BREAKING: Gledhill: +Robinson to be Invited to Lambeth

Another status?  As Priest: Penitent, perhaps?

If he comes as a guest or observer, the press will have a field day. Gene crying his eyes out with his husband comforting him, both decrying his victimization.

If he is there in any status, you can kiss what is left of the communion bye-bye.

the snarkster

Anything which would put an end to the Communion and the vicious wrangling going on within it can only be beneficial.

Any such invitations hinted for the CANA and AMiA bishops?  After all, many Anglicans have protested their exclusion, too.

The covenant proposed by +Rowan after GC06 envisioned a lesser level of affiliation - similar to that of the Methodists - for jurisdictions that did not endorse the covenant. Perhaps +VGR will be the first bishop to hold this non-voting affiliate status? If so, I wonder how the Methodists will react to his being seated with them . . .

It appears the non-committal “yes but maybe as a guest” fudge approach: “The Archbishop is therefore exploring inviting Bishop Robinson to the conference in another status.”

Still no word, so the ABC can back-out if it all explodes in his face, which it very well might have to for him to be decisive.

How about inviting those bishops which consecrated VGR in “another status.”

Galatians 5:9 (NKJV)  A little leaven leavens the whole lump.
The ABC will be taking more than a lumps from the primates if this turns out to be true!!!!

Where is our leadership? We are on the brink of all out war with the heretics - with them revising anything they want to revise month by month, and attacking priests and parishioners alike. We gave them every chance to be Windsor-compliant and they thumb their nose (and worse) at our offerings. What does ABC need to understand the gravity of the situation? Maybe he should carry an umbrella and visit the grave of Chamberlain for another opinion. I’ve had it with wimps.

The Anglican Communion is already on its last legs.  To invite Vickie Jean will be the final blow.  Actually I sort of hope it happens.  It will ensure the creation of an Anglican Orthodox Communion.

Even I am surprised at this.  I would not have been surprised at a compromise-like decision to invite representatives of both the Robinson and boundary-crosser sides in some kind of ‘observer’ status, a pre-emptive ‘I’m thinking of inviting Robinson’ announcement, without (at this point) even a sop offered to the orthodox side, seems like a calculated move by Canterbury to crystallise the orthodox opposition.  (I think I recall one or more statements from African primates to the effect that there was no way they would attend further meetings if Robinson were invited EITHER as a participant or as an observer.  This proposed course of action, which matches almost precisely what the orthodox primates indicated would be unacceptable, is apparently to be read in only one way:  an indication that, unless we hear something to the contrary, Canterbury has sided with Robinson and against the orthodox Africans.

I know—this is not Rowan Williams himself talking, but I cannot read this letter as having gone out without Williams’ approval.

So what, then, is the September 30th deadline for?

When +++Rowan’s term as ABC expires, I hereby nominate him for Chairman of the People’s Front of Judea.

Disappointing, but not at all surprising given what we have seen during the last several months coming from Rowan Williams and thost around him. This is not that significant compared to what has already been done in inviting all of Robinson’s consecrators and the entire TEC HoB which has undermined the entire “Windsor process.”

Lambeth is not the road to salvation.  Ask the new martyrs for the Kingdom in Africa and the Global South.

Intercessor

Jeffersonian:

They’re a bunch of SPLITTERS.

Looks like a holding letter to me designed to keep the lid down until ABC gets back.
L’Chaim!  Ifan….

These offficials who “represent” Rowan and speak on his behalf, they are either so incompetant that they are going to end up completely destroying whatever unity could have existed by the time Lambeth comes round, or they are stunningly wicked and by pursuing their own divisive agenda contrary to what Rowan himself claims to want that they will have destroyed what was left of Rowan’s precious unity by the time he comes off sabbatical. 

The outlook for Rowan’s communion is increasingly bleak either way.  And a clearer, more focused orthodox Communion is looking more and more likely by the day….

It is over!!!!!

This is not news.  Intimation at a lesser-status invite for +VGR was mentioned at the time the invites went out.

This seems to be a trial balloon. In light of the coordinated actions of the GS provinces in recent weeks naming several Americans bishops, this trial balloon is surprising, unless the ABC is being very devious indeed.

The Canadian bishops’ defeat of same sex blessings is an important hint at the direction the wind is blowing. If the ABC’s final position is to side with TEC, I think that the Canadian vote would have been different. At a minimum, the Canadians were not sure that the ABC has revealed his true position.

Regardless of what the ABC’s final position turns out to be, he is mishandling this situation. The Communion cries out for clear statements and actions without guile. The ABC seems unable to lead in that way.

Will somebody take a stand on anything?  V. Gene Robinson has made a mockery of the Office of Bishop of New Hampshire.  It’s also long past due that the Archbishop of Canterbury shows some spine and leads.  While realizing that the Anglican Communion has a great tradition of respecting others and the independence of the various components, this is yet another example of “do nothing”.  One can only pray that someone sees the light.

Agreed that this is probably a trial balloon, and/or an effort to create the appearance of another done deal.  When +Cantuar gets back from his walkabout, there will be lots of questions asked which will become progressively more difficult to avoid answering.  Post 9/30, the pressure from all sides will become undeniable.  The AC will probably collapse anyway, but it is guaranteed to do so without some clarity from +Cantuar.

While I think that Rowan Williams has badly mishandled the Lambeth invitations, I don’t see that this story adds anything.  A situation could occur where Robinson is invited to Lambeth “in another status” which would represent a significant victory for the orthodox, and yet a situation could also occur where Robinson is invited “in another status” that woudl represent a significant victory for the liberals.

Consider:  TEC officially rejects the DES Communique, and Rowan is forced into action.  He withdraws the Lambeth invitations from the liberal TEC bishops, and declares them as not being in Communion with him and outside of the Anglican Communion, but does invite them (and Robinson) to Lambeth as “observers” in hopes they repent.  Rowan recognizes a new orthodox college of bishops in North America and invites them as full Anglican members.  Who could say this isn’t a victory??

So, yes, Rowan has blundered on Lambeth, but the game’s not over yet.

I really don’t see that there is any “news” here at all.  Sounds just like what Canon Kearon said on the day the invitations were issued.  How Gledhill extracts “to be invited” from the letter she has is beyond me.  And, honestly, I don’t see what is served by repeating her sensationalized headline as though it were news.  At this rate, we will all be across the Tiber or the Rhine or the Niger or some other river before Sept. 30.  Perhaps we would be better served by writing our own letters to the ABoC.  I bet he has another form letter to send out to those who write asking why Martin Minns is not invited.  And another for why Chane is invited, etc.  Let’s make sure Ruth gets all of those too, so we can be sufficiently misinformed about what is going on.
TJ

What’s Gledhill’s point?  There’s nothing new here.  Williams said when the Lambeth invites went out that:  A: He would not invite either Mimms or the AMiA bishops; and B: He was considering inviting Robinson with “guest” status.  Nothing new at all.  And what Jim Rosenthal and Starbuck’s cappuccino have to do with anything is beyond me.

One thing does interest me.  In response to a recent question on “Thinking Anglicans” as to whether or not Bp. Chartres had ordained any women (five years back, when he was under consideration for Canterbury, he had not - apparently this did not help his cause) Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden, posted to say that Chartres does not ordain priests (rather odd behaviour for a diocesan?)  Does R. Gledhill’s piece indicate that he has changed course, or that he ordains deacons but not priests (still odd?)  Off subject, I know, but of some interest.

“trial balloon”..................

My opinion, not so humble either, AB of C would have done better to only acknowledge letters received on the behalf of any who are or are not invitees.  Playing the game of “let’s see if this will fly” can be very dangerous.  Any kind of invitation to VGR would turn it into a circus.  Any kind of invitation to AMiA, CANA etc that is given because of one going to VGR is an insult…...Does anyone honestly think that Minns and the rest would accept under those condition….not

I agree with Steven - this isn’t news.

My guess as to what’s happened here is that Rowan played along with the Primates for all this time convinced that, surely, ECUSA would play ball in the end, at least cosmetically.  And, I think that’s what he wants: he sympathizes with ECUSA and doesn’t want to lose it.  It’s just that he thought he could have his cake and eat it, too.

I suspect Rowan was as surprised as the rest of us that ECUSA was having none of it and chose, instead, to say “shove it” as clearly, loudly and frequently as it has.  The prospect of a soft landing foreclosed, therefore, Rowan was forced to choose, and he went with his heart.  ECUSA stays, and the mainstream Anglicans leave.  Sad, in Rowan’s eyes, but better than a Communion without ECUSA.

With the counterweight of those that hold to the historic Faith removed, the outlook for traditionalists in the CoE is bleak, probably worse than it is for their brethren here.  Tough times all around, unless Rowan Williams starts taking seriously his own statements before the latest HOB meeting.

Jamesw writes: 

Consider:  TEC officially rejects the DES Communique, and Rowan is forced into action.  He withdraws the Lambeth invitations from the liberal TEC bishops, and declares them as not being in Communion with him and outside of the Anglican Communion, but does invite them (and Robinson) to Lambeth as “observers” in hopes they repent.  Rowan recognizes a new orthodox college of bishops in North America and invites them as full Anglican members.  Who could say this isn’t a victory??

So, yes, Rowan has blundered on Lambeth, but the game’s not over yet.

Fully Agree with you JamesW!  It is entirely possible that victory can be snatched from the jaws of defeat.

But please acknowledge this in your wonderful scenario.  What could make such a scenario possible?  Yes, you’ve guessed it.  It is precisely the GS primates who say what they mean, mean what they say, and who DO what they say they will DO.  And they do so in an early enough timeframe for ABC Williams to repent and to take action for a mid-course correction.

Your scenario is heavily contingent upon the GS Primates and should such a scenario occur, it is they who should be recognized as being God’s chosen instruments for preserving the Anglican Communion.

Pax.

agree with various commenters above.

—not news
—perhaps trial balloon
—not really important anyway, as I always thought it was wrong to not invite Robinson and yet invite all the consecrators and voters for him anyway

The good news is I don’t think that there will be many bishops from our side at the jamboree anyway, which is probably all for the best.

I still maintain my hope that, if the Primates of the Global South do not attend to defend the faith at Lambeth, that they will also send letters saying “My Dear Rowan, please take me off your mailing list, and delete my email address from your book.  Also, take me off speed dial.  Don’t write, email or call.  It’s been a pleasant experience.  We’ve learned a lot.  And we’re off now.

Cheerio,

I agree with Sarah…and I am ready to join them and pay the cost that will come with that decision…

It seems to me that if Robbie is invited, in any capacity, the Anglican Communion Network bishops will find themselves in a considerable dilemma.  Do they attend anyway, figuring Robbie can’t do any damage, and risk permanently alienating their African supporters?  Or do they stay away in solidarity with the Africans, open themselves up to liberal accusations of being “disrepectful” toward a fellow bishop, risk an open breach with ECUSA and cause 815 to decide that there is no reason to hold off on the “abandonment of communion” charges any longer?

I think that this is very much a trial balloon, and that it is important for the orthodox to state clearly that Robinson’s invitation is unacceptable no matter what euphemism is attached to his status. If Robinson wants to take a trip to the U.K. on his own initiative, then of course there’s no way of preventing that, but the ABC should not invite him or provide official accomodations for him.

Agreed. Not News at all.
It is a trial Balloon that immediately popped!

Snarky has it right:
“If he is there in any status, you can kiss what is left of the communion bye-bye. “

Hopefully even the dithering and doddering Rowan is not so obtuse as to not realize this.

I fear that I have arrived at my end game.  Why are we wasting time talking about +Robinson?  The Anglican Communion as we have known it will not exist when Lambeth ‘08 rolls around.  The Southern Cone Primates, and I suspect others as well, have been where I now am for quite some time and they have only been holding, rather than dropping, the hammer on TEC and ACC, out of deference to +++ABC’s desire to try to find a way to hold the AC together.  Now that +++ABC is almost daily moving toward the revisionist wing of the communion, those Primates from non-western provinces are going to feel justified making an ultimatum to +++ABC to toss TEC and ACC out and if he doesn’t, they may toss +++ABC, TEC and ACC in one deliberate action once the September 30, 2007 deadline for a definitive response to their February 07 Communique passes without acceptance of their stated demands (anyone really think that the HoB, TEC, is going to do anything other than say we can’t help you, see GC 2009?). St. Paul wrote in 2 Timothy that in the last days there will come times of stress, that men would be unholy, and lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God and that those men, corrupt in mind and of counterfeit faith, would oppose the truth.  He admonished Timothy to avoid such people and implored him to continue in what the had learned (from the sacred writings from which he received instruction for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus).  Paul plainly warned Timothy that the time was coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but “having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3).  Sound familiar?  St. Paul fought the good fight.  Orthodox and traditional Episcopalians and Anglicans in the wider communion have fought, and are fighting, the good fight (to save the communion, and perhaps their church property).  But isn’t it more important to save “the faith” (as handed to us from the Apostles), even if that means reshaping and even realigning the world wide Anglican Communion?  Rather than talking about +Robinson, let’s focus on a serious discussion of the structure of an interim orthodox Anglican communion and then a future for that faith community going about the great work that Christ gave to each of us, making disciples of all men and caring for those in need.

I disagree strongly and think the orthodox Bishops are crazy not to go to Lambeth.  How dare they concede the Communion to the opposition without even showing up?  I have written them asking them to attend and to represent orthodox faith.

The ones I disagree with (above) are those who want the orthodox to forego Lambeth altogether and form another Communion without another try at securing a Province for us in the present Anglican Communion.  I figure we should have the numbers to be powerful at Lambeth if everyone will attend, especially if the Global South increases its Bishops proportionately at once.  I think that’s what should be done.  Then they should refuse to stay away.

+Gene is an extremely gracious guy, obviously, if he’s even considering attending under anything but full status, to which he is entitled as a duly elected and consecrated bishop.

And those who supported him are equally obviously cowards if they’re even considering attending Lambeth if +Gene is not, or attending with any greater status than +Gene.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I wouldn’t go to a party where my lesbian and gay friends were turned away.

If you believe them (and I do), Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have put off getting married—with all the financial benefits that go along with that—because lesbian and gay couples can’t.

Progressive Episcopal bishops, who do not believe that same-sex relationships are sinful, could learn a few things from Pitt and Jolie.

The more I think about it, the more canceling Lambeth altogether sounds like a good idea.  If +Gene can’t fully participate and Global South archbishops are boycotting, what’s the point of it all?  Skip it and wait until 2018.

Cheers,

TH

Very interesting Paula but it seems to me that your anger is misplaced.  How many ‘jamborees’ do the Primates need to attend? How many decisions do the Instruments of Unity need to make?

Any decision by any of the Instruments of Unity will be ignored or filed under “very interesting but with no authority over us”.  Lambeth will be no different than the vast number of meetings, decisions etc… that have already taken place.  The ABC has already said as much.  Why should godly Bishops or Archbishops waste their time or money on another ‘event’.

Me, I think that Brad and Angie are just trying to make shacking up sound noble.  As for Robbie, I don’t see why the rest of the Anglican Communion should be forced to accept a unrepentant sinner bishop who was shoved down their throats.  But that’s just my conservative Anglican cynicism kicking in, I guess.

I think I would be more worried about being invited into the Kingdom of Heaven, than if I had received an invitation to Lambeth.  I grew up in the Anglican Church in the UK, and believe me it was pretty much dead 60 years ago.  I did see a prophesy on this web about the disestablishment of the C of E which was given 80 years ago.  Can anyone remember it.  With Mr. Brown in charge this maybe the next thing and then the true Church can come forward.

++ Rowan’s continuing attempt to play both sides against the middle is about to cause Lambeth 2008 to explode right in the Archbishop of Canterbury’s face. I hope he is really good at ducking the shrapnel.

cannyscot

The chances of disestablishment of the CofE is pretty much nil. There may be some loosening of the direct role of Government and the PM, but that isn’t really what Establishment is all about.

I think Rowan’s priority is to try and hold it all together. If any ‘side’ leaves, then he will not have seen his role as successful. On one level, is doesn’t matter so much which ‘side’ wins from his perspective, and in many ways, he is neither liberal nor conservative in any case.

If he can’t hold it all together then his priority is likely to be his own church and I really don’t think there will be a lot of enthusiasm within the CofE - the established CofE - to being a branch of the Reformed Fundamentalist Church of Akinola. I also don’t think that the ‘Road to Lambeth’ indicates a wish to be led from Canterbury any longer in any case.

This is wonderful news.  ++Rowan once again shows his true colors.  This will be the perfect chance for the new Anglican Communion to get rid of Williams once and for all.  The Orthodox Communion doesn’t need Canterbury or the CofE any more than it needs TEC.

I believe RW is trolling for excommunication along with TEc.

Errr…no, I don’t think you understand. Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury - he leads the AC, because of his position. Not because of his doctrinal views.

If you choose to separate from Canterbury, that’s fine, but there will still be an Anglican Church based in Canterbury.

Errr…not quite. The Anglican Church will still be based in Canterbury! The other entity or entities New and Improved Anglicans, More Anglican, Conservative Anglicans, African Anglicans et al ...which will emerge will just be kind of like the “continuing churches”, albeit much larger ....
blessings
seraph

Paula:

Your perspective is the right one for the Communion, the Church and for Christianity in general.
The strategy we need, both spiritually and from the perspective of visual symbolism for all the world to see, is for the Global South provinces to hold back only a part of their bishops (say 30 to 40 percent), and have the rest go to Lambeth and demand action be taken against those in TEC/usa and elsewhere who have tolerated heresy, and have made a mockery of the Gospel and the authority of the Communion, the Scriptures, and the universal Church.  They should be considering a number of different ways to challenge or cajole the ABC, if he remains moderate and ends-up faint-hearted, into taking real leadership, such as having a series of meetings, not conflicting with but timed around the “official” sessions, passing their own resolutions to enforce the voice of the Primates and previous Lambeth Conferences (there are a number of other things to be done, but they need not be revealed here).  Even if the unofficial meetings were ignored by the Communion’s bureaucratic establishment and the progressivist/modpostmod bishops and their collaborators, the numbers would be enough to shake many in the muddy Anglican middle from their lack of conviction, and the non-confrontational orthodox and traditionalists from their slumber. 

Those bishops who remain behind could then be part of several global gatherings of bishops for serious prayer and fasting that could be coordinated using a variety of technology, and could also be linked with regional events in various national churches.  These things are all doable, and the institutional structures among orthodox and traditionalists already have the communication channels in place to begin organizing. 

Believe me, the reappraiser/progressivist/unitarian wing is already mobilizing for similar activity.  The difference is that they are a one-issue party that will only hurt themselves if they protest even a bit too loudly.

Agree will all above who say that what’s in the letter isn’t news. It’s merely a letter restating what’s already been said when invitations were first issued. Elsewhere in her post Gledhill quotes “a source” that says there will be a voice but not vote invite.  Any time soon? I doubt we’ll see anything before October.

Why would anyone want to hang out with that bunch?

A number of Anglicans in England have been writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury in protest at his decision to leave Gene Robinson off the invitation list to Lambeth… Archbishop Rowan noted carefully the level of disappointment expressed by correspondents, following his decision not to extend an invitation to Bishop Gene Robinson to attend the Lambeth Conference

Maybe it’s time we mounted our own letter writing campaign.

Tom Head:

Are Brad and Angelina friends of yours?

If you believe them (and I do), Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have put off getting married—with all the financial benefits that go along with that—because lesbian and gay couples can’t. 

So Brad and Angelina will sacrifice the “financial benefits” of matrimony for their ideology!  A noble decision that will leave them strugglingto pay the bills…uh…excuse me a moment…

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

... sorry Tom, you were saying?

Joe, I agree that we could do great things at Lambeth if only our people would organize at once.  It appears we are actually planning to just play into the hands of the other side, taking ourselves out of the Communion.  It is not all the same to be without Canterbury, say what you will.  I’m disillusioned, too, at ++Rowan’s recent decisions and silence.  But I’m afraid we don’t realize sufficiently, either, that some “other” Anglican Communion will not solve things for a great many people.  In my opinion, it may not work as well as you all expect.  Yes, I know it will work, of course, if God chooses.  But I don’t think it’s the right direction while we still have such a good chance of defending and reinstating Christian and Anglican values at Lambeth.  If even WE won’t wait for the Covenant, just think what it will be like!

ABof C has no spine! He is no lover of the Othrodox Conservative Christian! Sept. 30th???????? RIGHT!

What are we trying to save here people???? How much writing on the wall do we need?

Buildings are easier for humans to build or re-build! But the AC…..Only God can take care of the rip in this mess….......

Thank You Liberal-Revisionist-Reappraisers! 

And we all know Brad and Angelina are the pillers of propriety….how can we not admire a couple that was “together” prior to him dumping his wife?

For those that advocate the conservative branch going to Lambeth, and the GS primates ordaining more bishops in order to seize the agenda, do you really not think that the ++ARB, seeing that is the strategy, would extend invitations to the newly ordained?
Sorry to disappoint those still dreaming of saving the communion - the day has passed. A new day is dawning to the south, truth is reigning.

Sasha, if this is so—if there is nothing more to say for the historic Anglican Communion than “Ichabod!”—then I feel I would probably not be going on into some “other” Anglican Communion.  Sarah Hey has remarked, too, that many will simply go elsewhere after such a monumental loss.  It wouldn’t be the loss of Christianity, it’s true, but of its Anglican entity.  I am most alarmed that most of you don’t even want to try again with Canterbury.  I see this is a tremendous rout.

Errr…no, I don’t think you understand. Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury - he leads the AC, because of his position. Not because of his doctrinal views.

If you choose to separate from Canterbury, that’s fine, but there will still be an Anglican Church based in Canterbury.

MM - I don’t believe you understand the concept of communion and excommunication lad. I am neither in communion with you, the TEC nor anyone who espouses your or their beliefs. Ditto with Williams.

But I am in communion with those who follow the faith once delivered. Anglicanism is about to be geographically removed from Canterbury. Stay tuned. “Ferry Acorss The Mersey” is soon to have a new meaning.

VGR will use any opening to push his agenda and his sinful life style.  He rules this diocese with an iron hand and any one who disagrees with him can expect to be crushed like an insect.  If he is invited to the Lambeth Castle, it should be as a visitor without any voice or vote.

I should clarify my comment (above).  I can not stay in the Episcopal Church, but I don’t know about going on in some different Anglican Communion.  There are only a few venues that seem possible, it’s true, since the mainline churches are eroding as badly as the Episcopal; but I think there will be a real scattering into the Roman and Greek and Lutheran-MS directions.

LINEMAN21, If VGR is invited, he will have a voice. He will garner more interviews with the press than the ABC. And he will bask in the limelight.

Personally, I am willing to hang on until the end of September to see what rabbit ++Rowan pulls out of his hat.  I will second the motion to write him.  And caution that a polite letter will have more effect than a “what in H___ do you think you are doing” letter.  Express concern that the Communion will be threatened if the GS breaks away. Point out the ruder things your own bishop has done.  Ask him about why he invited a bishop who promotes Islam for his clergy.  Or why he invited the consecrators of VGR when that would seem in violation of Windsor and subsequent primates’ meetings.  But do so politely.

Sasha- you are, of course, correct that the Anglican label is secondary to maintaining one’s Christian faith.  A fair number of us would relegate Anglican one step lower still- as we would say that we are Christians first, Catholic second and Anglican third.  I think for some of us, the error of acknowledging the infallibility of the Pope is beginning to look smaller than the error remaining in a church with Islamic priests, and bishops who do not believe in the Resurrection.
  Still, I cannot accept that the Archbishop of Canterbury intends to divide the Communion.  The GS made their position quite plain in the “Road to Lambeth.”  So he knew what the reaction would be to the Lambeth invitations.  And yet he did that anyway.  If he wanted to be rid of conservatives and the GS, that would have been simple enough- all he had to do was invite VGR and the split would have happened right then and there.  He must enforce the Primates communique come September, or call a primates meeting and let them do it. (My bet is on the latter, and he will try to push that meeting into 2008, to as late a date as possible while still giving the GS time to get airline tickets).  But what he is trying to gain in this continued delay is beyond me.
  Well, there is not much I can do beyond writing ++Rowan a letter and continuing to pray.
TJ

“...to which he is entitled as a duly elected and consecrated bishop”.

So you’re entitled to be ordained a priest, entitled to be consecrated bishop, entitled to “blessings”, entitled to Christian marriage, and now entitled to a Lambeth invitation. 

Anything else?  How about some money? 

Let’s us traditionals all be vewy, vewy quiet.  Otherwise we might mess with someone’s sense of entitlement.  Can’t have that…

Still, I cannot accept that the Archbishop of Canterbury intends to divide the Communion.

I should doubt that any rational person believes that ABC *intends* to divide the Communion.  In fact, quite the opposite!

But what’s ironic, is that all his attempts (Anglican fudge-style communication, kicking the can down the road, killing the clock, sending up trial balloons, multi-lateral appeasement, etc…) could be exactly what will divide the Communion!

Not to make a decision is a decision.  The ABC needs to pray and ask for wisdom on which constituency God wants him to alienate.  Because that’s the reality.  There’s no way he can please everybody.  He needs to please God, first and foremost.  The rest is secondary.

FWIW, if it were me, it’s an easy call.  Discipline TEC and any other province that does SSB and knowingly ordains practicing GLBT’ers to the clergy.  Authority of Scripture rules.

Dangling the threat of reduced $$$ from TEc would have no sway over me as the ABC.  Even the disenchantment of CofE liberals over the decision to go with God’s Word wouldn’t bother me as ABC.

Sleep like a baby at night, completely at peace.  Uphold God’s Word, know peace.  Disobey God’s Word, no peace.

Easy call ABC Williams.  Seriously.

As I said before the invitations were sent….if Rowan invites +VGR, then THE FIX IS IN.

A couple of years ago it looked to me that the breakup of the AC would be laid at the doorstep of the Episcopal Church in the US.  Now it appears more likely that the immediate cause of the breakup won’t be Gene Robinson or TEC, but rather a failure of leadership at the top of the Communion, as shown by the debacle concerning the invitations to the Lambeth Conference.  In my opinion, it is significant the statement of the Rwandan House of Bishops—the clearest sign of a breakup thus far, in my opinion—aims its fire at the ABC.

Truth Unites- Thanks
You said, essentially, what I meant but I did not say very well.  ++Rowan needs to come out and say that the communique is non negotiable.  When I was talking about dividing the Communion, I was referring to a “north-south” split where 40+million in the GS and other conservatives split.  With African Churches growing at their current rates, the AC could lose the whole of TEC and still show a net increase in members for the year.
TJ

“I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts.”  Ps. 119:63 That’s a big enough group for me to be in communion with.  God has promised to shake down all that is bogus, “And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain.”  (Heb 12:27)  AC, TEC and any other man made contrivance is on the way out.  I’ll be content to be in the church catholic where ever it meets.  Everything else is just unnecessary baggage.  It’s amazing how long some can prop up Dagon and spend so much energy to do it. You can argue with this but time will prove it correct. IMHO

Paula:
If we (the Communion) continue down the same path we’ve been on, and the Global South establishes a rival structure,  I would not necessarily see that as the end of the Communion.  We would definitely have a split, but ultimately, most of the faithful would find their way back to eachother.  It would be a very difficult road, many would go to Rome and the Orthodox churches, but after only a few years of the constant experimentation, mindless inclusivism destroying what’s left of moral constraints, and politically-correct re-imaging of doctrine, those believers (in the traditional sense of that term) who remain in the Canterbury religious communion would find themselves joining the GS-led orthodox Anglican family.

However, in the meantime, I think that the precedents of the early centuries of the Church demand that we try to hold together, and that we make clear that no global family of Christian churches has actually been overtaken by heresy.  The more we fight for the Faith and Christ’s Church together now, the more we will be able to embrace and work in harmony no matter what the realignment looks like.  We may have our existing non-authority unity-pondering structures hijacked and made into a religious rotary club, but the actual formal jurisdictional structures of the vast majority of the provinces of the Communion will find an alternative means of re-connecting (The loss of Canterbury would be tragic, but sometimes it appears as if Canterbury has so lost its identity that it wants to just run and hide.  I think the coming disestablishment of the C of E will make it easier for orthodox dioceses in England to truly be themselves, especially post-Canterbury, or post-Canterbury as primus inter pares). There is so much going on behind the scenes right now with both Communion and non-Communion Anglican leaders that gives me confidence of that.

I don’t believe, as Festivus appears to suggest, that we need to ordain more bishops to be in the majority at Lambeth ‘08.  The majorities that passed the orthodoxy-affirming resolutions at Lambeth 1998 were overwhelming, and the growth in the Communion has only been where the orthodox and/or traditionalist vision predominates.  We can prevail at Lambeth, if only by the overwhelming show of support for the orthodox that would come from the faithful.  The powerful message that would be sent if provinces keep some bishops at home (leading their churches in prayer), and sent others to Lambeth, while the orthodox and traditionalists retain the majority there would be inspiring to many, even non-Anglicans who are considering the “Canterbury Trail”.  Most of them would probably no longer follow that trail to jolly old England, but Iona or Lusaka or Dar es Salaam can still be great stations for missionaries to depart from to do their work among the heathen of Europe, old and new.  And one’s vision is much clearer from those places, anyway.

It is sad that no one is bothered that divorced and re-married bishops are being invited to Lambeth. That is EQUALLY unbiblical….is there any one out there who believes, ” let the bishop be the husband of one wife.” ?

tjmcmahon wrote:

At this rate, we will all be across the Tiber or the Rhine or the Niger or some other river before Sept. 30.

If you’re looking for a river to cross, might I suggest the Orontes? At this point, it looks like my crossing is scheduled a week after Sept. 30.

Paula wrote:

I can not stay in the Episcopal Church, but I don’t know about going on in some different Anglican Communion. There are only a few venues that seem possible, it’s true, since the mainline churches are eroding as badly as the Episcopal; but I think there will be a real scattering into the Roman and Greek and Lutheran-MS directions.

I applaud your advocacy of preserving the Anglican Communion, and I agree with your assessment of the likely destinations of most Anglicans should the communion disintegrate - at least those who maintain any semblance of traditional ecclesiology.

joe from old oc wrote:

If we (the Communion) continue down the same path we’ve been on, and the Global South establishes a rival structure, I would not necessarily see that as the end of the Communion. We would definitely have a split, but ultimately, most of the faithful would find their way back to each other.

The history of church schisms would suggest otherwise. It is much easier to split a church apart than to reassemble it from its former components. Why are the various African provinces starting so many separate churches in North America instead of joining to back a single church? They must have their reasons. And if those reasons, whatever they might be, are sufficient to divide the churches now, they will probably be sufficient to keep them apart later.

It would have been relatively easy to excise the revisionist cancer if the rest of the communion had maintained a united front. But the Evangelicals have displayed their schismatic tendencies by breaking ranks and doing their own thing(s) - not unlike the revisionists.

The ones who actually believed in the Anglican Communion - like Paula and me - are unlikely to join any of the emerging post-Anglican denominations. Those denominations will be dominated by people who were never really committed to the communion in the first place - and who are therefore unlikely to make its restoration a priority.

Does he fall under the status ‘Troubler of Israel’?

It seems to me that more and more people are realizing that if the current situation remains - they are going to have to choose - between being an “Anglican” - or being a Christian.  Or else a sweeping change in the top Anglican Communion leadership and its immediate layers of underlings will be required.  Since there seems to be no possible way to dislodge this accumulated encrustation of individuals, the only way forward is to build a new edifice from the ground up, restoring the innate beauty of ancient Anglican worship, liturgy, and spirituality, resting upon the Rock of the Historic Faith, anchored in the Holy Scriptures, paid for by the blood of the Martyrs, preached by the Church Fathers, with a bright future of promise and vitality, aglow with Great Commission zeal to share the simple message of the Gospel - of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior - Who lived, died, and rose again - that we might live - now and unto eternity.  This is the ROCK upon which the New Anglican Communion shall stand…....

Many have talked about those who should not be invited to Lambeth, and I understand that but will not say more about it here.  I am even more concerned that ++Rowan Williams should still invite the so-called “missionary” Bishops of NAAC and Recife and the AMiA and others to the Lambeth Conference.  He should bring them into the fold of the Anglican Communion in a very public way.  They have responded courageously to situations “on the ground” where people needed their Biblically faithful ministry, and they should receive respect for this.  It would go a long way towards reconciliation and healing.  There was a great amount of understanding for them in documents like the Dromantine and Dar es Salaam documents, and this should be upheld and built upon by Canterbury.  Some of us have written to the ABC and still hope to see something like this.  (I know some of you will say that such Bishops should refuse if invited, but that is now how I see Lambeth; all of our people who can manage to be invited should be there.  It deeply concerns them all.)

There is no news here.  Ruth Gledhill has shown a desire to scoop others and get things into print.  But she has inflated the story before and failed to get her facts straight (i.e. 5-6 dioceses leaving TEC in a story several weeks ago, fact, one diocese, Ft. Worth preparing to leave) etc.  I am entirely dissapointed with the Times.  From them I would expect better.

“another status”?  Perhaps as People’s Exhibit A in the murder of the Anglican Communion?

Robert Ian Williams—your comment is—yet again—off topic.  We have had plenty of threads devoted to remarriage and divorce, and that is not the subject of this thread.

You will be welcome to point out all of the inconsistencies about Anglican viewpoints on remarriage and divorce on an appropriate thread.

Please do not bring up off-topic comments.

Sarah,  Risking a bit of starting something I may not want to finish ... also ...  not that RIW has not brought up off-topic comment only a few days ago and has pattern of this behavior, however here I think he has a point for the inconsistency. I found out the hard way when I raised this point to +Nazir-Ali that is is not an issue in CofE and is more a American problem. +VGR is kind of a pentacle of our porneia problems in TEC.

Your points are correct, Hosea . . . but nevertheless, we won’t be discussing off-topic comments here.

I should add that this is one of RIW’s favorite off-topic insertions into comment threads, and it has been noted.

I really don’t know where people have got the idea that the CofE is about to be disestablished.

It isn’t. There may be a bypassing of the final choice of the two names for bishop by the Prime Minister, but that’s all.

And Anglicanism cannot leave Canterbury, because the two are inseparable. However, there could be an alternative communion established which will call itself Anglican.

I still maintain my hope that, if the primates of the Global South do not attend to defend the faith at Lambeth, that they will also send letters saying “My Dear Rowan, please take me off your mailing list, and delete my email address from your book.  Also, take me off speed dial.  Don’t write, email or call.  It’s been a pleasant experience.  We’ve learned a lot.  And we’re off now. 

Sarah - Pleasant???  About as pleasant as a shift in the morgue…

This is really not a news story as said elsewhere.  It was reported weeks ago. 
So MM as to “disestablishment” there is more to this story than meets the eye.  Wait and see.

Dear Sarah,

Apologies again…but how is it off topic…when the thread concerns Gene Robinson… a divorced man.

Surely the objection to Robinson is that he is living in a state of sin, contravening the holiness of marriage, commiting adultery albeit with a man.

So why others in similar situations are invited is of relevance…surely?

However I bow to your editorship.

Roland, where will you go?

[If off topic, I apologize, will not be offended by deletion]

Roland, where will you go

Hint: The Orontes River runs through the city of Antioch, the home base of Ss. Peter & Paul, whose feast we celebrate today, and where the disciples were first called Christians (Acts 11:26).

RE: “Apologies again…but how is it off topic…when the thread concerns Gene Robinson… a divorced man.”

Your comment was not about Gene Robinson—your comment was openly about the subject of divorce/remarriage, as in: “It is sad that no one is bothered that divorced and re-married bishops are being invited to Lambeth.”

Even if your comment had been clever enough to pretend to be about Gene Robinson, as a guise to enter the topic of divorce/remarriage, it still would not have worked, for Gene Robinson is also a white man.

He is also a middle-aged man.

He is also a man who has an undergraduate degree in American studies/history.

He is also a man who enjoys cooking and gardening.

None of these are topics of this thread.

Also . . . divorce/remarriage is not a topic of this thread.

Please stop introducing this topic on various threads.  It’s transparently obvious when you do it, and it will stop, one way or the other.

But Sarah, isn’t there a legitimate basis for bringing up that issue?  I myself have wondered many times why one thing is seen as a scandal and another thing not.  Polygamy, for example, was never considered grounds for expulsion from Lambeth. 

Cheers,

TH

RE: “But Sarah, isn’t there a legitimate basis for bringing up that issue?  I myself have wondered many times why one thing is seen as a scandal and another thing not.”

Yes there is—on an appropriate thread.  We’ve had many many many threads on remarriage/divorce, as well as the red herring polygamy thread.  And we’ve discussed ad nauseum why one thing is seen as a scandal and the other not.

But we won’t be sidetracking threads to cover the various red herring off-topic trails that various lobbying groups like some of the Roman Catholics who comment here or some of the reappraisers who comment here wish to pursue.

The comment policy has been clearly spelled out, over and over and over.

Further discussion on this will need to take place off-thread, thanks.  And further comments will be deleted and the commenter banned.  There will be plenty of threads where people can bring up polygamy [spin the Buddhist response wheel!] and divorce/remarriage.

“Polygamy, for example, was never considered grounds for expulsion from Lambeth.”

This isn’t true about polygymy at Lambeth, is it?  I think we looked into this claim and found it had no substance.  Don’t I remember this rightly?

Roland, as I ponder that riddle, I also reflect on your other comments. 

Regarding the lack of a united front, there was a united front for many years—united in downplaying the significance of what was happening in the church and doing nothing. Everyone agrees that we were asleep at the watch, and evangelicals were no less asleep than others.  But if we had waited on the lowest common denominator to act we would have never gotten started, because at every step there have been those who have argued that bold action, both inside and outside the normal TEC processes, was precipitous, premature or otherwise unwise. It continues today.

I also don’t beleive it is accurate to suggest that those working with the GS haven’t believed in the Anglican Communion as you have.  I have heard Archbishop Orombi and other Anglican leaders from Africa speak with tears of their appreciation for the Anglican missionaries that helped bring the Word to Africa, and the aid and support from other members of Communion. Ironically, these churches are much more intertwined now with American counterparts than they were ten years ago, before all of the “schismatic tendencies” came to the forefront.  For example, I spent twenty-five years in the Episcopal Church, was very active in parish and Diocisian affairs, yet never had a lengthy conversation with a member of the international communion.  Now I consider several international Priests and Bishops, from a multitude of nations, as friends.  My children have been confirmed by them, I have supported been blessed to have a chance to participate in their good works.  For the first time, communion has a practical meaning for me.

Never really committed to the communion in the first place?  Hardly.  To the contrary, it is their love for the true head of the church, and the essence of the Communion, that motivate them to take these extraordinary acts.  I know you have similar motives and don’t for a moment suggest that those who disagree about strategy are any less faithful to the Communion or Christ. I am just sorry that we will probally not end up in the same place as the Anglican Communion is restructured or, if necessary, supplanted by a new communion.  But if your boat springs a leak as you sail down the Orontes River, don’t blame the Global South!

I think that Phil (6-28 4:20pm) is partially correct in his analysis:

My guess as to what’s happened here is that Rowan played along with the primates for all this time convinced that, surely, ECUSA would play ball in the end, at least cosmetically.  And, I think that’s what he wants: he sympathizes with ECUSA and doesn’t want to lose it.  It’s just that he thought he could have his cake and eat it, too.

In fact, Rowan Williams arguably did whatever he could to have TEC’s responses deemed adequate.  The preliminary report presented at DES is the most egregious example, but I recall a good deal of speculation that Griswold and KJS felt that B033 had been pre-approved by Rowan Willaims or Kearon, and that they were shocked when he rebuffed it.  Could it be that Williams HAD preliminarily pre-approved it, but reneged after hearing from some conservative primates?

I suspect Rowan was as surprised as the rest of us that ECUSA was having none of it and chose, instead, to say “shove it” as clearly, loudly and frequently as it has.  The prospect of a soft landing foreclosed, therefore, Rowan was forced to choose…

I agree that Rowan probably was surprised when KJS distanced herself from the Communique and when the HOB told him to go take a leap.  I disagree with Phil that Rowan has now decided to side with TEC.  I believe that Rowan’s agreement to attend the September HOB meeting will be a last-ditch attempt on his part to convince the “moderates” in the HOB to accept the DES Communique.  Failing that, I believe that Rowan will attempt a good faith attempt to work out a compromise that works for the primates.  I think that Rowan is still hoping that he can get TEC to sign on to DES.  If that is the case, then he can make the legitimate case that he can invite all of TEC and the alphabet soup bishops (as the DES Communique recognizes them, and if TEC accepted the DES Communique, it would need to start working with the ASB’s), and even bring VGR in as an observer.

The unanswered question is what will Rowan do when TEC’s HOB rejects the DES Communique and rejects any workable solution to the problem?  The Global South has made it perfectly clear to Williams what their response will be, and Williams will be painted into a corner.  He either supports TEC (which will have just rejected his attempts at reconciliation) or he supports the Global South (which he is bound to do if he is a man of his word).  The question is still to be answered.

I largely agree with jamesw’s analysis. +Rowan will do everything he can to persuade TEC to meet the demands of DES at least half-way. If he succeeds, then he will advocate letting TEC stay in the communion until the next test - the covenant. But if, as now appears likely, TEC blows off DES, +Rowan will wash his hands of the matter and hand over TEC to the primates for judgment and sentencing.

Sasha - Your uncharitable evaluation of +Rowan’s character is based on a biased reading of carefully selected data (I’m guessing selected by someone else, not by you). It cannot be squared with a broader reading of his words and actions, particularly his reflection following GC06, which I think is the key document for understanding what he is up to.

In general, any reading of +Rowan’s words and actions that reads them as primarily political demonstrates a total misunderstanding of his thinking. His orientation is intellectual, not political. That is why political activists on both sides find him so consistently frustrating - he is playing a completely different game than they are playing.

JamesW, you make two points I’d like to emphasize.  One is the thought that ++Rowan Williams should support the Global South, “which he is bound to do if he is a man of his word.”  There are good reasons to say this.  The other point of great interest is that ++Rowan might still invite the American “missionary” Bishops to Lambeth “as the DES Communique recognizes them.”  Yes, there was quite a bit of encouragement from the Anglican Communion (in writing, in documents like Dromantine and Dar es Salaam and more) to condone the border-crossing which has apparently blocked the invitations (and the recognition) to this group.  There is, therefore, much reason to recognize them (with invitations or at least in some other way).  The Archbishop allowed people to be told, year after year, that they remained fully in the Anglican Communion when joining with one of the foreign Primates.  He could have announced years earlier that this was not entirely the case—if that had been his message and intention—but he did not.  (I know he did sigh or grumble on occasion about certain initiatives, but no real announcement was made about them.)  If people were simply allowed (even encouraged) to go out on a limb in order to be lopped off, this would suggest a very considerable degree of scheming.  I just can’t believe that at this time.  So I hope for the best.  It seems to me that his word is at stake in his disposition towards the orthodox, both primates and church members; he is on record in writing and interviews.  The things we have been hearing from supposed surrogates do not sound at all like his own previous statements.  Add to all this the fact that former ++Andrew Carey has said plainly that his prior action (AMiA) does not constitute a precedent and need not be any bar to inviting our “missionary” Bishops. 

By the way, I do NOT agree with those who believe that ++Rowan is not motivated by Christian faith; I know his works extremely well, and he doesn’t lack orthodox faith in credal matters.  (His work has been consistently mischaracterized, and people keep harping on one essay out of a very large output.)  I can’t understand, by any means, what he is thinking or doing at this time.  It would be sad indeed if expedience really weighs heavily to him in the balance with all the factors above.)

Sasha, thanks for you amusing reply. I had not factored in reaction of Elizabeth R.  You are certainly correct that ++Rowan does not want to see the Communion die on his watch. Which is actually part of the reason I tend to think he and the GS are in closer communication than we generally give them credit for- it is hard to imagine he would have taken the risk (which appearances suggest he did take) that Nigeria, Uganda, etc. would walk on the news of the invitations.
Roland, Jamesw. Timothy- I find your statements all well reasoned.  I think we have more reasons for optimism than pessimism at the moment.  Clearly, the GS primates are preparing a new province here in the US.  Hopefully, we can end the charade this fall, and the ABoC will formally recognize the new structure.
Thanks to all
TJ

Hopefully, we can end the charade this fall, and the ABoC will formally recognize the new structure.

I like that thought.  I might have to buy some new earplugs to handle all the shrieking and wailing coming from 815 if that were to happen.

“The intelligentsia are not the brains of the nation but the s—-.”

Yeah, that’s just the sort of thing a politician - especially a totalitarian politician - would say to preemptively dismiss those who would question his programs.

I have a Ph.D. and work for a policy research institute - i.e., I am one of those ivory tower academics, just like +Rowan. That’s why I think I understand him better than you do.

An intellectual is, by definition, a person who is oriented towards truth. A person of political orientation, by contrast, is oriented towards power. My point is not that one is “better” than the other, but that the divergent goals and motivations of the two orientations are such that they can understand each other only with great difficulty.

Sasha, I think the Panel of Reference did lots of useful work.  They did exactly what they were asked to do, they made recommendations on those intractable cases that were referred to them (remember that they never saw the case until it had been ruled as irreconcilable by the parish, diocese, province, 815 (in the case of the US), and the ABoC.  Then they came up with what were generally pretty sound recommendations that were then summarily dismissed by 815 and/or the bishop of the diocese in question.  This was another case where it wasn’t that no one was working, just that the answers they came up with were “incorrect” according to 815 and friends.  As for Archbishop Carnley, to me, he proved his worth in his drolly sarcastic reply to Bonnie Anderson’s “you don’t understand our polity” memorandum.
Roland, I am not quite so far up the ivory tower as you are, but I tend to agree with your assessment of the situation.  However, with KJS seemingly pushed aside in the TEC power structure, and Mr. Beers appearing to be playing according to Machiavelli’s rules for accumulating power, the problems we face currently will be small compared to what happens in the fall (and into next year and perhaps next decade).  Whether Rowan recognizes the new provincial structure or not, the presentments, inhibitions and lawsuits will fly out of 815. 
I wonder Roland, what is your take on how Dr. Williams feels about the provincial structure that is emerging in the form of Common Cause bishops.  I note that the Communion website seems to be presenting more of this news than previously, and generally in a more positive light.  Any thoughts on this?
Thanks
TJ

The subject was researched in detail.  Tom, if you have real evidence, please contact me through Stand Firm email and I’ll open a new thread but repeating rumor is off limits.  Paula, I am posting the link here.

Whether Rowan recognizes the new provincial structure or not, the presentments, inhibitions and lawsuits will fly out of 815.

Assuming the HoB does not cave on DES, I agree. After September 30, 815 will untether the lawyers and they will do their thing, unconstrained by past concerns about membership in the Anglican Communion.

I wonder Roland, what is your take on how Dr. Williams feels about the provincial structure that is emerging in the form of Common Cause bishops. I note that the Communion website seems to be presenting more of this news than previously, and generally in a more positive light. Any thoughts on this?

I don’t really have a good basis for speculating about what he thinks, but I will offer my own two cents’ worth. I have trouble seeing a unified provincial structure emerging at this point. The fact that African provinces are now appointing second bishops would suggest, on the contrary, that they see the current multi-jurisdictional missionary structure in North America as a long-term thing, not just a short-term expediency. I don’t really understand why they’re doing it (while I think I understand +Rowan, the Africans often confound me), but I assume they have their reasons. Whatever those reasons for building separate missionary dioceses might be, they will probably persist after September 30.

Recently, a priest friend expressed amusement that this looks like reverse colonialism. In the same way that British and American missionary societies carved up Africa in the 19th century, today the Africans are carving up North America!

If +Rowan were to recognize a new province in the U.S., I would guess it is more likely to be based on the Windsor dioceses of TEC than on the various African missions.

Bonnie Anderson’s letter to the ABofC and the panel of reference (do keep in mind that her DD is honorary, as you will see from her letter, she resides on the ground floor of the ivory tower):
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/1897/
and a bit more:
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=17300
Living church on the reply:
http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3092
Sorry I can’t find the original letter (which I recall being pretty humorous, especially when you read what he was replying to first).  I’m having problems searching on T19, and I never have figured out how to search for an article on Stand Firm.
I think I will call it a night before I am called on the carpet for going so far off topic.

Perhaps this is the link you’re looking for?

Timothy . . . this is what Roland said: “Those denominations will be dominated by people who were never really committed to the communion in the first place - and who are therefore unlikely to make its restoration a priority.”

He was speaking of [ahem] not the Primates, but, er, laypeople like you from ECUSA.  And . . . I’m afraid that your words reveal that at least about you, he was correct.  ; > )

“For example, I spent twenty-five years in the Episcopal Church, was very active in parish and Diocisian affairs, yet never had a lengthy conversation with a member of the international communion.  Now I consider . . . ”

20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants [3] to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, 23 and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works. 24 But to the rest of you in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not learned what some call the deep things of Satan, to you I say, I do not lay on you any other burden. 25 Only hold fast what you have until I come. 26 The one who conquers and who keeps my works until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations, 27 and he will rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received authority from my Father. 28 And I will give him the morning star. 29 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’
Joel
http://livingtext.wordpress.com/

  He was speaking of [ahem] not the primates, but, er, laypeople like you from ECUSA.  And . . . I’m afraid that your words reveal that at least about you, he was correct.   
But Sarah, it wasn’t for lack of trying. We supported them financially, sent mission trips and worked hard to create connections.  Looking back, I can see where our efforts were subtly directed by the Diocese toward foreign churches that were part of TEC, or sympathetic to it.  When we later started creating independent mission connections with Global South churches, all (you know what) broke out.

My point is that churches on the sword’s edge are generally much more tied in with their international Communion counterparts than before.

I truly believe that most of those who have recently fled TEC for an Anglican church desire nothing more than a faithful Canterbury led Communion.

Timothy, I believe this, too—
“I truly believe that most of those who have recently fled TEC for an Anglican church desire nothing more than a faithful Canterbury led Communion.”

And I feel these people were virtually promised this, in a variety of ways.  May the Lord Jesus Christ bring it about.

Roland, me too—
“I have a Ph.D. and . . . I am one of those ivory tower academics.”  But ++Rowan can not simply be dismissed by such a term, Sasha.  He is not just an intellectual; I still believe he is a man of faith.  I understand that he was deeply hurt by mischaracterization of his writings and by a very limited and skewed report of them that SPREAD and others distributed last year.  I hope that he has not given up on us and that we will not give up on him at this difficult time, before knowing a lot more.

If what you want is a communion with no liberals within at all, then you won’t get that from RW. He’s very much a broad-church man

MM, While I think your use of the term “broad church” may be a bit “liberal” certainly your point about his wanting to keep some diversity of thought in the Church is well taken.  He does have a limit on what he thinks is acceptable theologically (see link below).

Sasha, before being too critical of ++Rowan based on his current modus operandi and some internet and magazine articles about people’s interpretation of his motives and what he meant in articles he wrote as a college professor 25 years ago. It is important to remember that when push came to shove theologically 10 years ago when John Spong “nailed his theses to the door” (however one does that on the net), it was a Welsh theologian who stood up to him- http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/13880.htm
As to ++Rowan’s current modus operandi, as I have said, based on the information I have, I would not make the decisions he has made.  I do not understand the motive for either the sub-committee report at DES or the Lambeth invitations (or lack thereof in some cases). However, that said, I do not have all the information he has.  There are other factors beyond the obvious intransigence of TEC that come into play.  Chief among these, I think, is that he is a compassionate man.  There is no solution to the current situation in which large numbers of people will not be hurt.  I think he is still hoping to broker a deal in which the orthodox Anglicans in this country can have pastoral oversight (whether officially a primate or otherwise).  While many of us would like him to just go ahead and recognize an orthodox Anglican church, if he does that tomorrow, he knows that TEC will unleash all manner of lawsuits and presentments.  He would like to see things work out in a manner that +Bob Duncan can spend more time in his role as bishop than in the role of courtroom defendant, and where the largest line item in the budgets of both the new church and TEC is something other than legal fees.  In the current circumstances, I think that is a goal worthy of our support and our prayers.  In order to achieve that goal, he will do things we do not expect, and things that are not in our personal best interests.  Let us at least wait until the dust settles after Sept. 30 before we throw stones.  Better yet, let us not throw stones then, but try to make the decision on our futures as we believe God would have us do.
TJ

I truly believe that most of those who have recently fled TEC for an Anglican church desire nothing more than a faithful Canterbury led Communion.

You Spot on Timothy!!!!
Although I have not left my church or diocese since I am fortunate enough to be in the San Joaquin Diocese, I have often given thought to he daunting prospect of if I was somewhere other than the S.J. Diocese what would I do? It would be the same as those who have felt it necessary to find an Anglican Church. It seems that every new week TEC is furthering itself farther and farther from scripture and the Traditional Faith and joining herself with the world and of worldly pleasures and ill-gotten-gain with lawsuit after lawsuit, thumbing her nose (HoB) at the GS,  no discipline what so ever for going ahead and consecrating an openly gay man to the episcopate when told not to, and the dirty laundry list just continues to pile up! It is very much a painful thing for many to continue on in these scriptural & spiritually dead churches & I too feel their pain. Just because I’m fairly sae forthe moment here in San Joaquin doesn’t mean things couldn’t change by October as we are not lawsuit proof from TEC & 815. Nothing is for certain in this life except death, taxes and God’s ever giving & lasting love for everyone good & bad!

Found this on the ABC’s site, although it is just more of the same….

Clarification

Friday June 29th

In relation to the Times report of 29th June that ‘Gene Robinson is to be invited to the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church next summer’, it should be noted that there is no change to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s decision not to invite the Bishop of New Hampshire to the conference as a participating bishop. It is still being explored whether Bishop Robinson might attend in another status but no invitation has been issued.

ENDS

I have asked before whether it is possible that ++Rowan Williams may have been bound and gagged and held incommunicado recently!  This was a JOKE, but his recent silence almost makes me wonder if there is any reason that he can’t address us!

I will say just a little more here about the Williams whose works I know.  I don’t believe any of you could find that he has “no truly Christian faith and character” if you would read the great bulk of his writings (40 books), starting with _The Wound of Knowledge_ (from St. Paul to Luther and John of the Cross) and going through the great sermons, like “The Forgiveness of Sins” and “Risen Indeed.”  The reply to Spong (already mentioned) is representative of his orthodox beliefs on those essential “tenets.”  I don’t understand what he is doing at the present time.  Let us pray for him mightily.

He’s on sabbatical for the summer, stay at Georgetown U in D.C.

This is disappointing but hardly surprising.  VGR and Rowan have been dance partners for years.  You don’t believe me?  Check it out.

http://www.ican.ie/campaigns/universalmusic/dancesisterdance/myvid/index.php?v=b7f7e868aa2d

Bill+:  Too funny!

I’ve heard +Rowan is reading and writing about Dostoevsky during his stay in Georgetown.

Those who have met him testify not only to his own sincere spirituality, but to his inspiration of spirituality in those around him.

I have read only one short book and a few speeches and essays by +Rowan. I suspect that his academic habit of considering his subjects thoroughly - and sympathetically - from every point of view tries the patience of those who measure his words in terms of their own agendas and who are looking for him to take sides.

As for his stand on issues du jour, while he tends to be empathetic toward homosexuals, he is also quite explicit about his pro-life views. He describes himself as a “lefty,” but his communitarian views upset most of his fellow liberals, who subscribe to radical individualism. In short, he is hard to pigeon-hole in terms of contemporary political categories (as, I suspect, are a lot of catholic Anglicans).

Most important, however, I think he has the proper understanding of the role of a bishop. While too many bishops cast themselves in a “prophetic” role, heedless of the divisive impact of their pronouncements, I think +Rowan sees a bishop’s job as serving the unity of the Church - and even more so for a primate. To this end, it is traditional for bishops to act collegially and by consensus. As ABC, that’s how he tries to work, but he must deal with bishops left and right who ignore the consensus - even when it is written down and agreed to formally - to do their own thing.

Given how often his fellow bishops have tried his patience in the past year, I can understand why he needed this sabbatical and why he is keeping silent on matters of ecclesiastical politics for now.

“He’s on sabbatical for the summer, stay at Georgetown U in D.C.”—Joel

Well, I know this is what they TELL us, Joel!  But do we KNOW for sure that ++Rowan is not bound and gagged somewhere?!  (And think about the desperation of some of the interests involved.)  Ha-ha—I guess!

“. . . he tends to be empathetic toward homosexuals, he is also quite explicit about his pro-life views.”—Roland

Yes to both.  Let me say more about the first issue.  Opponents like the SPREAD authors do not distinguish properly between quite different positions.  Opposing discrimination for sexual orientation (which ++Rowan has certainly done as an educator and a Christian) is not the same thing as advocacy of sexuality.  The Archbishop has tried to make this point over and over, but, though it is obvious, some won’t accept that.  This is a very big problem of communication, but I seldom hear it mentioned.

In any case, most of ++Rowan’s books and articles have nothing at all to do with this issue but are about Christ and Christian doctrine.  He does have one totally silly essay about Paul Scott’s tetralogy The Raj Quartet (this is the infamous essay “The Body’s Grace”) that I wish he had never written, but he addressed this long-ago piece last year (said it was rightly criticized).

One of the things I appreciate most about the Archbishop is his opposition to abortion, as you say, Roland.  I have also liked the fact that he has been affirmative towards Alpha programs, charismatics, and of course major tenets of the faith like the Virgin Birth and the physical Resurrection.

But none of this explains the present situation, I realize.

While too many bishops cast themselves in a “prophetic” role, heedless of the divisive impact of their pronouncements, I think +Rowan sees a bishop’s job as serving the unity of the Church - and even more so for a primate. To this end, it is traditional for bishops to act collegially and by consensus.

Thank goodness we didn’t have ‘uniters’ like him in place during the days of Athanasius. We’d all be Arians.

Thank goodness we didn’t have ‘uniters’ like him in place during the days of Athanasius. We’d all be Arians.

On the contrary, thank goodness we did have uniters like +Rowan - including St. Athanasius. There was zero chance of Arianism winning the day, but it might have caused even greater and longer-lasting division if not for the pastoral care of the fathers.

Ecumenical councils were called only when the unity of the Church was in danger, and their purpose was to settle the controversial matters that were threatening the unity of the Church. They did not attempt gratuitously to settle every disagreement between Christians, but only those whose solution was necessary for continued unity. In short, their purpose was to prevent, minimize, and heal schism, not to facilitate it.

And when anathemas were issued, it was always with the hope that their subjects would repent and return to the Church. That required painstaking efforts at precise definition of the doctrines in question by bishops and theologians who prayed and agonized over every word. And it required pastoral care to avoid unnecessarily alienating those who might be later persuaded of the truth of the council’s decisions.

Nor did Athanasius ever voluntarily break away from the Church. Rather, the lawless schismatics persuaded emperors to depose him. In any Church dispute, those most eager for schism are likely to be in the wrong. Those who are orthodox can afford to be patient, confident of God’s triumph.

Athanasius spent his final years as bishop working to repair the damage wrought by earlier division and dissent.

Sasha - Last night I wrote:

I suspect that his academic habit of considering his subjects thoroughly - and sympathetically - from every point of view tries the patience of those who measure his words in terms of their own agendas and who are looking for him to take sides.

Your latest rant reads like an illustration of my point.

I don’t know when a post here has made me sadder than your last two, Sasha.  Even when the Archbishop expresses the most orthodox tenets, you can tell when “his heart is not with us” and he is “hedging because of his own doubts about the faith”?  You know, ++Rowan’s answers to the apostate Spong have been discussed here before, and more people than myself were pleased with their orthodoxy.  Second-guessing each other’s expressions of faith is bound to hurt us all.

It’s the sadness of seeing the Communion so close to a split with Canterbury that we see an attack on the Archbishop’s rejection of Spong—even though he had the position we wished him to have!  I didn’t say it was my greatest sadness in life (though the loss of the Communion would be ‘way up there) but my greatest sadness “here” on this thread.

David+, your use of the term “Vickie Jean” above certainly says something about you. And I’m not sure it’s positive.  In fact, I am sure that it is not. The response “mean spirited” comes to mind. “Homophobic,” as well. Who says it’s not all about sexuality?!?

Padre Wayne, your use of the term “homophobic” above certainly says something about you. And I’m not sure it’s positive.  In fact, I am sure that it is not. The response “mean spirited” comes to mind.

Padre wayne, FYI RE: Mr. Robinson’s name via wikipedia

When he was born, there were concerns that he would not survive the delivery, so the physician asked Robinson’s father for a name for the baby’s birth and death certificates. Charles and Imogene Robinson had counted on a girl, thus explaining Robinson’s feminine given name of Vicky Imogene

So to call him Vickie Gene is in itself correct since he himself goes by “Gene” in the shortening of his middle name! Why should you take such offense at the correct use of this mans name unless his correct name bothers you on some level!

I’m sure that rules for the blog recently published indicated that the use of Gene Robinson’s baptismal name was not necessary.

So use of one real name given at birth is not to be used???????
Greg what then should I be referring to you as?

Good grief, I certainly know what +Robinson’s name is, people. I was referring to David+‘s use of “Vickie Jean,” an obvious feminization of Vicky (or just V.) Gene, and thus my “homophobic” comment, which still stands. (If it was a misspelling, then I withdraw my comment.) The feminization of a male name implies a deeper misunderstanding of homosexuality; moreover, the user is showing his or her ignorance—and, quite possibly, mysogeny, since it is assumed (by him or her) that calling a male by a woman’s name is a put-down! See: “Nancy boys,” “Nellie Queen,” etc., for further reference.

Irregradless of the spelling of the name Mr. Robinsons name is a femine one! Hence the reasons why his parents tagged him with it at birth as is stated above in my blockquote!
You are reading something into it and thus making it what you believe, which may not be anywhere near truth as to what the person using it meant!

People with the name Terry, or Terri, or Teri ...which one is a male or female spelling? You are grasping? Terry (male) - Terri (female) - Teri (most always female) so if I was a man wit ha name of Terry but my parents spelled it Terri…it would be a female version of the name! So i wuld have to live with it or legally change it!

Good grief, I certainly know “homophobic” is used by the deconstructionists in ECUSA.  The use of a word ending in “phobia” where there is no actual “fear” implies a deeper misunderstanding of Christian ethics; moreover, the user is showing his or her ignorance—and, quite possibly, bigotry, since it is assumed (by him or her) that attaching an insult to Christian belief is a put-down of Christianity! See: “misogynist,” “Bible thumper,” etc., for further reference.

ODC (& Dave+)—The SF comment policy does say to stay away from the full name, he does not use it and we sound respect that to keep the discussion on topics instead of degenerating to name calling.

Policy here

Padre Wayne—“Homophobic” ??? I see you are not much more out of the sandbox than those you are attempting to rebuke. You loose any high ground when you as well sink to another’s level.

MerseyMike is correct.

Furthermore, the blog policy by Greg Griffith is clear and has been posted and frequently pointed to over the past several weeks and months.

Here is the section that has been frequently pointed to over the months—over and over and over.

“3. Sneering references to our Worthy Opponents.

For example, I know Bishop Robinson’s real name is indeed “Vicki Imogene,” but I never refer to him by that in the context of opposing his episcopacy or his theology, because it’s obviously intended as a slam against him personally. It’s a juvenile, playground taunt that doesn’t belong here. Go to Google and learn why he’s named that, and my guess is that you’ll understand why it’s inappropriate in the extreme to use it. Same goes for calling Susan Russell things such as “arch-lesbian.” I know she embraces the term, but it’s like the “n” word - it’s not okay for us to use it. When she uses it, it’s funny and self-effacing; when we use it, it’s petty and derisive. To everyone’s credit, we see very little of that kind of thing here, but even a little is too much. For the best thoughts on our Worthy Opponents, read Sarah’s essay. This is not to say that you can’t call a heretic a heretic, just make sure you (respectfully) make the case for their heresy.”

I see that two reasserting/traditional commenters here on this thread are using that, despite the fact that they know the blog comment policy.

I am curious about something. 

Is there any reason at all that the Commenatrix should not ban those who have done so on this thread, since both offending commenters know the rule, and have violated it with knowledge, even going to the extent of deliberately modifying the spelling in order to make it more insulting. 

Please note [yet again] that I am not the Commenatrix, and so the reasons stated will merely supply answers for my curiosity and will probably have no effect on the Commenatrix at all.

“and we should respect that” 

Folks - for once I agree with PadreWayne - let’s give respect when it is warranted, which is ALWAYS.  At the very least, use Gene Robinson, which is how he prefers to be addressed.  Mr. Robinson works, as well as The Rev. Robinson, even Bishop Robinson.  We can use VGR, VGR+, even +VGR, depending on your personal preference.  Vicki Gene sounds, as PW said, like a diminutive (whether or not it is his given name) - like someone calling +Duncan “Bobbie”.  Not cricket, folks.  I’d like us to be better than that!

Sarah = Anglo-Dominatrix ?
*G*

H6:6
I am not calling anyone a name! I am simply stating a fact. And if Mr. Robinson chooses not use his own full name that is his choice. If he prefers not to have his full name used by others, then he needs to change it to what it is he would have it be!

RE: “If he prefers not to have his full name used by others, then he needs to change it to what it is he would have it be!”

Actually no, One Day Closer.  Bishop Robinson does not need to change his name at all in order to assure that he will NOT have his full name used by others on the StandFirm website.

Folks - for once I agree with PadreWayne - let’s give respect when it is warranted, which is ALWAYS.

Let’s not get carried away here. I have to be clear from the outset that I have absolutely no respect for +Gene Robinson at all. He has had no concern at all for the effect his Episcopacy has on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. He has demonstrated time and time again, in word and deed, that it is all about +Gene and the rest of us be damned. I rank him up there with +Spong, +Pike, +Righter and the many others, so beloved of the revisionistas, that have done their best to destroy traditional Christianity in TECusaCORP.

Having said that, I’m from the south and my mama taught me to be polite at all times. Also, I have a great deal of respect for Greg, Matt, Sarah et al so I will refrain from doing things they have asked us nicely not to do (and yes, I have used various derogatory terms for +Robinson in the past and will probably continue to do so-just not here). And if my mama hears about it, she will probably wash my mouth out with soap.

the snarkster

ODC—He goes by Gene or V. Gene Robinson (it courteous to address one as they present themselves)—regardless, Greg has set up a comment policy we operate inside of on SF, Sarah has directly quoted it and issued a warning. It would behoove all to heed the warning—now I’m out-a-here before the Commenatrix does appear ...

Fine! Then I guess I do not fully understand the reasons why anyone should be apposed to havng their given birth name used. It is not his name that we are opposed to it is his living in sin and being a symptom of the tearing & splitting of the Anglican Communion!

Snarkster - I still say things that my mama would smack me for, and find myself internally flinching, waiting for the smack!  I love and respect my mom, and figure she “programmed” me that way for a reason.  I can disagree with someone, and even lose respect for them, but I like to keep in mind what Jesus would call Mr. Robinson, which is “beloved”. 
OK, warm and fuzzy moment is over…

ODC - so what does his name have to do with it?  Use your argument against what the problem is, not his name.

My other half doesn’t use his first name either, but to change it would dishonor his mother.  Whatever reason +VGR has, it’s his.  But the problem isn’t his name and you lessen your argument by dragging it in. 

While I’m just a poster here, too, remember that what we post reflects upon Christ.  While reappraisers choose not to use the same rulebook, it doesn’t give US license to act in the same spirit.  We MUST hold ourselves to a higher standard and live toward it.  You have a lot of good to say.  Please don’t throw it away (i.e. get banned)  on something small.