Communion is ripping itself apart and ought to be worried about its own survival, what’s the point of Lambeth?  Even if it could be whipped into some kind of productive shape against the wishes of Canterbury and 815, let’s be honest with ourselves and admit our colleague LP has it exactly right:

As the past decades have shown, any partly traditionalist or orthodox resolutions passed there will simply be selectively ignored by the apostates and unenforced by the ABC—so there really is no point in going.

I’m having a hard time seeing what we’ve gotten for Lambeth 1.10, the Windsor Report, Dar-es-Salaam and multiple other meetings and pronouncements other than four wasted years, lots of wasted money and a Communion that’s shown the world it’s a mirage.

Matt, when you have reached the point that you are free to speak of your future, please share with us the process you went through, the reasons for the conclusion you reach, etc.  Many of us are now within an inch of starting down that road as well.  The one thing that keeps me from making a formal break with TEC at the moment is the splintering that is going on.  I don’t want to end up being a splinter! I want to be a part of an ongoing orthodox Anglican Communion.  And until I see that most of the Primates have recognized a new province for the USA, I remain hesitant to act.  It is so easy to divide up, but so hard to come together again!  Maybe I could have put my thoughts better but I think you get my point.

Folks: two words ” September 30th.”  This conversation will be mute way before Lambeth.  Shortly after September 30th, there will be a mass exodus the like of which has never been seen before.  Either TEC will be excluded from the AC and that will trigger realignment, or TEC will not be excluded and that will trigger realignment.  Irregardless, Lambeth doesn’t happen until 2008 and by then, the dust will be settled for many of us.  Praise God.

Dave

you said:

“Here’s what I don’t get about your “all or nothing” approach, Matt. It’s completely anachronistic.”

No doubt. Yes, heresy has been part and parcel of the Episcopal Church for too long.

But that does not excuse the lack of radical action now. Josiah did not undergo a gradual process of negotiating through the removal of ashera poles and high places. He cut them down and burned them. They had no standing or right in the Kingdom of Israel.

The same is true today. The New Testament is clear. There is no room for coddling and cajoling false teachers. Cut them off, root and branch and sooner rather than later.

Heresy destroys souls.

I had hoped that the Windsor process would accomplish this because it required a form of submission TEC and Canada could not embrace. It does and they cannot. It was not designed to root out heresy. It was simply intended to provide a structure for upholding and negotiating Communion agreements.

But I did not anticipate the weakness of Communion resolve, leaders willing to accept the sub-Group report, a blatant bald-faced lie, for the sake of unity.

The invitations, if they stand, signal the death of Canterbury based Anglicanism, a body too sick to recognise, much less stem, her infection.

But, as Donald Clair notes, the truth of the matter will be seen in October.

Jordan Hylden, “Like Mr. Zoomdaddy and Mr. Pageantmaster, I worry that some of us are prematurely making judgments that may turn into self-fulfilling prophecies.  And that, as Sarah Hey worries, there actually isn’t anything on the other side waiting for us.”

I underdstand some of your concern about self-fulfilling prophecies. What I don’t agree with is that there “isn’t anything on the other side waiting for us.” I admit that I am new to Anglicanism, and was never a part of TEC, but I would not have followed the Canterbury Trail if I thought there was Nothing here for me and my children.

We are entering a new day, and while I will make no predictions to what that looks like, I believe that there will be a renewed/reformed Anglican church in the US. To what extent it encompasses all the “alpahbet soup” out there remains to be seen. However, I deeply believe that AMiA’s focus on reaching the “unchurched” people of the US is the way forward.

While a new Anglican church in the US should be a safe harbor for orthodox Episcopalians, if it only that, then it will fail. It is time for the Anglican church in the US to truly be missional. We can build a vibrant, engaging, and missional Anglicanism in the US by drawing in those who do are not currently a part of any church, whether they are dechurched and never were churched. If we follow the Holy Spirit’s leading, then there is indeed something waiting for us. It just might not be want many will be leaving behind.

My dispute with Zoomdaddy is this:  “Be bold, take TEC back, even if it is a reconstituted one and we have to fight for the name.”

That is like fighting for the right to use the name “Enron,” or “Ponzi Securities.”

++Akinola has been all in the news lately, since his visit to install +Minns. The press has been tempted to paint the situation as a TEC vs. Nigeria issue, and the Christian Post headline suggests that ++Akinola will lead the way in the revolt against Lambeth:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070529/27668_Nigerian_Archbishop_May_Lead_Boycott_of_Decennial_Anglican_Gathering.htm
However, I’m afraid that the good primate of Nigeria will have to get in line behind ++Orombi. And he will not be the only one in line.

This settles it for me. I’m in one of those Ugandan parishes. Nice people. The priest is leaving for England, the parish is dumping money into lawsuits instead of walking away from the building and starting fresh. The interim pastor is still an Episcopal priest. And who in their right mind will take over such a situation? And then succeed?
As to the Continuing Church, I’ve done that. Hopeless.
And as to this new communion, I think it won’t work. Just read Africanised Anglican’s thread on Stephen Noll’s letter about getting an AMiA parish up.
Nope. I think ABC has something up his sleeve. So, I’m going back to a Network TEC church. I’ll just shut out the national problems like those who have stayed all these years in TEC have done.
And wait.
And Dave is right. This has been going on for decades. And the virgin birth and resurrection denial had been going on for 100 years.
And I’ve never heard either in any parish.
And I have my own Anglican heterodox ideas. So who am I kidding?

But if the Americans participate in Lambeth 08 and the GS don’t, the final wording of the covenant would read something like, “Everyone should love each other, and do what they feel best. Have a nice day.”

Haven’t they already done this? This seems to be the liberal/revisionist mantra thatthey ahve been spewing for some time now!

Understand that Fr. Matt but it gives the loonies a clear field to take over the asylum.

Again, they have already pretty much accomplished this! It’s time to put a fork in it and move onto the real important business of advancing God’s Kingdom and teaching the True Gospel! Something that the GS is intent on doing…..NO MORE TALKING!

What is now needed is for Ft. Worth, Quincy, San Jose, Pittsburgh and the ACN to follow through on locating a new Province for 9/30.

Who is San Jose?

if we’re all now supposed to give up and run for the hills,

We’re giving up! We’re moving on to higher ground with hinds feet to follow Jesus Christ and expand His Kingdom in Truth!

Matt-

Cut it with the condescending references to Baptists and other evangelical denominations.

Wasn’t intended to be condescending, sorry if it came across that way.

Significant parallax distorts perceptions of this situation.

TEC thinks that it has won. Just visit Preludium or other revisionist websites. They have pocketed the real victory, i.e. apostate TEC bishops have been invited, and are pressing for the symbolic victory of having VGR come too.

I no longer have much faith that the ABC will discipline TEC because it is the right thing to do. But the ABC might still be brought to do the right thing if he recognizes that letting TEC slide will create the “shrieking pain” Sarah Hey describes. Thus, it is vital that the GS clearly state that the Communion ends if TEC attends Lambeth.

It is still possible to save the Anglican Communion. But it is fourth down and long yards. And the quarterback is wobbly.

Finally, let’s remember that the Communion and everything else about the church are really implements God uses to save souls. It is souls, not institutions, that will live with God in heaven, or in the other place.

DOK,
I’ve been an Episcopalian for only about 20 years in two big states in two major cities in about 6 different parishes and have never seen the Kingdom expand. Not one iota.
The only Kingdom that expands is for Episcopalians to Episcopalians. A food pantry is not an outreach when the Gospel is not part of it.

No Zoomdaddy, I apologize. I misread you.
(This is Matt writing from Anne’s box)

This would not be unexpected by anyone
At this point the key figure is Archbishop Gomez (Amazing it is not the ABC anymore) - If he pulls out Lambeth is gutted. There is no Covenant process. If he stays in the communion “survives” - whatever that means. I have to believe he has been in touch with the ABC. At some point his response will become public….and it is that response which will dictate the future of the communion.

<blockI’m having a hard time seeing what we’ve gotten for Lambeth 1.10, the Windsor Report, Dar-es-Salaam and multiple other meetings and pronouncements other than four wasted years, lots of wasted money and a Communion that’s shown the world it’s a mirage.</blockquote>

Here! Here! There has been no “consequences” for those here in ECUSA who have ignored the requests of no blessings of SSU’s, ordaining gay priests, repentance of actions already done, etc…All we have gotten is more talking, waiting, seeing, talking, waiting, seeing and the same results have insued. Continuing to hang on to “wait & see & talk” some more is a path leading to…....    Somewhere other than towards Christ!

AMEN La Anglican

Ryan+

Dear LA Anglican…..
The Kingdom is spreading in my Diocese! And I also see it spreading in the GS! So I am sorry that you are and have been in dioceses that haven’t been doing their Great Commision! Maybe you and others like you could do it and set the example!

Seems to me that a number of principled Windsor bishops didn’t turn up to the HOB leading to the pragmatic having open season on their brethren.

As I recall, the reason they didn’t show up was because the stated agenda said no decisions were to be taken. Reports from the meeting said PB Schori tried to keep it as such, but the majority of bishops forced the agenda change and issued their response to the PV proposal.

Turn up - its not going to be a Hug-in.

Which would, on the surface of it, seem like sound advice. The attending bishops in Lambeth can take matters into their own hands and make this Lambeth the legislative meeting it has always been.

The problem is, the wily folks setting up this Lambeth have seen to it this will never happen. If you’ll read recent articles on how the conference is to be organized, they are going to separate bishops into groups of 8 for talking (reportedly, conversation for the sake of conversation—how quaint). <a >Read what Ian Douglas says at VOL.</a>

So let’s consider this. 8 bishops per discussion group. Roughly 850 bishops.  That’s more than 100 such discussion groups. Each group requires table and chairs, refreshments, writing desks, etc. Basically, that means 100+ small conference rooms.

Now, Lambeth has a lot of rooms, but not enough (so I am told) to fill this requirement. It seems obvious they will simply have to rent hotel facilities. No hotel has that many small conference rooms.

Bottom line: The bishops will be scattered all over London in little groups, isolated from all the other little groups, and will in no way have either (1) an assembled meeting nor (2) the opportunity to voice in large numbers that the agenda should be changed and certain issues will be discussed, like it or not.

Ian and others seem to have done an end run to circumvent any such thing happening at this Lambeth. They have arranged for bishops NOT to meet in large numbers, and NOT to meet in the same place. For as good as separation means control of manageable groups, they may as well be meeting in their little groups all over the face of the earth.

No, I don’t think there’s any chance this Lambeth is going to be anything other than what ++Williams has said it will be.

And as to effectiveness, meeting in little groups like this is exactly what happens day in, day out around the globe. If we take teleconferencing into account, it happens (somewhere) more than once per day. Which leads then to the GS not-so-rhetorical question, why bother spending the airfare and hotel bill to do in London what they already do?

You know, there was a time (about 130 years ago and earlier) when the AC didn’t exist. It was formed cooperatively. It can be reformed cooperatively. Simply because they chose Canterbury as the See 130 years ago doesn’t mean Canterbury has to remain the See forever. Matt’s+ recent article on inviting the heretic into your house or enjoining them in fellowshipping in the name of Christ has very strong application for those invited to Lambeth 2008.

My prediction:

There is little chance it will be what it has been decribed to be. With one exception. ++Williams will, at some point, issue some proclomation or writ stating something outrageous. Perhaps these little groups of 8 will find his writ on their conference tables when they first assemble on day one. Then the little groups of 8 will argue for 3 weeks about what ++Williams has done/said.

With great effort, one side or the other will find some way to either endorse or refute ++Williams, and that will be the best they can do. As to anything the bishops might want to address, forget it. ++Williams will give them something to argue about for the full three weeks, side-stepping any existing or pending issues, and make the whole ruddy process so complex everyone will feel grateful nothing worse came out of Lambeth 2008.

Which is ++William’s way. Give everyone something outrageous to complain about so they stop addressing the current and pending matters that are so close to resolution and closure.

Antique
The conference does not meet in London, either in hotels or at Lambeth Palace. They use facilities at the University of Kent on the outskirts of Canterbury. I have been there personally and there are plenty of seminar rooms and conference facilities. The divide and conquer strategy may be present in other ways, but not by scattering around London. By the way the view from the campus over the city of Canterbury and its cathedral is breath-taking.

It is finally about Christian credibility.  Canterbury has shown by its choice in invitations that it has lost this -  “let your yes be yes and your no be no.”  Canterbury is not living up to its witness by not living up to Lambeth 1.10 and Uganda is calling this for what it is.

DonaldClaire,
“Folks: two words “ September 30th.” This conversation will be mute way before Lambeth.”

You are right on this one. There are many still in the pews who are waiting to see if there really is any type of line drawn in the sand. They are getting tired of seeing their money go to the KJS war chest for property lawyers and having their heads counted among the ranks of revisionists.

Something has got to give. A future of professing MDGs as a substitute for salvation is not going to cut it. Neither is the constant re-drawing of limits. Through one form or the other there will be a substantial shift.
9/30/07 is a much more important date for parishioners than Lambeth.

The Church of Uganda’s decision is big news—-and in the finest tradition of Christianity in Uganda. It is good for all sorts of reasons:

+ It is timely and unequivocal.

+ Coming from Uganda, it is (rightly or wrongly) likely to garner broader support than if it came from Nigeria.

+ Lambeth 2008 is not a legislative meeting, so absenting oneself does not entail the same costs as it would if the assembled bishops were taking important votes.

+ Courteous firmness is evidently the only reliable way for the Global South to influence either Apb. Williams’ conduct or the content of any Anglican Covenant. Asking nicely doesn’t suffice. Nor does patience, which the Global South has show in abundance. No do cogent theological statements. Remember how the Epistle of James speaks of “those who look at themselves in a mirror…and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like.” Abp. Williams seems to understand and appreciate orthodox leaders’ case when he meets with them—-but to lose sight of it when he goes back to the rich-country Latitudinarians around him in Britain.

Matt+, I just wanted to chime in and encourage you in the stance and direction you have taken.

DOK,

I am sure “San Jose” was supposed to be “San Joaquin”.  San Jose is in the diocese of California I think.

I also wish the ACN diocese would establish a new province.  At this point I don’t even care if Cantebury is involved.  They continue to ignore Lambeth 1.10 without censure.  I am a member of San Joaquin and hope we will be leaving soon.

Dear usma87,

I thought so but didn’t want to presume! I too, live in the San Joaquin Diocese and am a congregant there. I am very much looking forward to our next Diocesan Convention!

It seems to me, that as things stand, there’s a little sticking out on both sides of the Procrustean Bed.  ++Robinson is still not invited, to the chagrin of the reappraisers. 

Who would go to Lambeth, then? 
- reaffirmers holding out hope that the AC can still hold together;
- reappriasers holding out hope that ++Robinson will be vindicated;
- Rodney King wannabes (?). 

Unless ++Robinson is invited, that leaves the RK-Wannabes as the only group that hasn’t been seriously offended by ABC.  Where would that put what’s left of the AC?

On a related note, a poster on Kaeton’s blog is doing her best to spread revisionist Christian charity around:

“If manner of life” is the issue, then what about those bishops who have their mistresses in public view, are they being “not invited”? There are a few African bishops who have more than one “wife” I am told.

So nice to know that piece of unsourced slander is still making the rounds!

If Kaeton is not giving her resources of this statement:

There are a few African bishops who have more than one “wife” I am told

then it is gossip, thus bringing Kaeton into question.

Zoomdaddy, some of those you are discribing are looking for a risk-free, comfortable seperation. That will not happen and has never happened in the history of the Christian church in these circumstances.  People will have to take risks. One of the risks is that the new church will not coalesce and grow as hoped.  I happen to believe that the most important factor in the equation is not the temporary structural issues being argued but our understanding of evangelism in today’s culture.  Get that right and this church will become a movement that surprises us all regardless of Lambeth. Get it wrong and we will falter, even if the ABC changes course tommorrow.

I am disappointed by the orthodox opinion leaders that would suggest that Uganda should go back on its word as to the Road to Lambeth, and who seem to argue that its natural GS allies should take a different route.  If there is any hope left for the Anglican Communion, it is in the ABC’s understanding that representatives of the majority of Anglicans in the world will not attend unless his grace changes the invitation list.  He must understand that for some, an invitation to Lambeth, or even membership in a ABC led Communion, IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.  The revisionists will take great comfort in the division among the orthodox.

LA Anglican, I am sorry for your experience.  But please know that many others have had the opposite experience, with energized, growing GS congregations.  Nor will you escape it by going back to an ACN parish, since seperation are something that every ACN parish is going to have to address (one way or another) at some opint, and it will be painful and conflicting. Don’t give up.  I would rather people like you end up in another faithful denomination than get turned away from the Faith due to the stress of this situation.

Dear Timothy,
<blocquote>He must understand that for some, an invitation to Lambeth, or even membership in a ABC led Communion, IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.</blockquote>
Well said!

I have gotten the picture that +++ABC Williams thinks himself and the AC as the ONLY IMPORTANT THING and that all who wish to be “IN MEMBERSHIP’ must adhere to his way of things no matter what he does or most importantly doesn’t do! He is not a leader, rather I see his as his own advocate on his own issues which just happen to align with liberal revisionists. There is nothing traditional or orthodox about RW.

Oops! Soory….the blockquote was this

He must understand that for some, an invitation to Lambeth, or even membership in a ABC led Communion, IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

I don’t know why anyone is surprised by this statement.  If Akinola already signaled that he and Nigeria wouldn’t come, who would really believe that Orombi and his Ugandan bishops would come either?  I’m just surprised that the whole entire Global South hasn’t backed out but then they might correctly think that doing so at this point is premature.

I’m all for the archconservatives and archliberals staying home or not being invited.  Let the moderates have the hall and take back the Church from both groups who can go their merry way while we go ours.

When one sees that his cause is getting weaker numerically, and that expected allies/reinforcements have not shown, than the time to charge the enemy has come, no matter what the cost. The orthodox here and in Africa are standing up and making announcements of their intentions to the watching world. While I don’t think they are doing it to threaten RW, I think that all or nothing attitude is the only appropriate approach at this juncture.

If the communion is to be preserved, increasingly unlikely it seems, than the best chance for that to happen is with such announcements of intent to leave it. So I agree with Dallas, Uganda et al.

This whole situation reminds me of an unfortunately frequent occurance when I play poker with my friends. When your down to your last few chips, the best approach is to push all in. When you know you are going to loose, don’t try to delay it. I’ve actually seen it work on more than one occasion. As Jesus said, he who would save his life must loose it.

Carry on, brave 300!

Timothy,
I haven’t had a bad experience. But I have other considerations with others involved. If and when the ACN makes a move, I’ll worry about it then. Right now, this is a negative situation. I’d don’t need negative. I don’t need another institutional church. I’d rather stay home.
And I think Smuggs is right.
Let both radicals stay home. And then we’ll see what happens.

Cap’n Jack,
Am I wrong or are you a Presbyterian now?

LA Anglican,

I’m Anglican to the core and always will be, barring a new revelation from God in my life. I think Hooker did the best job of balancing puritan/seperatist instincts with those of Rome. I am convinced that the Anglican approach to revelation, the conciliar model of authority, a very high but not Roman view of the sacraments and a long/unreactionary view of how culture can be reformed are unmatched in other Protestant circles.

I also believe, however, in functional and reasonably healthy Christian community. While I’m not convinced that communion with Canturbury is inherently neccessary to maintain the particularly Anglican flavor, at present it seems to be the only center that COULD hold. And it does not appear to be holding, thus making the idea of communion into mockery.

For these reasons I have reluctantly worshipped with Presbyterians for several years, as there is no viable orthodox parish in my area. I don’t consider the continuum to be sufficiently interested on growth or outreach. With young children to shepherd, they can’t be embroiled in the politics/heresy of TEC. Every Sunday, I deeply miss the prayerbook, as one would grieve a lost love.

However, in 20 years or so, if the Lord is merciful enough to bless the effort in America, or if I am in another country where Anglicanism remains a compelling force, I would be thrilled to come home again to Anglican worship. For now, however, my family will do our best to contribute to the Christian community that we find ourselves in, and to be blessed by it as well.

This is wonderful.  I have a image in my mind of beautiful invitations sitting on bishop’s desks.  I hope they are elegant in design, embossed,  made of beautiful paper with ribbon and a wax seal, and personally signed by +++Rowan.  They are sitting propped up against lamps where each TEC bishop may admire it and consider the cost of actually attending.  There will be a cost. 
The ABC is acting, I believe, in a manner that expresses his hope that the TEC HOB will do as they have been asked by the Primates.  Each time a Province announces that they will not attend the reality that Sept 30th is a real deadline will sink in a bit deeper.  Already the bishops of about a third of all Anglicans worldwide have underscored this.  How soon will it be before it rises over 50%, 60% or even 70%?  With each succinct announcement the pressure rises.  This will be like water torture, as each province’s HOB meets and issues a statement.  This gives the ABC a position of great strength when he meets with the TEC HOB.  All he has to say is something like “My job is to keep the communion whole.  You have torn the fabric of communion.  You must repent or I must uninvite you to the Lambeth Conference”.  The reality of this will be abundantly clear.  Look for more announcements throughout the summer.

And I’ll add that being Anglican is a blessing a bit like the Apostle Paul’s thorn in the flesh. I’ve almost prayed to have it removed. I’ve tried to become Presbyterian, Baptist or more conveniently seeker sensitive but it just won’t fly. I fear I’ll never truly be at home anywhere else, but I’m also a pragmatist and have responsibilities to people other than myself. Religion is not a hobby, and I have a responsibility to bloom where I’m planted for the sake of my own spiritual health, my family and other Christians in my town.

I just read this on Drells’ Descants and I have to say he is onto something when he states that it ultimately comes down to money. I beleive this to be a true and sad observation. Money is at the root of this whole big ugly mess with all the other issues being the gas to fuel the problem.

While I hate to be pessimistic, I suspect conservatives will be kicked to the curb because of TEC’s money. Frankly, the only way this wouldn’t happen would be the for the Anglican alphabet soup to get its act together, form one entity, and come up with the bucks the Anglican Communion needs to run itself to replace lost TEC dollars should TEC be replaced. It all ultimately comes down to money, unfortunately. CANA, AMIA, the Continuing Churches and the Network need to have an emergency meeting and starting forming a new province and come up with some dollars, and fast. Otherwise, Anglicanism will ultimately become irrelevant in Christianity, as the whole thing will splinter.

Cap’n Jack,
I hear you. Didn’t mean to label you. I’m in the same boat as you but my last Anglican ditch is a Network church in Burbank. And I’m starting to think that maybe the AC will survive and could be cleansed a bit. Don’t know.  But I’m going to wait for now.
Don’t want to go Presbyterian just yet but may wind up there.

Dear Ed McNeill,

I for one love the image in your mind! However, I do not hold the view that it is reality nor will it become so. The ABC has had ample opportunities to “discipline” TEC & HoB…but to date has not done so! I have o hope of him doing anything of the such come Sept. 30th or beyond!

I do not know to whom this is directed:

“I am disappointed by the orthodox opinion leaders that would suggest that Uganda should go back on its word as to the Road to Lambeth, and who seem to argue that its natural GS allies should take a different route.”

But care needs to be taken, even on a blog.

1) I am not arguing about what individuals GS Bishops SHOULD do, but what I take to be their mind. If someone can show otherwise, fine. I believe I know these GS regions fairly well.
2) as for Uganda, no one would be going back on their word if after 30 Sept it were clear that those opposed to Lambeth 1.10 were not invited; my view is that this is fully consistent with +Uganda’s stated position, with which I concur.

Matt & Laurence:

Agreed.

Part of me (here begins the speculative musing) would be interested in seeing JUST ONE conservative, will-take-action primate (AND NO MORE THAN ONE) attend Lambeth, vocally stating that he is going just to ‘fly the flag’, and expressly endorsing the decision of the others to stay away.  If Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda, Central Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Southern Cone stay away, you’ve got the majority of Anglican churchgoers worldwide represented by opting-out primates.  If, say, Gomez turns up just in order to ‘remind’ Williams that this was advertised as a no-decisions-to-be-made event (which the GS primates have already correctly pegged as a colossal waste of time and money), to prevent the formation of an unvoted ‘unanimous consensus’ amongst the revisionists and institutionalists who form the majority of other attenders, and to retrieve any worthwhile news, that MIGHT not be a bad thing.  I say this emphasising that (here endeth the musing) it is crystal clear that the majority of the orthodox primates must stand by their ‘we’re not going’ position if they are to regain any credibility with either Williams or anyone else.

LA Anglican:  Don’t take my expressed concerns at the goings-on in AMiA as counsels of despair.  (One does go through one’s ups and downs in optimism over such things these days.)  I think AMiA is being forced to confront a number of issues that are going to need to be addressed by any viable Anglican entity in the US, and though I think it is very important for AMiA to get it right (hence some of the forcefulness of what I wrote), I think we are providentially—I mean that in its fullest sense—positioned to do some really great and saving work for the Kingdom of God, and ultimately to grow a genuinely-healthy Anglican presence both in the US and elsewhere.  It’s very clear that it’s going to have to look VERY different from the 1990 status quo; I find Whis Hays’ comments quite insightfully provocative in that regard.  I see some of AMiA’s difficulties as the first grapplings with the detailed ‘nitty-gritty’ of what that ‘something different’ will have to look like.

Sunday is Martyrs’ Day in Uganda, a national holiday that happens to fall on Trinity Sunday this year. There will be a big gathering at Namugongo, where the 40-odd Anglican and Catholic courtiers were burnt like logs on a fire in 1886. Pilgrims are already en route across the country for the big day.The Archbishop will preside at the Martyrs’ shrine.

Ed McNeill,  I do think you are more or less correct, but I think the ABC will be much less direct, and much less forceful.  He already has statements from the leaders of 25 million Anglicans that they will not be there under teh current circumstances, so even if nothing else happens, he has plenty of clout.  But what I think his bargaining position will be is a statement along the lines of the one issued by the Canadian bishops a few weeks ago, essentially saying that TEC will follow the letter of the law, but will engage in practices that clearly violate the intent of Windsor and the Communique.  Two places where he may hold fast, because I think these things really do touch his heart as well as his head, are over the lawsuits and an alternate orthodox structure in the US.  It was plain in his words after the issuance of the communique that he thinks of the lawsuits as not just non-Christian behavior, but as anti-Christian behavior.  On the subject of the PV “scheme”, I think that was clearly a compromise- had the GS had its way, there would have been a new province declared March 1.  I think the PV/pastoral council idea must have the backing of many of the “moderate” primates- and quite possibly ++Rowan himself, and I think KJS is quite well aware of this, hence her reluctance to have it brought up in April, but the HoB did it anyway.  It is one thing for Rowan to back off on strict enforcement per the CAPA Road to Lambeth statement, my guess is that so long as TEC loses some face (and some Lambeth invites) the GS will make some allowances for the good of the Communion.  But if the PV/PC plan has the backing of, say, 30 primates rather than 20 (and it is already a “liberal compromise” for half of the 30) his hands are tied on that one, regardless of his personal view.  But as I said earlier, I believe he has more than a little sympathy for us, and as a good bishop, he clearly sees a pastoral need for alternate oversight in some form.

I am so thankful for this strong, clear, and courageous stand!  God’s peace to them and may he give others the grace to do the same. 

James

I take this as a reminder that our hope is not in the Episcopal Church, nor is it in the Anglican Communion:  It is in Christ.

I’ve seen lots of statements implying that the Anglican Communion has the power to change and save the Episcopal Church, simply because the vast majority of the Anglican Communion are conservative and traditional.  Well, it obviously cannot and won’t.  It seems that the Anglican Communion, at least in Great Britain, needs the Episcopal Church and won’t part with it under any circumstances.

If that is true, then it seems that there is no hope in the Anglican Communion itself.  It seems hard to believe that the Church of England or Anglican Communion would allow itself to be pulled down by the Episcopal Church, but that certainly seems like what is happening.

When asked by her father to renounce her Christian faith, St. Perpetua replied “Father, said I, Do you see (for examples) this vessel lying, a pitcher or whatsoever it may be? And he said, I see it. And I said to him, Can it be called by any other name than that which it is? And he answered, No. So can I call myself nought other than that which I am, a Christian. “

I have come to the conclusion that more and more the TEC is asking its members to forsake the name of Christian and become what they are nought.  The heresy of its leaders has poisoned the Body of Christ and left open the door to hell.  The persecution of those who remain faithful to the Incarnate and written word must make the angels weep.  The blessing of immorality and the embrace of public sin gives the devil cause for glee.  Salvation is no longer taught as being in Christ alone,  but as right adherence to the secular liberal agenda.  Abortion is praised as our right and necessary to our spiritual health.  As if the love and mercy of God can not speak to the heart of a pregnant woman.  Calling her to life and giving her the grace to undergo any trial. 

When this happens within the church.  How can we hear the voice of the Triune God?  How can we serve Him with all our heart, mind and soul?  How can we transform love of God to love of each other?
How can we call ourselves Christian when we have been enslaved by other lords? 

The Bishop of Uganda knows and so do we that our first duty is to the person of Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior.  If anyone or anything calls us to reject that duty we must cut ourselves off from them.  Our souls were bought with a great price.  The suffering on the cross of Jesus.  To continue with the travesty of TEC is to make a mockery of His atoning death. 
By inviting heretics and apostates the AB of Canterbury gives the Anglican Communion evidence of the abandoment of Christianity within its body.  Can we rightly say yes to these wolves in sheeps’ clothing?  Which is what attending Lambeth would do.  Godly men know the choice before them.  They will embrace Christ and cling only to Him.  Let the dead bury the dead.  The living God calls us to new life in Him.  It can no longer be found in TEC.  I believe that a vibrant Anglican church in the West is the will of God and will come someday.  I know with God’s grace we keep the name Christian and refuse all pleas to renounce the same.
May God bless all faithful Anglicans and protect them from the devil’s snares.

God bless Archbishop Henry Orombi.  He is, as others have pointed out above, a lion of the Christian faith and a world leader in the holy catholic and apostolic church.  He knows that all form and polity are worth nothing without the content that is the rock upon which the church has stood for two thousand years.  And yes, he does mean what he says, because his words eminate from a true heart of faith, one connected to his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, above all else.  When he signed “The Road to Lambeth” he meant it.  He is not playing political games.  He is defending the faith once delivered to the saints.  He knows that the worldly agenda of TEC will infect the entire Anglican Communion if it is not dealt with decisively now.  He is doing what Rowan Williams should be doing.

They SAY that Lambeth won’t be about passing resolutions or ‘legislation,”  but if the revisionists count noses and find they have a majority, you can bet your firstborn, your house and your Welsh-English decoder ring that there will be a lot of resolutions passed.

Yes, Lauren Gough is trying to resuscitate the silly specter of African POLYGAMY on Elizabeth Kaeton’s blog.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=29373297&postID=3525418867310691631

Last August I offered $100 reward “to anyone who can prove that any orthodox bishop of any Anglican church in Africa is living in a polygamous marriage.”
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/you_evil_evil_orthodox/#10332
Anyone with evidence of such polygamy had until Nov. 1 to claim the reward. No one did.

I posted reminders of the reward and even raised it to $250. Still no takers. As I observed on Oct. 24, “not one of the people making, repeating, and publishing the polygamy allegation has come forward with even a scintilla of evidence.”

To Lauren Gough, I say: “Where’s your evidence?”

They SAY that Lambeth won’t be about passing resolutions or ‘legislation,” but if the revisionists count noses and find they have a majority, you can bet your firstborn, your house and your Welsh-English decoder ring that there will be a lot of resolutions passed.

And if that happens, the GS and the rest of us will pay as much heed to those resolutions as TEC did to Lambeth 1.10.

if the revisionists count noses and find they have a majority, you can bet your firstborn, your house and your Welsh-English decoder ring that there will be a lot of resolutions passed.

So be it:

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still : and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still : and hee that is righteous, let him bee righteous still : and hee that is holy, let him be holy still.

Rev 22:11 Authorized Version, 1611 edition.

“They SAY that Lambeth won’t be about passing resolutions or ‘legislation,” but if the revisionists count noses and find they have a majority, you can bet your firstborn, your house and your Welsh-English decoder ring that there will be a lot of resolutions passed.”

That sort of trickery would be a major step towards breaking up the Anglican Communion. ECUSA revisionists can get away with that at their own general convention. I doubt Abp. Williams would let them get away with it at Lambeth.

3 weeks gives plenty of time for groups of 8 bishops to bond in their ndaba groups in their kraals or tepees, run about beating drums together and get up to some serious mischief with a couple of resolutions.  How many does it take?

For them and theirs, they can pass all the resolutions they want! I agree with tjmcmahon….why do we have to comply with their resolutions anymore than they did on Lambeth 1.10? Answer…We don’t! In the end their resolutions will be empty and meaningless to anyone of substance!

tjmcmahon & DOK4HS,

Thank you for your thoughts, and excuse my joint reply.  Since the last Primates meeting a number of Primates have characterized the communique as a gracious last invitation to the TEC HOB to come back to the fold.  The ABC was strikingly clear in his press conference in Toronto about the consequences to the Canadian province of approving the blessing of same sex unions.  For these and similar reasons DOK4HS I think that sept. 30th really is a deadline, and not a moment in an unfolding process.  tjmcmahon I also think you are right about +++William’s thoughts on lawsuits and some safe haven for the orthodox, and it will be interesting to see what structure emerges in the Fall. 

I am uncertain what the implications of the pastoral measures recommended by the Canadian HOB’s to the General Synod are for the rest of the Communion.  Do they all in fact violate the intent of the Windsor Report and 1.10 or do some push things to the line but not over it?  I have not seen any reaction to them from N.T. Wright and others.  It might be that these conversations are going on quietly or even took place prior to the recommendations being made.

I think the TEC HOB have a credibility problem not matched in the Anglican Communion. I am not aware of another province with so little institutional discipline, and I expect that many will question the commitment of the HOB to any agreement they might make together.

Irenaeus wrote:

“They SAY that Lambeth won’t be about passing resolutions or ‘legislation,” but if the revisionists count noses and find they have a majority, you can bet your firstborn, your house and your Welsh-English decoder ring that there will be a lot of resolutions passed.”

That sort of trickery would be a major step towards breaking up the Anglican Communion. ECUSA revisionists can get away with that at their own general convention. I doubt Abp. Williams would let them get away with it at Lambeth.

 

Oh, I have no doubt that Abp. Williams would gladly let them get away with that at Lambeth.  The prevention of an unremarked, uncontested success of such a ploy would be, in my mind, the only reason to have up to one orthodox primate attend—preferably one skilled and practised in assessing and addressing Anglo-American chicanery—so as to clarify on the record that such a hypocritical reversal was occurring.

You are exactly right.  ECUSA is filled with moderately conservative parishes who over the past four years have done precisely nothing.  I marvel at it, I really do.  If a small group of laypeople had formed and if they had worked hard enough, they would own the vestries, the convention delegates, and would be vigorously networking with all the other moderately conservative parishes out there.  They’d be doing this because . . . their backs are against the wall and they “got no place to go” . . .

I hope for their sake that they are workin’ hard!  Because when all of this shakes out, unless their is a group taking action and strategizing . . . their churches will simply die on the vine.

I am really sorry.  But the word for the past four years for Episcopalians has been “consequences” . . . and there will be consequences all around.

So glad to be in the diocese of Fort Worth.  Our bishop and standing committee are taking action.  I don’t know where we are going yet, but at least I don’t have worry about looking for a new church home on October 1st.

Africanised Anglican,
My mention of the AMiA situation you mentioned was not to say it was one of despair. It was an excellent description of what all this GS communion talk will entail.
It will be very hard work for many years. And I believe one has to be very pro-Anglican to do it. And new people have to be convinced that the Via Media is so much better than a non-denominational or free standing/governed church. Who needs to build a church from scratch just to be recognized by some overseas bishop? Most Americans won’t see the need.

Very interesting comment from Dr. Seitz:

as for Uganda, no one would be going back on their word if after 30 Sept it were clear that those opposed to Lambeth 1.10 were not invited; my view is that this is fully consistent with +Uganda’s stated position, with which I concur. (Emphasis added.)

I have not heard this stated by ACI before.  If I am misinterpreting you, Dr. Seitz, please correct me.

On another matter discussed above, the pastoral council scheme, it has been widely derided on liberal blogs as an unworkable patchwork cobbled together under duress at Dar es Salaam.  Based on my experience negotiating legal agreements under pressure, the Dar pastoral council appendix has always struck me just the opposite:  as something too well-crafted in the details to have been thrown together in the heat of the moment.  I have thought it must have been drafted in advance and only tweaked at Dar.  This very much goes to the issue of the extent to which the ABC is personally behind it.  I wonder if Dr. Seitz can shed any light on this.

Ed McNeill, I think +NT Wright, and probably ++Rowan himself, are waiting to see what actually emerges from the meeting of the Canadian bishops in a couple weeks.  For all that, I have not read any comment (on the Canadian bishops’ pastoral letter), as yet, from any of the GS Primates or much of anyone else.  It strikes me that this is the test case.  Should a Canadian bishop issue a statement that he is going to bless SSUs “come hell or high water” (I’m thinking the former) then we will see if ++Rowan takes any action re: Lambeth invitations.  Makes the Canadian Synod sort of crash test dummies for the HoB in September.  I think they realize that, and that has alot to do with their issuance of the pastoral letter. AND I think ++Rowan exerted some “influence” on them in the meetings they had with him shortly before they wrote the letter.
As convoluted as all this has become, it is a testament to some of the insiders who must know what is actually happening, that they have kept their mouths shut.

The Road to Lambeth goes far further than the CofE would be able to accept.

And the Anglican Church is led by Canterbury, and simply consists of those in communion with Canterbury.

Mark, I did not mean to suggest that the Pastoral Council/PV idea was “cobbled together” but that it is clearly a compromise between KJS’s position of “we don’t need one but I’ll appoint somebody like Bp. Lee if you insist” and the GS/Network position of New Province.  I might suggest that the thing was the work of the Primates who would describe themselves as moderates, maybe even some part of it from the ACC (although I don’t see it as Kearon’s work per se).  The point being, the GS are not the ones who have a deep personal investment in the idea, I think they had to be talked into it, as did, obviously, KJS and Canada.  But if the GS support it (even if not their first choice), and it is indeed the work of a moderate coalition, then clearly it has wide backing.  Enough backing, perhaps, for the Primates to take a unified stand on Oct. 1.  Enough backing, that rejection by the HoB will not matter much.  Does anyone know who might be accompanying ++Cantaur on his trip in September?

Merseymike wrote:

The Road to Lambeth goes far further than the CofE would be able to accept.

 

To be sure.  That said, anything that would get more than 4 percent of the nominal membership actually into a church on a Sunday would apparently go further than the CofE would be able to accept.

And the Anglican Church is led by Canterbury, and simply consists of those in communion with Canterbury.

 

‘In communion with Canterbury’ was a convenient shorthand, for a while, for denoting the trans-national Christian fellowship brought about through English missions and informed by Anglican doctrine.  Though I’m willing to grant the truth of tautologies, what is really at issue here—and what Akinola and Orombi have just ensured is a very live question—is whether that shorthand has outlived its usefulness.  With many others on this weblog, I believe that it has.

But I am sure that the CofE would not agree, and whilst that is the case, then Canterbury will remain at the centre. If others then choose not to relate to Canterbury any longer, then they will be leaving Anglicanism by definition

I believe the Dar communique underscored and endorsed the very principles that we fought for at two Camp Allen meetings. Indeed the communique called them ‘CA Principles.’ Do I believe these would be good assumptions for attendance at Lambeth—you bet. Indeed, I would put the burden on all invitations, very graciously: ‘by coming, it is my understanding that you abide by CA Principles.’ Then let the individual Bishops bear the hard choice and choose. And in point of fact, I am hoping that this is also +RDW’s mind, and that we shall see that before all the dust has settled. Councils of the church are not just things that one stays away from because one has a rigid litmus test and all must pass it, but because the general consensus of the Instruments is sufficiently clear that those who wish to proceed with innovation find it impossible to attend. I fear that preempting the process of the Communion Instruments is what many—on right and left—both desire. But this has been more eloquently stated by others. Does this clarify? CA Principles are good and generous threshholds. They state the mind of the Instruments. They were endorsed at Dar, after much hard work. I prefer to build on strength, not demolish and start over.

Chris, I was referencing those here who are arguing here against Uganda’s decision, and others who I expect to urge the remaining GS Provinces to attend even if the invitations are not adjusted.

In terms of your own position, I may have misinterpreted the following statement : “I guess I am more hopeful than many in believing that the majority of the primates and the Archbishop of Canterbury will join up and show the way forward.  That is what has been happening thus far.” It seems to me that those that have agreed to attend Lambeth “thus far”  have to be doing so based on the   current invitations and HOB’s anticipatory rejection of the Communique, which of course is contrary to the conditions set out in the Road to Lambeth. 

I hope we are at a point in history where all Anglican orthodox, whether federalist, Communion, confessional, insider or outsider, Anglo-Catholic or low church, hats or no hats, recognize that a clear unequivical statement—a real line in the sand—such has been made by the Province of Uganda offers the best hope for reform, either through discipline of TEC or creation of a seperate, faithful entity.

Dr. Seitz - I agree and would also place that burden on the invitees.  Archbishop Williams seems to feel differently, as he included no such language in his invitations.

Mr McCall

Re:

Based on my experience negotiating legal agreements under pressure, the Dar pastoral council appendix has always struck me just the opposite:  as something too well-crafted in the details to have been thrown together in the heat of the moment.  I have thought it must have been drafted in advance and only tweaked at Dar.  This very much goes to the issue of the extent to which the ABC is personally behind it.  I wonder if Dr. Seitz can shed any light on this.

Yes. To my mind +RDW is well aware of the Windsor Bishops and the problems of life in Communion for those who wish to abide by conciliar life—Councils with Bishops who stand under the authority of Holy Scripture, in some places 39 Articles, and so forth. I also believe the CA principles are fully consistent with +RDW’s own mind as ABC concerning the mind of the Instruments.

To Mr Timothy—

The Road to Lambeth is not a primatial document. It serves a purpose to be sure, like the rod of Assyria serves a purpose.

I find nothing amiss in the Dar communique. It is a landmark I do not want moved. I want it prosecuted. I believe it will be. Why would it not be? It is the hard work of the Primates, and I must surely hope they will not let it fall to the ground. That would not bring honour to them as an Instrument. I believe our ‘ACI Primate’ ++Gomez has said this already.

Dr Seitz writes:

Indeed, I would put the burden on all invitations, very graciously: ‘by coming, it is my understanding that you abide by CA Principles.’ Then let the individual Bishops bear the hard choice and choose.

 

And Jefferts-Schori, Bruno—indeed, even Gene Robinson, were he to receive a belated invitation—would predictably turn up, and, if push ever came to shove regarding their buy-in to the CA Principles, could say ‘your understanding was a nice one; truly it was; but in modernity we must all live into a multi-understandinged reality’.

I think it’s plenty clear by now that for Williams to put any such purported (but ultimately impactless) ‘conditions’ on an invitation would work about as well as a woman telling a prospective rapist ‘It is my understanding that, by proceeding with your intended assault, you are binding yourself with traditional marriage vows, assuming all obligations of child support, spousal support, and community property division implicit in the state of holy matrimony.’

And since blogs appear to be places where personal comments are OK if not de rigeur, let me add this. For ten years I have run a seminar on Scripture, Theology, Doctrine and the History of Biblical Interpretation. I have worked closely with over 70 graduate students, 90% of them from Fuller, Regent, Westminster, Reformed Theological Seminary, Gordon Conwell, Beeson, et al. They come from confessional-istic traditions and all see—all see, repeat, all see—the limitations of a tradition that cannot rest securely on the authority of Holy Scripture, in the light of its reception in the church catholic (small ‘c’ ). To appeal to anything else invariably leads to fragmentation. I am a third generation anglican priest, who has ironically (providentially) spent my entire teaching life—like Amos in the northern kingdom—in contexts not my own. What do these students want? A new set of confessions? A new piety? The removal of conscience clauses (as in the Kirk)? which would then make the Westminster Confession *work*?—no, actually, most calvinists I know believe it is not true to Calvin! THey see anglicanism as offering a unique gift to the world.

This is not an idle debate for us in ACI, or a contest to defend a view. It strikes at the heart of what it means for God almighty to have blessed the missionary endeavours springing from England, and whether we can maintain all the length and breadth of that blessing, in the form it has been blessed, and not in the form it is either to be reinvented or torn apart by innovation (heresy).

I am excited and encouraged as we watch a new Communion ‘come of age.’ I do not however feel encouraged when I see distrust in the Instruments of Communion and the way in which anglicanism is now emerging, seen chiefly through the lens of ‘problem solving in TEC.’ In the end, I actually believe God gives people what they want, and much of TEC wants not to live in Communion. If that is what they want, it will happen. But in the meantime, reinvention or demolition or innovation do not strike me as solid options.

Being a student of Church History, I know what Nicaea required of everyone, in the end. And I believe +RDW knows that as well. And so too a great many—I pray the majority—of Primates.

“The Road to Lambeth is not a primatial document. It serves a purpose to be sure, like the rod of Assyria serves a purpose.”

Given this, what did you mean above when you said you supported the Road to Lambeth.  You support it as a hammer to hold over TEC, with the understanding that it will never be used.? You support it for just a few, such as Uganda, but suggest others attend even if its principles aren’t met?

By their actions, Uganda and Nigeria have taken the position that the best way to ensure that the landmark of the Dar communique is not moved is to make it clear to the ABC and others that it is a prequisite for their continued participation in an ABC led Communion.  The Task Force report authored by the ABC underscored why it is so important that the Primates speak clearly and forceably about the consequences of TEC’s disobedience, and the failure of the ABC to withhold invitations to those that reject the Communique.

Mr Timothy—

Strange medium, this.

I never said I supported the Road to Lambeth—I offered no view on that at all.

I said I supported the notion that Lambeth 1.10 is a reasonable threshhold—for the same reason we said that for CA meetings.

And for the record, the rod of Assyria was used—until it overstepped itself. See Isaiah 11 et passim.

Timothy, where did Dr. Seitz say that he supported the “Road to Lambeth”—he said this: “as for Uganda, no one would be going back on their word if after 30 Sept it were clear that those opposed to Lambeth 1.10 were not invited; my view is that this is fully consistent with +Uganda’s stated position, with which I concur.”

A couple (well, ok, now 3) observations:
1) Is it just my imagination, or are we seeing a large number of Doctors or Divinity and Theology on this blog lately?  Over the last few days, if I ask a question on a thread, it is more likely to be answered by Dr. Seitz or Dean Munday than by one of the usual suspects.  Read what they have to say carefully.  Thank them for their ministry, because that is what their participation on this blog is. Thank you Dr. Seitz, for participating on this thread.  And thank you also Matt, Sarah, Greg, Jackie, David for your ongoing ministry on Stand Firm.
2) The people who really know something about what is going on (as opposed to those like myself who love to speculate about what might be going on) in this Church seem much more confident than most of the rest of us that there will be activity after September 30.  Granted, exactly what happens will no doubt depend on the HoB meeting’s outcome, but something will happen, and I have the distinct impression that the powers that be in TEC won’t like the outcome, Lambeth invitations or no.  Go back and listen to what ++Henry Orombi had to say in his interview, and ++Drexel Gomez’s and ++Greg Venables’ comments, what Dr. Seitz has to say here, among others.  Add in the statements from Ft. Worth, Pittsburgh, Rio Grande. 
3) We need to remember that in “church time” 6 months is the blink of an eye.  The mechanics of the Anglican Communion are not yet running at “blog speed.”  All in all, even though it really makes me tense (I don’t know about you), deliberations over the future of the Body of Christ should take a while.

If others then choose not to relate to Canterbury any longer, then they will be leaving Anglicanism by definition

Hardly. Canterbury gets scarcely a mention in the formularies. Can you point to where “communion with Canterbury” is set out as the be all and end all? I have in front of me my 1662 BCP and it’s just not there.

And the Anglican Church is led by Canterbury, and simply consists of those in communion with Canterbury.

Sorry, but by that definition the (Lutheran) Church of Sweden is a member of the Anglican Communion (which of course it’s not). “In Communion with Canterbury” doesn’t define Anglicanism; it’s just a shorthand.

<blockquote>If others then choose not to relate to Canterbury any longer, then they will be leaving Anglicanism by definition

Hardly. Canterbury gets scarcely a mention in the formularies. Can you point to where “communion with Canterbury” is set out as the be all and end all? I have in front of me my 1662 BCP and it’s just not there.</blockquote>
Indeed, a view more faithful to the BCP might be that “as the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Canterbury could err”—if Canterbury becomes hopelessly heretical, then the Anglican Communion (understood as Christians sharing a common expression of the faith, not just a bad case of Anglophilia) could continue on without it.

Dr. Seitz,

I think on the one hand, you are right the TEC bishops should bear the burden of deciding whether they can comply with the Communion.  On the other hand, I wonder whether they should be treated thus.  After all, they have for years tried been dishonest and manipulative.  I’m not so sure they have earned the trust this would require. 

On the other hand, one gets to wondering whether this process is virtuous in its allowance for last-minute repentance or a vice indicative of the times in which we live where complacency, inaction, and shallow tolerance rule the day.  It’s hard not to glance pessimistically over the repeated delay of action…  We shall see.

God’s peace

tjmcmahon….again I am in agreement with you! I just got in and WOW!!! the thead blew up while I was gone! But, you are right in your observation regarding the Doctors of Theology on this thread and a few others. Although I have to confess ignorance on any type of deep knowledge of Theology, I do study my Bible daily and ask many questions as well as I ask the Lord to give me His wisdom and understanding about the Scriptures and how to apply them in my era of time in this world. I pray daily for all to seek the same knowledge and wisdom. Having said that to say Thank you to all the Doctors, Deans, Theologians, Historians, etc…. that you would help a lay person such as me on his blog is an answer to prayer. I am small minded in comparison to your brains and many here at Stand Firm!

One does have to wonder if we are not placing too much emphasis on the Anglican Communion when in fact at the end of the day and the bottom line it is really all about God and His Kingdom, acknowledging Jesus Christ as the Risen savior and our committment to our basptismal vows to reject satan and turn to Christ. It’s all about Christainity! Whom do we say we serve…...Jesus or RW/Canterbury? I ask myself these questions: If the Anglican Communion was all but destroyed would it affect my salvation? NO! Would it be painful for me…YES! But in the end, I serve God not Canterbury.

I like another on this thread somewhere up there could not go back to a church that doesn’t have the liturgy or the Eucharist, and I am so thankful to be in a diocese here in California that doesn’t at this point have to worry of having to find another chuch come Oct. 1st! My hearts weeps for those that do!

Gods Peace Indeed!

The hour cometh when terms and phrases such as ‘Anglican’ and ‘in communion with Canterbury’ will have outlived their usefulness in denoting any meaningfully-Christian organisation or province.  The irony—and the confusion—stem from the fact that Canterbury itself, and those apostate provinces with which Canterbury is indicating it has chosen to align, are the ones with the strongest association with the ‘Anglican’ and ‘Canterbury’-related names. 

Clarity would be best served were one side of the dispute to come up with a new name.  The greatest clarity could be had if those provinces which have distanced themselves from the faith and practice that built up the meaning of the word ‘Anglican’ would accept the name change for themselves, leaving the term to those provinces and bodies whose faith and practice are much more closely in line with what has historically been called ‘Anglican’ than are those of TEC and even the present-day Church of England itself.  One smiles to think of the possibilities—in the vein of ‘the artist formerly known as “Prince”,’ who courted publicity some years ago by replacing his stage name with what the media took to calling an ‘unpronounceable symbol.’  The humourous possibilities for a new unpronounceable symbol to denote the church formerly known as Anglican (and, one might argue, formerly known as a church) are legion.

The use of the ‘Anglican’ name and the phrase ‘in communion with Canterbury’ are, unfortunately, the chief claims to legitimacy of some of the world’s most revisionist provinces.  We can take, from Dr Joseph Nicolosi’s observation (in his book on the Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality) that one of the concomitants of homosexuality is a pathologically-acute desire for approval, the lesson that labels associated approvingly with traditional moral probity—including ‘Anglican’—will not lightly be surrendered by the revisionist side.

Thus, if any side is going to give up the ‘Anglican’ name, it is likely going to have to be the Christian side.  Doing so might, at this stage,  work to the detriment of the Christian side in the pending US lawsuits.  But at some point, perhaps after these suits begin to be resolved, the benefit of clarity will outweigh the disadvantages of a name change, and provinces such as those of Nigeria and Uganda will need a new name.  Let’s be giving some thought to what that name can be.

Your Grace,
As one who has been graciously been extended oversight by one of your Bishops, I thank you for your faithfulness. I stand with you in the service for Christ the King.
Peace be to you and the Church in Christ Jesus.

“as for Uganda, no one would be going back on their word if after 30 Sept it were clear that those opposed to Lambeth 1.10 were not invited; my view is that this is fully consistent with +Uganda’s stated position, with which I concur.”

Dr. Seitz and Sarah, I interpreted this as meaning that Dr. Seitz “concured” with “Uganda’s stated position.”  Uganda’s stated position is to support the CAPA Road to Lambeth statement.  (Agreement with Lambeth 1.10 is part of the statement. )  But I certainly accept the clarification that Dr. Seitz didn’t intend to expressed concurance with the Road to Lambeth. 

Please attribute any confusion on my part to the strangeness of the medium. :>)

Unless I have missed the point completely (as happens often), I differ with the comment that the Road to Lambeth Statement is useful in a manner similar to the rod of Assyria, which I have always understood to be the King of Assyria, a pagan and brutal person used by God for a season.  In other words, I don’t view the principled stance of Uganda and Nigeria as being a bad thing being used by God for a good purpose.

Obviously, its a whole new ballgame for Uganda and others IF the invitations are adjusted to exclude the offending US Bishops, or if other Primatial action is taken prior to Lambeth to effectively take that decision from the ABC.  I am not optimistic that this will happen, but believe that a unified message such as that telegraphed by Uganda provides the best chance for it to occur.

Merseymike, you’re a reasonable man.  Surely you can acknowledge that anyone can claim that they are something or other—like “Anglican.”

But not everybody can claim that they are a member of an organization—like the “Anglican Communion.”

So I think you should have said: “If others then choose not to relate to Canterbury any longer, then they will be leaving [the Anglican Communion] by definition.”

Whether the folks departing will care about that or not is another issue.

Sarah and MerseyMike, perhaps if things don’t work out those of us on the “outs” with the ABC could just slightly mispell Anglican on our signs, perhaps “Anglicen” or a more Southern “Anglicin”.

Remarkable thread. I must insert one observation. An Anglican Communion, and TEC being in “communion with the See of Canterbury,” has dramatic legal implications in the U.S. It is foundational to the concept of a hierarchical church. For instance, TEC will appeal this very thing in its attempt to set aside the clear legal title to the real properties of Truro and Fall’s Church. Virginia has just such a defense in law. If Beers can establish that TEC is a hierarchical church, such as RC and Orthodox, the Virginia CANA parishes can lose their properties. Don’t we all remember the frantic assault launched on +Schofield by Bruno and Mathes? Old JJ made the point that +Schofield was endangering TEC’s hierarchical status and that it would place their dioceses in real danger of loosing their red doors and rock pile churches. I bet some of those dead men’s money trusts they’ve hijacked have something about being in Communion with Canterbury. Don’t kid yourself friends. TEC staying in the Anglican Communion is vital for their Secretariat Of Real Estate Hijackery to succeed in Virginia and some other places too.

Above, I sad +San Jose when I meant +San Joaqin. Too much single malt.

Timothy,
In parts of the Caribbean it is pronounced Ang’leken.  May we could spell it Angilican?

“Angilican”
Has kind of a peppy sound to it.

Having a certain Latin bias, I vote for Angelican.

Sarah ; of course. But as it stands, thats what Anglican actually means. Look at the name itself - simply a way of saying ‘related to England and the English’! For something to be ‘Anglican’ without relating to the ‘Angles’ - doesn’t really make sense.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the post a ways above by Zoomdaddy is naive in the extreme at best, fundamentally apostate at worst.

It is also incredibly insulting and offensive.

.

I limit myself to three observations:

Again, I still wonder if those of you who are on the way out TEC’s doors BEFORE there is anything really in place except the alphabet soup of the continuum are acting precipitously.

This shows the apostates’ mindset of “unity trumps all” and “institutional cohesion is more important than truth.”

Yes, the Continuum is divided among several jurisdictions—5 main ones representing 95% or more of the membership, and then a ‘halo’ of other little groups, some of them not even genuinely ‘Continuing’ churches which get lumped together as part of the same movement by ignorant Episcopalian observers.

And, yes, these divisions are inappropriate and unfortunate.

And they’re in the process of being healed.

But the kind of person who dismisses them for this reason and stays in the Episcopal church thus has more in common with the apostates like KJS than with orthodox Christianity. For, to such people, institutional unity trumps all.

This argument against the Continuum essentially says “Sure, they teach Biblical Christian faith, morality and practice. But they don’t have institutional unity—and they’re not part of the ‘Canturbury Club’ of the Anglican Communion. Therefore they’re not worth supporting. It’s better to continue to uphold and fund the dying, apostate, anti-orthodox Episcopal ‘church’ because it has an institutional unity—and that trumps all matters of faith, morals and practice.”

If “institutional unity” is your idol and your reason for dismissing the Continuum out of hand, then you should either give up all pretenses of really supporting orthodox faith and stay in TEc, or you should abandon any sort of Protestantism and go join the Roman Catholics.

none of these groups is equipped to help middle of the road congregations who are basically trapped by lawsuits if they want out, or radical revisionism if they stay.  Frankly, they don’t have the stomach, spiritual maturity, and energy to take a stand.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but the egoism and ignorance of this statement is as appalling as it is offensive. It also shows an ultimate worshiping of mammon rather than God.

The Continuing church movement took a stand against the apostasy 30 years ago while many Episcopalians - Zoomdaddys of their time—had neither the foresight nor the fortitude to do anything to help. They lost buildings, pensions, salaries. And they perservered and, despite the stumbles of jurisdictional quarrels, grew. They had the stomach, maturity and energy to take a stand—and still do, regardless of the fact that their clergy are paid a pittance of what TEc clergy get, or of the fact that their laity must build up congregations rather than coasting comfortably along on dead people’s money.

Yet Zoomdaddy seems to think that this sacrificial devotion to orthodox belief and practice is contemptable because these spiritual warriors don’t use their extremely limited funds to “help middle of the road congregations who are basically trapped by lawsuits.” Zoomdaddy seems to think that the mammon is what’s important—fight the lawsuits to get the building—not the people or the faith.

No, the Continuum isn’t interested in helping “middle of the road congregations” fund generally hopeless legal cases against apostate TEc. Even if the Continuum had the millions of dollars to waste on such efforts, they wouldn’t. Because what matters is souls—not properties and buildings. What matters is building up the faithful, not tearing down TEc (which is doomed to crumble under its own spiritual bankruptcy anyway). What matters is standing apart from the apostasy and heresy and preserving and spreading the faith, not decade after decade of compromise and complicity in an effort to hang on to a handful of buildings or dollars.

It is, rather, the folks like Zoomdaddy who want someone to show up with a million dollars, legal immunity and a magic wand to save these “middle of the road congregations” and let everyone else pretend nothing else has happened—who just want do coast along—who show the lack of spiritual maturity and stomach.

It’s the Continuing church—which actually has taken a stand and made sacrifices for the sake of orthodox Christian and Anglican belief and practice—which has shown courage and spiritual fortitude.

It makes me sick that no one is doing this thing right!  Be bold, take TEC back, even if it is a reconstituted one and we have to fight for the name… we can have an extraordinary convention of the willing to kick the bums out and start over.

And this just shows tremendous historical ignorance and naivite.

The “traditionalists” in TEc have been saying this for 30 years now. And this approach has accomplished nothing. In fact, it has accomplished less than nothing, for it has diverted energy and attention and money away from those efforts which have actually been productive and poured them out to no effect.

All the efforts to “fight from within” have failed. TEc has simply become more corrupt, more dominated by the heretics and apostate, more persecutory toward the orthodox. Only where folks have had the courage to leave TEc and stand up for the faith has there been success—the Continuum, the AMiA, etc.

This ignorant pipedream of “kicking the bums out” is just another way of waiting for someone else to show up and wave a magic wand so that you don’t have to take a stand or sacrifice the comfort of your nice stained glass, family pew, and parish bank account for the discomfort of actually taking a meaningful stand to defend Christianity and Anglican practice—so that you can continue the “drive through window” religion of showing up on Sunday to get your fresh-served liturgy rather than the more spiritually demanding religion of actually helping to build up a parish and defend the faith.

.

Yeah, we can blame the leftist and ultimately anti-Christian “activists” of the last 40 years for hijacking the Episcopal Church and turning it into the brood of vipers and whitewashed tomb (whitewashed ‘Anglican’ on the outside and full of rot and corruption on the inside) that it is today.

But it is the complicit majority—the Zoomdaddys of the last 40 years who had neither the insight, stomach or maturity to take a stand to stop it—who are the truly guilty party, for they are the ones who let it happen.

pax,
LP

Sarah & MM

Champagnois is a wine production method from a region of France, does that mean it can’t be used in California?

‘Anglican’ means a follower of the Anglican faith,  English means…. well English or of England.  Not all Anglicans are English; nor are all English Anglicans.  We have no proprietory right to the name.

I don’t see Rowan Williams suing any churches over the use of the word “Anglican”.  At worst, the continuing churches will have to refer to themselves as “traditional Anglican” churches, which should avoid any confusion with TEC- whatever else it is, it is not tradional Anglican.

Yes, actually - Champagne only comes from the Champagne region of France. You can imitate, but not use the name ...

I am sure if some churches left Canterbury they would still call themselves ‘Anglican’. But given that they would no longer be Anglican in the sense of relating to the English Church, I can’t think why they would want to.

The word Anglican clearly emanates, linguistically, from ‘English’ - it means ‘of England’. If some no longer wish to relate to England, why would they want the name? Its not as if the CofE would ever give it up…

Pageantmaster: It’s not trademarked (Champagnois is only grown in a region in France else it’s sparling wine, France will enforce their claim), but CofE already is claiming proprietary right to the name through it’s channels and communications. Interestingly at the pep rally at DioVA convention, TEC made it’s first claim to the name in +Jones speech. That will be one word I expect to see a turf battle on meaning.

Merseymike—you initially were reasonable—as in your “of course”.

Then you turn around and say something like this, that cries out for satire: “But as it stands, thats what Anglican actually means. Look at the name itself - simply a way of saying ‘related to England and the English’! For something to be ‘Anglican’ without relating to the ‘Angles’ - doesn’t really make sense.”

To which I respond:

“But as it stands, thats what [Christian] actually means. Look at the name itself - simply a way of saying ‘related to [Christ] and the [gospel]’! For something to be ‘[Christian]’ without relating to [“Christ”] - doesn’t really make sense.”

And I say this: “The word [Christian] clearly emanates, linguistically, from [‘Christ’] - it means ‘of [Christ]’. If some no longer wish to relate to [Christ], why would they want the name?”

; > )

Signed,

Sarah the “Buddhist”

No, that’s not what I meant.

‘Anglican’ itself has no particular religious meaning - it simply means ‘of the English’ - so the Anglican communion is simply churches which relate to the English mother church. I don’t think ‘Anglican’ has any specific religious meaning as a word (unlike, say, ‘Baptist’, or ‘Unitarian’, or ‘Evangelical’)

Were national churches to decide not to relate primarily to Canterbury any more, then I can’t see the sense in continuing to use the Anglican name.

The point is that liberals and conservatives alike claim to be Christian and to relate to Christ, but that wouldn’t be the claim here in terms of relating to England.

H6:6 Think ‘Champagne’ is claimed by the French, backed up I believe by a European ruling but ‘Method Champagnois’ can as far as I am aware be used by anyone.

Language is defined by its usage; hoovers and biros have long since eclipsed their origins.  Come on MM be generous, its not like you to be so parochial.  Or is it?

Oh, they can call themselves what they want! I can’t quite work out why they want to use a name which means English whatever way you look at it, though.

Any news when the other GS Province’s have Bishop meetings? When do we expect to see more reactions to the invitations?

It would be great to see a cascade of similar announcements through the summer.