A Hard Truth

Matt+ I think you are 100% correct.

At one time (not all that long ago) I would have answered “Yes.” 
The cold, hard facts have moved me to answer “no” if asked today.  There is a clear choice between a club based on unevenly applied bylaws and a Christian movement that takes Scripture, traditiona and reason seriously.  To the extent that Canterbury is the figurehead of the former, it is infinitely disposable for serious Anglican Christians.

Dear Matt,
  I continue to be deeply impressed by your analytical powers, and I have benefited much from reading your posts here.  To your question, “Is Canterbury essential to Anglicanism?” my answer is a qualified yes.  Canterbury’s essential value for Anglicanism is that it is a visible sign of our connection with an (the) apostolic see, and I believe that is a sine qua non of Catholic Christianity.  I do appreciate that others will in faith and conscience come to a different conclusion.  But here is that well known text from Vatican II:
  “This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor Peter and by the bishops in union with that successor, although many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside of her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belong to the church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism toward Catholic unity.”
  Should ++Rowan lose sight of that goal, then I agree, Anglicanism does not need Canterbury.  But then it would be just another Protestant church.

I think there are two possible answers:

(1) HELL YES

(2) HELL NO

Thanks, Hippo, for that to-the-point quote from Vatican II.  There is a very reasonable, Catholic perspective that would lean toward Canterbury as essential.
But there is also Anglican language that could support “no” - the 39 Articles posit the visible church as present through right teaching of the Word of God and right celebration of the Sacraments.
The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral eventually uses the term “Historic Episcopate”, which emphasizes the quality of the office rather than the quest for a literal, unbroken Apostolic Succession.

Your analysis reflects a hard truth that most of us have denied at points in our journey, and may not want to hear today. 

I must admit I wanted it all, the integrity of not being under what I consider to be TEC’s apostate leadership PLUS the comfort (and cache) of remaining part of a Canterbury-led Anglican Communion.  At some point after September, it is likely I will have only half of what I want.  But all that means is that God has something much greater in store.

As an observer from the side it seems to me that not only do TEC/AC folks not pay much attention to scripture, but also other standards or any rules at all are ignored.  Look at the Central NY debacle and now even the ABC ignors the DAS decision.  For all the vaunted councillar structure no one even pays much attention to it.  The canons and church courts are useless.  It is just like in the Judges, everyone does what he thinks is right.  This is worse that congregationalism.  At least the Baptist conform to the deision of the congregation, but episcopalian leaders are beholden to nothing but their own autonomous will.  Shessssh

It’s certainly not essential for my Christian walk.  And if Dr. Williams will not stand up to the American apostates, if he refuses to do anything about ECUSA’s clear violation of Anglican teaching and if primates who claim to be orthodox value the Canterbury connection over the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then there is no point in continuing this ridiculous charade any longer.

George:  Perhaps the ACC can develop a HELL - MAYBE position to be studied at the next several Lambeth Conferences.

Re: Were we, however, to ask which primates would be prepared to stand against or, if need be, apart from Canterbury if push came to shove, the number would be reduced to somewhere near 6 or, if we want to be optimistic, 8.

If there are two communions, one will be young and vibrant and the other will be old and dying.  There may be some (many?) provinces that are unwilling to break with Canterbury at the outset, but they might join the orthodox communion as well.  (Anyone who is not in can expect major missionary efforts in their territory; how can they thrive if they are associated with the decadent western churches.) Over time, the liberal communion will only get more heretical, older and smaller.  The orthodox provinces will inevitably gravitate to the orthodox communion in the long run.  In any event, the six to eight will constitute the lion’s share of the present communion from the gitgo.

Don’t know what it would look like or what it might be called, but if +Rowan and even the AC choose TEC, we L2will not even be bound to the title “Anglicanism”.

A must read before answering Father Matt’s questions is a posting by Dr. William Witt found here.

Matt, I would raise one objection in your numerical analysis, and it is heartening objection. Perhaps only 8 provinces might balk, but they are the biggest provinces and they account for over half of the world’s Anglicans.

RW has shown that he could be led (I have not seen the converse). It is obvious to me that there is now solution to the current problem that includes the TEC. As such, any forces that help the TEC stay part of the AC are part of the problem. Unfortunately, those forces include the ABC, himself, and the communion conservatives such as Sentamu and the ACI folks. The call for continued dialog with the apostate TEC is merely abetting their apostasy.

No, it’s not essential to be “Anglican” to be Christian.

Kidly allow me as an outsider (RC) to offer an observation here:  from a classical Anglican perspective, communion with Rome is desirable but on doctrinal grounds not possible.  Likewise, it seems to me consistent with classical Anglicanism to conclude that communion with Canterbury may be desirable, but on doctrinal grounds not possible.

Perhaps only 8 provinces might balk, but they are the biggest provinces and they account for over half of the world’s Anglicans.

rob-roy,
This is true, but remember they are just “those little brown primatives”  who have few funds and not any power.  I am confident that if they walk then TEC/AC wiil not acknowledge that they have gone and will still keep them on their roll and count them.  After all, they are the real Episcopal, Anglican Church.  Most of the pew potatoes would not understand any of it or care.  Like the tree that falls and no one heares it.

Hi Matt

You may be right about this battle. But what will happen with the next one? Will the same people who refused to stand up against this rewriting of the Bible, be equally happy with saying that Jesus is A way—or that the MDG are “salvation”—- or that it is exciting and to be promoted in diocesan magazines to be episcopal and Muslim at the same time?

There are doctrines where you can get competing Bible passages and both sides can legitimately argue their case while still having the principle in tact that Biblical teaching determines our belief (Women’s ordination is one in my book - Paul both states that women should not teach, and also that in Christ there is neither male nor female and names various women as leaders).

But this is not one of them. There is no passage in the Bible that supports same-sex marriages, and once you decide that you are going to ignore the Biblical teaching, the truly the sky is the limit.

I think actually the die was cast when the church walked away from Jesus’ very clear teaching on divorce (with a slight issue about divorce for adultery). We are reaping the whirlwind of that decision now, but the whirlwind of giving into same-sex decision will make this look like a summer breeze.

In short then, I think if we lose this battle, the war will be horrible indeed.

rob-roy posts an important link to Bill Witt’s comments.

If Seabury didn’t think Canterbury was necessary to Anglicanism, I can’t see why I should.

If TEC is allowed to stay in the communion after 30 Sept with no sanctions.  There is nothing to keep us in the AC.  If the AC tolerates TEC then it is not an organization I want to be part of.  I have no idea what we will do, guess we will have to face that in October.  We are currently in an Anglican church under Recife and Venerables.  After 59 years it will be a shock, but not a tough decision.  God comes first and the AC can go the way of the world.  I will shake the dust from my sandles.

I am with Matt…the answer is no.  I would have prefered to be part of a larger Anglican communion rather than a smaller communion led by the Global South, but I would prefer a Global South Communion to ANY communion that included an undisciplined and unrepentant ECUSA.  If a new communion is formed after Sept. 30 then I am all in…if it isn’t formed by the end of the year, I am all out…I will NOT be in ECUSA in 2008.

Quality over quantity…I have been very impressed with Orombi, Akinola, and company…no one on the other side has made a favorable impression at all…

Out of curiosity, johnp, where do you think you’ll go?

[Cross-Post] EmilyH:

I think Matt is correct.  The 20 is now 8.  I don’t think that the rest of the primates will stand with the GS.

This is a perfectly acceptable outcome, if it really is the case. 

Joshua 24:14-15 “Now fear the LORD and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.  But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.”

20—> 8.  Big deal.  Have it go to 20—> 1.  Remember the prophet Elijah?  Stop dithering and playing with heretical fire.

Choose this day and decide.  Numerical and political majorities are irrelevant.

What is relevant is the determination of the severity of the heresy and apostasy.  If agreed that souls are being lost because of it, and defiant unrepentance is the result despite continued exhortation, then separation is biblically mandated.

I have read accounts by RobRoy and others that they feel ashamed and uncomfortable inviting others who may not know the saving grace of Christ to their Episcopal church.  If so, then souls are definitely in jeopardy because of the heresy.  And this is a FIRST-ORDER issue that must addressed with prayerful haste.  No more dithering for the sake of a laughably false unity.  It’s not a matter of rushing to a decision, but quite the opposite!  It’s the lack of a timely decision that’s so gravely hurt the Anglican Communion.

May the Lord have mercy on His faithful disciples and also on those who rebel against Him and His Word.

[Humble apologies for another cross-post]

For the sake of speculation, when all things are considered, and assuming that ABC Williams is theologically and ecclesiastically wise, and not being blackmailed or extorted, I can’t, for the life of me, see why or how he could possibly choose to side with or endorse TEC. 

It would be a stupidity of monstrous and historic proportions.

(1) Biblically wrong.  [That’s far and away the most sufficient reason.]
(2) TEC + ACC + CofE Communion would be numerically smaller than a GS-led Communion.
(3) He would be shunned and disdained by the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and conservative Protestants for enabling heresy.
(4) He would be branded a heretic.
(5) He and the ACC would not get the vaunted money that he’s hoping for from TEC.  Between the lawsuits and the dwindling giving by a dwindling TEC, there’s no way that TEC could continue its current funding to the ACC.  That 30 silver dollars is gonna get ABC Williams figuratively hung up on a tree.
(6) He will have to be accountable to God on the Judgement Day.

So I really can’t see how ABC could side with TEC.  He’d have to have a major brain-fart to even consider it.  If I was a GS primate, I’d know this and continue to “encourage” him to make the Godly decision, no matter how personally difficult it is.

And if TEC could get ABC Williams to side with them, I’d have to credit the Enemy’s powerful work here.

P.S.  Matt makes me nervous about the ABC with his dramatic rhetoric (which I would not really argue against too much, given the present craziness and chaos in TEC/AC and the ABC):

He lost his gambit to push through the Sub-Group Report, but he gained a much greater strategic victory: knowledge.

Now he knows the real rather than the supposed strength of the orthodox primates. And this knowledge has added a certain measure of steel to his spine.

Knowledge of the real political weakness of the orthodox coalition is why we’ve seen, since Tanzania, such a noticeable and aggressive shift in Canterbury’s public position and posture beginning with his issuance of Lambeth Conference invitations.

The worst case scenario for Archbishop Rowan Williams, supposing he refuses to act in accordance with the Tanzania Communique’s Pastoral Scheme and/or refuses to discipline the Episcopal Church, would be the loss of some populous but politically isolated provinces in the Global South and the loss of several primates—primates who, frankly, threaten the power and position of the see of Canterbury and that of the Church of England.

Canterbury has nothing to lose.

Nothing to lose??!??  Don’t the 6 reasons I listed above count as a MAJOR enough LOSS for the ABC to deter him from pursuing the worst-case scenario?

“Is Canterbury essential to Anglicanism?”

In a word, no. Loyalty to Christ trumps sentimental human ties any day, any time. If Canterbury puts its influence and reputation behind apostasy, we are better off without it.

Would Anglican Christianity without Canterbury be “just another Protestant church”? Not necessarily. Anglo-Catholics get far more respect in the Network than they’ve received in ECUSA for the last three or four decades. And evangelical Anglicans take catholicity more seriously than most reappraisers. If we can hold together—-and that will be a big IF—-we can reclaim and strengthen Anglican catholicity.

TU&D: On a Matt Kennedy thread seven months ago, I hypothesized that Abp. Williams’ highest priority is to avoid splitting the Church of England. By presiding over the expulsion or other stern discipline of ECUSA right now, he might well increase the risk of such a split. Hence the plausibility of Matt’s analysis here and in his “Great Betrayal” article.

PS: I wouldn’t say Williams has “nothing to lose.” But he may well believe he has much less to lose if eight provinces leave (including Global South leaders he may view as the most obstreporous) than if the C of E splits and loses the two North American churches to boot.

TU,

The problem is that aside from your number 2, I do not beleive that RDW buys into any of your assumptions. I believe he thinks he can pull it off ecumenically and that God is not necessarily on the fedcon side. So, while I agree that it would be “monstrously stupid” for someone with the assumptions you list to do what I think the ABC will do, I do not think the ABC shares those assumptions.

Robroy, as usual, I agree wholly with what you say.

Is Canterbury essential to Anglicanism?

Good question
(...Being a new Anglican, I may not be qualified to answer). 

Better (imhbeao) questions:

a) Is Christ the sole author, and sole finisher, of our salvation?

b) Do we really love Christ, if we do not follow His commandments?

c) Does the Bible come from God?

d) (as a follow-up to (c) ), Who is God?  I.e., what are God’s attributes?

e) Where do we, as individual Christians, derive our new identity?  ...And where should we derive our corporate identity?

f) If Canterbury puts a low priority on God’s teachings, how important is the question “Is Canterbury essential to Anglicanism?,” compared to the eternal security of people that God has put into our lives (e.g., the check-out clerk at the grocery store, the family in the pew next to us, etc)?

Billy D, I would prefer CANA or AMIA and I would prefer to have my whole congregation join me while we await the creation of a new Global South led communion, but if I am forced to go alone and if the communion doesn’t come into existence then I suppose a good Biblically orthodox non-denominational church will do…we have several in town.

Is Canterbury essential to Anglicanism?  My answer is an unqualified “No”.  No institution which is by its very nature “of man” is necessary to perpetuation of Christian faith, which is supposed to be our relationship with God and Jesus Christ.  Churches should be for the purpose of fostering our relationship with God, not interfering with it or misguiding it.  When the earthly institution interferes with that faith, then it must be cast aside.  I see this as a question of form vs. substance in which substance should win every time.
I would also note that Anglicanism, and Canterbury, got its start through a break with Rome and establishment of a separate institution.  Why now should we see Canterbury as sacrosanct, rather than subject to another break to create an institution more consistent with God’s message for us?  Let us not get caught up in institutionalism and undue concern with structure and form.

I suppose my question was more along the lines of Anglicanism in particular. I take it as granted that Anglicanism is not essential to Christianity…

“Hope for the Best, expect the Worst.”

That’s what I always say.  And when it comes to the Worst, I always mutter to myself, “I hope I’m wrong, I hope I’m wrong, Oh Lord, please let me be wrong!”

Matt, I did not have a restful sleep because of your Hard Truth article.  I hope you’re wrong and I think you hope you’re wrong too.  But there’s enough credibility in your analysis to make me frown. 

You got me when you wrote:  “So, while I agree that it would be “monstrously stupid” for someone with the assumptions you list to do what I think the ABC will do, I do not think the ABC shares those assumptions.”  That possibility jolts my system more than a triple latte at Starbucks ever could.  Has the ABC strayed that far away from historical and biblical Christianity that he could be such a false shepherd??  Scary thought.

Then you wholly affirm RobRoy in:

It is obvious to me that there is no solution to the current problem that includes the TEC. As such, any forces that help the TEC stay part of the AC are part of the problem. Unfortunately, those forces include the ABC himself, and the communion conservatives such as Sentamu and the ACI folks. The call for continued dialog with the apostate TEC is merely abetting their apostasy.

I don’t disagree.  I’m a lover of clarity too.  But RobRoy and Matt, the implications are quite clear on the position you’re advocating.  You’re drawing the lines quite brightly and quite starkly.  Some on the other side may accuse you of premature militancy.  But on the other hand, I’d have to agree with pushing the alert levels up to DefCon 2 (or whatever it is).

Anglicanism is heading to a Titanic Conclusion!

This will be a long process to form a new church based on the original tenets of Anglicanism.  My suggestion is to get ready for a couple of years of confusion, breaking apart of the old, formation of the new.  We will find ourselves asking (if like me, you haven’t quit the old in name, but like me, have quit the old in practice) who do I join in with? 

I know these are not big/interersting theological questions, but for a regular guy like me with a family, it will be hard.  We have to realize that we will be the small group leaving.  I do believe that a few more will join us as time goes by because of the more strident nature that TEC will assume once this happens.  A few will just not be able to take it as they realize what they belong to, and will search around for a church that more accurately reflects their beliefs.  We do not need to underestimate the power of inertia.  I have friends like me, that have children, and are trying to get them raised, etc… without a lot of disruption.  I couldn’t take it anymore, and quit attending my parish, but they have decided to get the children raised, and try to ignore all the problems.  There will be others that will decide to switch before they start preparing to die.  I have heard from some older parishoners that they are just too old to start looking again, and need a church to die in.

We will be the people that have lost this battle with the church, and need to start thinking about the shape and form the new church will take.  We have lost this, and need to start thinking of the new beginning, the real battle.  We will be small, which bothers some, and more isolated.  We will start spending less time dissecting all the wacky stuff the other side says/does, and more time in construction of the new.

Just to add another to Truth Unites’ list of 6, if the ABC sides with ECUSA, he keeps the enormous problem of half his communion being dominated by a horrendously uncontrollable ‘free radical’ element that will eat at the body. If he thinks (and you know he does) they’ve been hard to handle to now, what becomes of him when he’s fully yoked to ECUSA and the counterbalancing elements of the GS and the American orthodox are gone?  What wondrous innovations await him.

Matt Kennedy + responding to TU…AD: “The problem is that aside from your number 2, I do not beleive that RDW buys into any of your assumptions.”
Good grief, I cannot believe it, but Matt: I agree with you! (I know, I know: Vapors! Get the smelling salts! PW agrees with MK! Well, you’re on vacation, so perhaps you can take some deep breaths…)
Moreover: Nor do I buy into any of the assumptions of TU…AD. (And that’s where MK and I may disagree [grin].)

For an interesting answer to Matt’s question (and apparent response to +Sentamu) from Bishops Jensen, Benn and Bazley, read this:

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/?p=1931

Well Canterbury probably is essential to Anglicanism, but not to anglicanism, which would be that flavor of Christianity whose worship and praxis is informed by the English Prayer Book, whose ecclesiology and liturgy is catholic, and whose theology is based on the authority of Scripture.  TEC most probably will remain Anglican, but is rapidly becoming unanglican.  Heck, half the Anglican Church of the CoE is not anglican.

I am anglican under the godly Orambi and will remain so unless the GS does nothing after 30 September when TEC wins its battle to remain Anglican.  If the GS remains yoked to Canterbury, which in turn remains in communion with TEC, then I’ll run from anglicanism and help start an American Orthodox Church in Tallahassee.

Rick Killough: “If he thinks (and you know he does) they’ve been hard to handle to now, what becomes of him when he’s fully yoked to ECUSA and the counterbalancing elements of the GS and the American orthodox are gone?”
Leaving the ABC aside for a moment, I would also ask, what becomes of TEC (or any church, for that matter) when counterbalancing elements depart? What happens when a church (read: institution, organization, even, I think, a business) loses its ability to hold people together within their disagreements? What happens when one “side” stops listening to the other—because they are not there?

One could say, I suppose, that the remnant can become stronger because it is now allowed to focus on what it believes and where its strengths and mission lie. But…I also suppose that without the counterbalance, there is certainly the danger of pride…arrogance…“We won!”... And these comments apply to both reappraiser and reasserter. Does either side really want a church where dissenters are cut off? I don’t.

Mark McCall - thanks for that link.  Jensen’s clarity always appeals to me (and it is all the more striking that a letter with several contributors is so concise). 
PW - this is way beyond cutting off dissenters.  There is no prevailing “orthodoxy” in the AC, but at least two incompatible movements.  Separation removes coercion and lets the two groups get on with what they value.
But, within a new, confessional Anglicanism, “cutting off” will be a necessary and Biblical last resort when other forms of correction and discipline are not accepted.  I’m not going to spell out all the Biblical and traditional material on disicpline and excommunication, because those things have been covered on this site in great detail over the last few years.
But you might ask the bishop-elect of South Carolina about the cutting off of dissenters, since he is a lacerated party.

Philip, love the play on catholic/Catholic and anglican/Anglican!  You said a mouthful!

Given the state of post-Christian, modern British society with it’s now almost Nazi-like enforcements of “gay rights”,  how much future does a Canterbury-based communion have anyway?  Even if Rowan gets a clue and the current crisis is handled correctly (from the orthodox view), what happens with the next ABC appointed by the Brits?  I am the most anglophile of anglophiles but I just don’t see a future there.  At least not any future that I want to be a part of.

Canterbury is not only non-essential to Anglicanism, I am coming to believe that it is detrimental to it.

PadreWayne,

You analogy fails because it fails to understand the purpose of organization. Any organization must have a purpose - it is that purpose that brings people together and creates the need to talk, listen and work together. People leave organizations when they no longer think the purpose is right or achievable.

The fundamental issue in TEC is not one of talking, listening or counterbalancing - its that there are massive disagreements about the very purpose of the organization. Is this nothing but a charity and support group that serves a light meal? Or are we trying to change the world for Christ? What does that changed world look like and where do we draw the inspiration for our goals?

When organizational goals change and the members of the organization no longer agree with the goals, they leave. Sometimes changing the goals is good, other times it leads to disaster. TEC has changed goals and now stands astride Scripture and church history. The “counterbalancing forced” have tried to recenter the goals. The message is fairly clear that the “counterbalancing forces” are not welcomed, but any organized attempt to leave will be made as difficult as possible.

Please, don’t prattle on about staying in the conversation when the most likely response to any action is a tort.

Does either side really want a church where dissenters are cut off? I don’t.

I don’t either. But I think we have reached and very probably passed the point at which there is merely difference of opinion between reasserter and reappraiser. We really don’t seem to be talking about the same faith anymore. And for me, at least, this is quite apart from the issue of whether homosexuals should be priests or bishops.

Does either side really want a church where dissenters are cut off? I don’t.

Hmm… In Heaven, that’s the way it is.  Dissenters are cut off.  Consider the “great gulf” between Abraham and the (unnamed) rich man in Luke 16:26. 

Here on earth, a lot of us have learned our lesson about not coming down too hard on (e.g.,) the dippers vs the sippers, so I guess I’m not impressed with whiny guilt-trips over rejecting the facade of compatibility between the two factions (Christian, and apostate) within TEC. 

If we’re wrong about our position, then may we be anathema.  And if your side is wrong, the same to your’n.  I’m not ashamed to own the antithesis, nor are the more astute reappraisers. 

One side is Evil, the other isn’t. 
Get over it.

Please see the following link which was shown to me by Africanised Anglican a number of months ago:
http://www.anglicanspread.org/

I was and still am hoping that the situation is not quite as bad as all that, but I don’t want to be oblivious to increasingly clear signals either….

TUAD:

Has the ABC strayed that far away from historical and biblical Christianity that he could be such a false shepherd??  Scary thought.

You know, having to deal with the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church for the past 4 years now, I’ve come to the unpleasant, but sobering conclusion that there is a vast chasm between the ‘TEC bishops’ and the ‘uneducated laypeople’ like me and thee… or at least they perceive it as such.  They are so ‘above’ the petty Christianity of the uneducated masses (much like Uncle Andrew in the Magician’s Nephew )  that they are not ‘bound’ by the rigidity of the Christian Faith or its norms… that is for the ignorant and foolish Evangelicals of the Faith.

I have not only found that perception prevalent with my ex-bishop and his minions but also in the clergy who subscribe to his viewpoint.  Theirs is simply a superior way and if you were wise, you would understand it. 

Any attempt, therefore, to correct them is seen as the height of impertinence. 
Reminds me of a Lewis quote:

“In any fairly large and talkative community such as a university there is always the danger that those who think alike should gravitate together where they will henceforth encounter opposition only in the emasculated form of rumour that the outsiders say thus and thus. The absent are easily refuted, complacent dogmatism thrives, and differences of opinion are embittered by the group hostility. Each group hears not the best, but the worst, that the other group can say.” 

I look at it and think, “Corrupt headship - it first permeates the heads and filters down through the clergy to finally sinking into the laypeople.”  It is the reason we mustneeds get rid of it if we want our ministry to continue.

So, if Rowen has fallen into this lemming group, I would hope not, but I think it is a great danger - for being ‘in with the in crowd’ is not just a problem our young people face.  Dr. Williams might not have succumbed, for all of us, I hope not - but, as Matt states - the signs are not favorable at this point.

If he has, then getting rid of that corrupt headship is essential if we want to really impact the planet for Gospel of Christ.

Two responsese to Matt’s post:

1. Canterbury is obviously essential to official “Anglicanism” but my sole interest in Anglicanism per se is that it is the best potential model at this point for a global, reformed, catholic Christian Church.  The latter is certainly possible without Canterbury.  Assuming Anglicanism survives the current troubles, I would hope that eventually the person who is “Archbishop of Canterbury” is appointed by leaders of the Anglican Communion rather then the British government.  In other words, the ABC position needs to evolve so that the dog is in charge of the tail, and not vice versa.  If the ABC would prevent Anglicanism from becoming a global, reformed, catholic Church, then at that point I have lost my interest in Anglicanism.  I don’t think we are at that point yet.

2. I think that Matt is being a bit too pessimistic here.  I recall his speculation in the week leading up to the DES Communique.  I think where Matt is wrong is his apparent belief that Rowan Williams would like to provide cover for the ideological progressives in TEC, and that his various actions to date are explained by this motivation.

I do NOT believe that RW’s allies are the ideological progressives.  As Ric and others have pointed out, if RW makes his bed with the Ideologues, he can look forward to continued trouble as the sky is the limit in terms of craziness where these folks are concerned.  Sure, RW might be able to scrape by with a much reduced AC somewhat intact by allowing TEC to continue its homosexual advocacy, but what happens when TEC consecrates its first Muslim bishop or some other equally crazy thing.  You KNOW there is something else on the horizon, and RW knows it too (I have heard that he has described the TEC ideologues as “flakey”).  To give a green light to the Ideologues is to give a green light to no end of problems, and RW knows it.

RW’s motivation is not to provide cover to any side, but rather to find the EASY WAY OUT.  I believe that his actions are best explained in this way.  I believe that he initially did suggest to Griswold that B033 would sufficient and that is why Griswold and KJS pushed so hard for it.  Then RW heard that that wouldn’t be the easy way out.  Then he tried to lob his sub-committee report to the primates.  If they had accepted it, then it would have been easy.  But they didn’t.  And we have to expect RW to look for the easy way out in September.  The question is what is the “easy way out” in RW’s mind?

RW’s natural allies are the Institutionalist Progressives and the Communion Conservatives.  This is why RW can not allow the Ideologues to get off scot free - if he does, then the Institutionalists and CommCons have their legs cut out from under them.  RW has to craft a compromise that the Institutionalists and CommCons can both sign on to, and if he can broker that, he believes (probably correctly) that the FedCons will also be able to live with it also.  The FedCons may not be happy with it, but all he wants is for them not to leave the AC right now.

The loose canon for RW is TEC’s Ideologues.  They are the real threat to his plans.

Why is this so?  Well, we have seen the Institutionalist/RW brokered response to SSB’s in Canada.  It barely passed there, but the line did hold.  And that line was the one brokered by RW with the Institutionalist Progressives in Canada.  Look for a similar move by RW in September in TEC.  As I have argued before, I think that RW’s agenda will feature 3 points:
1. a moratorium on SSB’s and non-celibate homosexual bishops for a set period of time (either to 2009 or to Covenant consideration time).  This is for RW to hold up to the CommCons and FedCons to show that TEC has technically complied.
2. a wink-wink nod-nod permission for “pastoral responses” a la the Canadian HoB statement.  In other words you can have a eucharist and do everything but do a formal blessing on the SSU.  This is for the Institutionalists to take back to their pressure groups to say “look we can do virtually everything you want anyway, wait a couple years and we’ll get it all.”
3. hold the promise of the Anglican Covenant up so that any liberal or conservative group that is inclined to bolt will think “well, let’s just stay to see if the Covenant breaks our way.”

That I think is RW’s agenda on the moratoria with TEC’s HoB in September.  I think he needs at least that for him to achieve his “victory”.  If the Ideologues win out and deny RW even this pathetic victory, then I believe that RW will begin a plan to isolate the Ideologues.  But much will depend on how the TEC Institutionalists would react to such a defeat.  That is the big question.

So if RW can broker his compromise, he will need to tackle the PC/PV plan.  My guess is that he will suggest a suspension of legal activity for a set period of time, or at least a suspension of evictions.  My guess is that if TEC agrees to the above compromise on sexuality but refuses to agree to any PC/PV type plan, then RW will probably just go ahead and invite everyone to Lambeth and use the “just wait till the Covenant consideration” line.

Now having said all I did, I am not obviously suggesting that RW will be a defender of the DES Communique nor of conservative interests.  Matt is right in asking us to be very suspicious of RW.  But what I don’t believe is that RW is allied with the Ideologues and plans to give them cover.  He simply can’t afford to.

So in my opinion the real interesting resolutions to watch for is what happens in the “Institutionalist vs. Ideologue” battle in TEC’s HoB?  And if the Ideologues win, that will be RW’s big nightmare, so the question will be - how will RW respond?

If ++Rowan Williams is going to continue to end run the Primates and do what he can to protect the revisionist crowd, then I say build an orthodox Anglican Communion without him as a part of it.  Anglicans have too much to offer the world to just keep throwing away our heritage to satisfy the liturgical disbelievers and nonbelievers by discarding the faith once delivered to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

Into everyone’s thinking on this issue, let’s add this: 

at least Akinola and Kolini are very likely to retire within a very few years. 

If you were an institutionalist, wouldn’t it be a VERY attractive goal just to kick the can far enough down the road so that any definitive action were delayed until it were possible to deal with primates other than those two men?

The institutionalists and revisionists have already shown that they can use very great patience toward advancing their agendas.  At this critical point, simply ‘more of the same’ for about 3-4 years would advance their agendas quite nicely.  And delay, we have seen, is not a hard thing to get in English ecclesial circles.

Canterbury has nothing to lose.

This is a hard truth. I’ve written about it before. I do so again because I think it is something with which we must come to terms if we are to think clearly ....

I don’t really have an issue with dramatic hyperbole as a rhetorical device to draw attention to an urgent, pressing problem.  The ABC is working extremely hard to keep the AC together; he wouldn’t do so if he didn’t have anything to lose.  He knows has a great deal to lose, and he knows his legacy on earth and heaven (if he believes in a Day of Judgment) weigh in the balance.

The choice for him, as it is for us in political elections many times, is to decide which is the lesser loss, which is the least damaging among the choices.

Matt, you’re correct that much depends on the ABC’s foundational assumptions and worldview.  Those presuppositions would guide him in prayerfully deciding which is the lesser loss.  I use a reasserter’s presuppositions and so naturally I think he’d be nuts if he didn’t biblically discipline a defiantly unrepentant TEc.  Alas, that goes out the door if he operates on totally different presuppositions.  It’s like arguing with a cagey, crafty, academic version of Merseymike.  Never the twain shall meet btw reappraiser and reasserter.

I like to read thrillers and have read fun things about the vaunted MI-6 and MI-7 in Britain.  Those U.K. intelligence guys are brilliant and they play games within games within games that can make your head spin.

Given the game-playing in the high placed secretive circles of the AC, I’d have to confess that there’s a play that the ABC may have made that completely snookered me.  With the WR and the DES Communique I believed with certainty that the ABC was setting up the groundwork for TEC to excommunicate itself from the Communion through obvious non-compliance.  But now the play may be that the ABC set up these structures without any intent of ever enforcing them!!  And by knowingly not enforcing the consequences for blatant violations, the ABC premeditated a maneuver to get the GS primates into separating themselves out of the AC.  Because the ABC knows the GS primates would never stand for that.  They say what they mean and mean what they say, and if there were no consequences, then their biblical integrity would be lost.  Eg., boycott of Lambeth 2008; Sentamu’s recent remarks (however misreported it was), Susan Russell’s claim that it’s the GS primates walking away from the Communion, and Orombi’s claim that British hegemony on Anglicanism is over.

The ABC is playing and strategizing with the fire of heresy and apostasy.  I pray he doesn’t get too clever for his own good that he winds up getting burned himself.

P.S.  Someone slap me if I’ve become too paranoid and see conspiracies where none need exist!  Aaaaaaaack.  Matt and SFIF has made me this way!

JamesSW. agreed that the ABC is trying to make an alliance with the institutional liberals and comm cons and not the ideological liberals. The problem with the ABC’s plan is that the ranks of institutional liberals and comm cons are being depleted precipitously. Both sides of the fence, people have gotten fed up with his dithering and doubletalk. Thus, many of here were previously in the comm con encampment are now firmly in the fed con camp. I think that this has surprised the ACI folks. They previously got a free ride here, now they don’t.

Yes you are correct that either way the Communion will fracture.  However, the nature of that fracture depends on Rowan.  If Rowan does the right thing, then the AC only looses one Province which in reality will not be lost, but simply replaced with a new structure.  Should this happen, many moderate TEC dioceses will likely jump on with the new structure.  Canada, will likely put the brakes on and become Windsor compliant too with the exception of one diocese.  This will ultimately result in a reduction of the AC by at most 2 million.

On the other hand, if Rowan sides with TEC by claiming that TEC is Windsor compliant, then the fracture will be quite different indeed.  The Anglican Communion which is roughly 75 million will be split into two large opposing blocks.  My guess is that the orthodox block will likely contain about 40-45 million and the Canterbury side will have 30-35 million.

The difference is that Rowan either looses 2 million or at least 40 million.  So yes, either way the AC will split, but the difference in the nature of that split is like night and day.

Posted by Spencer on 07-22-2007 at 07:00 PM [link]

This was posted by Spencer a few days ago on Fr. Matt’s “A Threat Revealed” Essay. I think it bears repeating here since it offers a logical reason on why ++Rowan may NOT do as +Matt speculates.

+Matt has now thrown two flies in the ointment and he projects two scary scenaria of what potentially could happen. I think Spencer’s scenario is equally likely and certainly a bit more hopeful than +Matt’s. This is one time when I hope that +Matt’s projection turns out to be wrong.

Thanks Been There for re-posting Spencer’s mini-essay.  It’s another reason why I think ABC would not want to side with TEC.  The global numbers don’t make sense. 

But then again it doesn’t have to make sense.  Feels like a trip to Alice-in-Anglican-Communion-Land where words and their meanings shift erratically and whimsically, where polity trumps everything, where personal experience rules over logic and reasoning, where there is a god, but not THE triune God, where canons applied to reasserters don’t necessarily apply to reappraisers, etc….

This is madness!! 

robroy:  I think that Sarah Hey’s excellent analyis posted recently discussing the ascendency of the Ideological Progressives in TEC is very important here.  I agree with you that RW has hitched his horse to a wagon in a very precarious position right now.

But the math is this.  If RW sides with the Ideologues, then he knows that he will immediately lose the FedCons (who make up a very large percentage of the AC) and that he will probably continue to have problems as the ComCons will gradually split off as the TEC Ideologues keep pushing the envelope.  RW must realize that this is a losing proposition.  The EASIEST solution for RW is to try to ressurect the Institutionalist-ComCon alliance, but failing that, it will be to isolate the Ideologues.  If he can isolate the TEC Ideologues, then he will be able to maintain most of the AC intact, if he can bring forth a new moderate alliance in the US.

How about this one - if the Ideologues manage to keep control of the HoB and so reject any compromise, RW then withdraws all Lambeth invitations to any bishop who will not pledge to accept the DESC (DES Communique).  RW then encourages Institutionalists and ComCons to declare themselves the real TEC HoB and GC and use the Preamble to have the courts so recognize them.  A very clever coup to unseat the Ideologues whilst keeping most of TEC intact and DES compliant.  Just a thought.

I think Matt+‘s scenario is one that will occur only if +++Williams is a hard core reappraiser - I have assumed he is an institutional liberal.  If a second Communion is formed it will be chaos in all provinces. Canadians, Austrailians, English, all will have divides.  I also think that the GS Primates who do not wish to bolt +++Canterbury will come under increasing pressure from within if they are in a GN dominated Communion that tolerates heresey.  Non-discipline of TEC and failure to allow 2nd American Province equals dissolution of the Anglican Communion - is +++Rowan willing to allow that? Surely he has another plan.

...RW then withdraws all Lambeth invitations to any bishop who will not pledge to accept the DESC (DES Communique). ... Just a thought.

I support your thoughts, JamesW.  But that doesn’t mean I support your drug habit. 

ABC RW withdrawing an invitation to PB KJS??  That I gotta see to believe.

TUAD:

But then again it doesn’t have to make sense.  Feels like a trip to Alice-in-Anglican-Communion-Land where words and their meanings shift erratically and whimsically, where polity trumps everything, where personal experience rules over logic and reasoning, where there is a god, but not THE triune God, where canons applied to reasserters don’t necessarily apply to reappraisers, etc….

Welcome to the world of TEC bishops and their minions….

I guess the question is whether the ABC will go through the Looking Glass or decide reality is a better choice.

jamesw :

I hope for all of us you are correct, but I’m afraid I think Matt’s predictions are more likely in this scenario - the ABC has certainly shifted his stance since May and AB York is of little comfort.

So, the hedgehogs are rolling in the wrong direction…

chips, Rowan likely believes that the exit of those who threaten the current structure will protect and secure the institution.

chips, Rowan likely believes that the exit of those who threaten the current structure will protect and secure the institution.

Uhhhh Matt, that would be the, umm, theologically liberal revisionists in TEC.

This still reminds me of a certain leader in the CS Lewis space trilogy. And, like the novels, I’m not sure ++RW believes the consequences will be that dire.

TUaD - that was stream of conciousness.  But there would be a certain tidy finality to it.

As to RW, I still think he believes that he will be able to forge an institutionalist/comcon alliance in TEC’s HoB.  I think that his worst nightmare is that that fails.  And if it does fail, he knows that decisions will have to be made.  Matt is correct when he states

Rowan likely believes that the exit of those who threaten the current structure will protect and secure the institution

I think that Matt is thinking of the wrong group though (spot on, TUaD!), and I think Rowan knows what group’s exit will cause serious irreparable harm to the AC, and what group’s exit will result in a healthier, more united and focused AC.  I think that Mr. EasyStreet will go with the latter scenario.

“This was posted by Spencer a few days ago on Fr. Matt’s “A Threat Revealed” Essay. I think it bears repeating here since it offers a logical reason on why ++Rowan may NOT do as +Matt speculates.”

But Spencer’s post assumes that it is still possible to evict only TEC, on its own.  However, the way things currently look, if TEC were pushed out, it would likely result as well in the departure—whether voluntarily or involuntarily—of (at the very least) Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Scotland, Wales, and Southern Africa, plus possibly the TEC-rooted Central American Region, and would likely lead to civil war-like splits in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and—most crucially—the Church of England herself.

To think that TEC can, at this juncture, be surgically lopped off without taking a sizeable chunk of the Communion along with it, even if Canterbury aligns with Nigeria et al., is, I am afraid, sheer wishful thinking.

To think that ++Rowan’s *primary* goal in his gamesmanship is not to seek with all his might to avoid schism within the CoE itself, regardless of what might befall the Communion itself, is likewise wishful thinking, in my opinion.

So, either way, regardless of in which direction Canterbury ultimately calls it, it looks like schism will come, and 1/3 to 1/2 of the Communion will wind up in one successor communion, and the remainder in the other, and in *many* countries—not *just* the USA—there will be new parallel provinces, and while there will be Nigerian and Rwandan missionaries walking the streets of New York and (depending on which side of the split Canterbury falls on) possibly London, there will also be American and Brazilian missionaries walking the streets of Lagos and possibly London (and bankrolled by TEC and its allies).

Social mores in many GS countries may go against TEC on moral grounds, but these countries are not monocultural behemoths, and in the rapidly urbanizing and modernizing cities throughout the GS, Westernization/globalization continues apace, and social and sexual mores are slowly aligning with those of the developed West, at least among certain classes.  So do not be surprised to see Lagos and Nairobi and Kampala and Kingston ultimately supporting affluent missions of the non-traditionalist communion.  (Indeed, I recently read that the Metropolitan Community Churches have opened missions in Nigeria and Jamaica, literally risking martyrdom for their beliefs, whatever else one may think of those beliefs.)

Such missionary efforts may be constrained to remain, at least for many decades to come, smaller than the orthodox provinces they operate in parallel with, but in at least some classes of society, they may well give the orthodox a “run for the money.”

Once the schism is formal, the race to invade each others’ provinces will begin in earnest—and shall no doubt then run in *both* directions.

But I think Matt+‘s analysis is spot on, and outlines on which side of the split Canterbury will likely fall, and why.  Spencer’s analysis does not take these important factors into account.

Canterbury necessary to anglicanism? NO.
anglicanism necessary to Christianity? NO.

When the AC spits, if there is a viable cohesion of GS-Network-AMiA-Continuers under whatever name, then I’ll be there.  Should the Network choose to follow the ACI line and the Common Cause is no longer common, then I’ve already got my Non-Denom church picked out.

I also think that Rowan’s response (should his hoped for alliance not materialize) may not yet be completely known.  Consider the scenario:

1. Rowan is putting all his eggs into the basket of a institutionalist/comcon alliance.
2. The alliance fails to garner sufficient votes.  How much will it have failed by?  What will the dynamics be?  How bitter the feelings between institutionalist and ideologue?
3. What are the reactions of the decidedly more liberal standing committees of both the primates and ACC?  What is the mood of the Windsor/Camp Allen bishops?  What is the mood of the institutionalist progressives?
4. Never doubt for a moment that the instituionalists can and will play dirty to achieve their ends.  I would guess that either they will throw in their lot with the ideologues, and thus adopt an attitude of separation from the Anglican Communion (making it EASIER for RW to let them go) or they will seek a powerplay to regain control of TEC (and RW might just play along).
5. I think that there is a lot of factors still to be determined which may affect Rowan’s response.

PadreWayne, since you addressed me directly:

I agree that when schism happens, we all lose something.  The whole is often more than the sum of the parts.  There are qualities of the reappraisers that I value.  It is my wish that we would be one.

But ‘one’ is meaningless if we are merely ‘one’ in name, and not in spirit.  While it grieves me to think of a split in the church, I cannot look at the situation and in good conscience remain with the situation as is—it would be against my heart, mind, and soul (not to mention duty) as a Christian.  This is because I believe the matter goes to core doctrine, and that salvation is at issue.

When I write ‘grieve’ I mean it in the truest sense of the word.  I loved this church, and served it since my early days, as did generations of my family before.  There is so much the church had to offer, but there is a great wound in the church, and the spirit is leaving.

I agree with Matt’s analysis and everyday it seems we move closer to that end.  However, I think Matt’s being a little short sighted with his “Canterbury has nothing to loose” comment.  There will be huge consequences.

First, the threat to CoE from the GS will not go away but will only be intensified after a split.  Sure, only 6 or 8 provinces might leave to start with, but the remaining provinces will very quickly either split, have huge attrition or eventually “Cross the Nile” over to the GS.  The Roman Catholics will certainly have no further dialogue with Canterbury.  The Canterbury Anglican Communion will dwindle into oblivion through attrition and division.  The CoE will certainly split.  On the other hand, if the GS based communion is able to form and carry on Traditional Anglicanism, then many disaffected Anglicans who have been harboring the storm in other places would likely return.  Were this to happen, it would not be such a bad thing.  We would have our true Traditional Anglican Communion free from imperialism and free from institutionalists and revisionists.  Then perhaps we could actually BE the church and DO the work of the church. 

Before everybody gets made at me for that, let me clarify that there is a difference between an institutionalist and a Communion Conservative though they often share the same thoughts.  A Communion minded person in my mind is one who believes in catholicity and hold this concept to be very important.  I consider myself to be a ComCon although many of you probably think of me as a FedCon.  An institutionalist on the other hand is one who is bound to the institution its property, pensions, etc.  There are a great many who will never leave their parish under any circumstance because there is either a brass plaque or a headstone there with their family name on it.  Just for clarification, it is these types that I consider institutionalist.

So, the consequences for Rowan are huge, although they will be initially on 6 or 8 provinces, I think it very likely that in 10 years, the Canterbury based AC will be down to about 20 million if Rowan takes that path.  That’s a huge drop from 75 million and a huge consequence indeed.

Spencer,

I think, objectively speaking, that Canterbury has a great deal to lose. Everything in fact.

But when I said “Canterbury has nothing to lose” I was speaking from the perspective I think ++RW has adopted.

TU…AD: “I like to read thrillers and have read fun things about the vaunted MI-6 and MI-7 in Britain.”
You must must MUST see the series MI-5!!! It’s available through Netflix. Brilliant if you enjoy MI-6 and -7 sort of intrigue.
(Woo hoo! We are being friendly!)

PadreWayne, I’d love to watch the MI-5 series.  Sounds like great fun!

But honestly, I know you.  You’d MUCH rather argue with Dr. William Witt than talk about spy thrillers, wouldn’t you? 

I’m mostly with jamesw on this one.  It seems to answer my questions from the A Threat Revealed thread.

So, if +++Rowan et. al. were to [1] get the PB and HOB to agree to and honor a moratorium on SSBs, moratorim on “manner of life” challenging bishops, and “APO/PV” (think Howe), is that enough to keep the the Communion together?  . . .
[2] would either CANA and/or the AMiA agree?

So, let’s say this “blessed congruence” occurs at the time of the HOB meeting.  What about my #[2]?  Put differently, would the CANA or AMIA ordinations ever be viewed as valid inside the TEC HOB even under a APO/PV scheme?  Would CANA/AMiA ever want them to?

Regards,

TU,

“Uhhhh Matt, that would be the, umm, theologically liberal revisionists in TEC.”

uhhh…I think that. You think that…but based on what has taken place both during the meeting in Tanzania and since Tanzania, Rowan does not think that…which is the entire point of my essay…

Re the numbers game. 
Not to be too cynical or cheeky, but the Brits have been giving up empire for quite some time now.  I’m guessing the domestic version of these issues is a bigger deal than many Americans care to believe.

TEC is unlikely to offer the ABC anything at the September meeting, for the reasons eloquently articulated by Sarah Hey. Even if TEC’s HoB manages to pass a resolution that offers the ABC something he can pretend is a concession, a large, vocal minority of ideological progressives will defy it, and will say so. Recall how many metropolitan Bishops said they would ignore B-003 (New York, Philadelphia, Washington, Atlanta, Chircago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc.)

This thread asks if Anglicanism requires Canterbury. Turn that question around: Does Canterbury require Anglicanism? Those are the stakes here: if TEC emerges unsanctioned Canterbury loses its role as titular leader of a global communion. What is left to Canterbury? An aging, spiritually sick and exhausted English church, soon to be split itself and competed with by evangelical plants from Africa.

Matt’s analysis is always incisive. I disagree, however, with his statement that Canterbury has nothing to lose by siding with TEC.

Hey guys, check out Kendall’s post over on T1:9 re 6 out of 10 COE senior bishops threaten Lambeth boycott if TECusaCORP doesn’t slam on the brakes.

the snarkster

As a lay person I have a simple, complex, trite and profound question about this entire mess.  What WOULD Jesus do? Or better yet, What would Jesus have ME do? If I do what the Lord tells me, then it matters not what others think or do.

“...if TEC emerges unsanctioned Canterbury loses its role as titular leader of a global communion.”

Yet if TEC gets sanctioned, Canterbury likewise loses that role, as it will be clear to one and all that one or Primates other than ++Rowan actually is *real* primus inter pares in the Communion, and that the See of Canterbury, if retained at all as an Instrument of Unity, will do so as but a ceremonial figurehead, with the Primates’ Meeting instead calling the shots.

Either way it falls, Canterbury’s stature and power will be greatly reduced once the break has definitively occurred.

Miserable Sinner:  Don’t forget that my prediction is that any meaningful moratoria that TEC might enact under the most positive of circumstances would be strictly temporary in nature.  So it would be more of a truce than a settlement.

Also note that even if Rowan can cobble together the moratoria, he would also need to achieve some kind of deal regarding the PC/PV plan.  My guess is that if could cobble togehter the first alliance, he could probably succeed in getting a version of the PC/PV plan passed also.

Matt - do you REALLY think that RW thinks as you suggest?  That all would be well if the GS left and the American extremists were given free hand?  I really don’t think so.  If that was his game, he would have blessed GC 06 as being Windsor compliant right from the get go.

The fifth most senior bishop in the mother church of the Anglican Communion warns today that a majority of English diocesan bishops could consider a boycott if the US does not row back on its pro-gay agenda.

A UK boycott would confirm the gravity of the splits within even the Church of England, traditionally the model for Anglicanism’s “via media”. It would effectively spell the end of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s dream of maintaining unity.

Speaking to The Times he said later, “The point I was making was that they are having to think about it”.

More to lose for ABC if he sides with TEC!

From:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2147525.ece

Nadine Kwong wrote that “if TEC were pushed out, it would likely result as well in the departure—whether voluntarily or involuntarily—of (at the very least) Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Scotland, Wales, and Southern Africa, plus possibly the TEC-rooted Central American Region, and would likely lead to civil war-like splits in Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and—most crucially—the Church of England herself.”

If Canterbury went along with sanctions against ECUSA, there would be repercussions in the Church of England. As I have written before, I believe Canterbury’s highest priority is to avoid a schism there. But if Canterbury concluded that the Church of England could survive imposing sanctions against ECUSA, I suspect the same would be true of Wales, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Remember that the Canadian general synod stepped back in response to Global South and other entreaties.

As for ECUSA-funded churches in the Americas, here are membership numbers as of 1997:
—- Brazil, 103,000 (a number that includes the since-departed orthodox Diocese of Recife)
—- Mexico, 21,000
—- Central America, 13,400

Africanised Anglican,

If you were an institutionalist, wouldn’t it be a VERY attractive goal just to kick the can far enough down the road so that any definitive action were delayed until it were possible to deal with primates other than those two men?

This assumes that whoever follows ++Akinola and ++Kolini would lack the faith and resolve of these two men, when in fact the opposite may be true. After all, we all thought Frank Griswold was about as nutty as a PB could possibly get.

Is Rowan Williams more of a poll-driven leader or more of a Bible-driven leader as the ArchBishop of Canterbury?  I would hope both, but does he tilt one way noticeably more than the other?

If he’s poll-driven, then I can certainly understand all the pressure and lobbying he’s receiving.  If what Gledhill reports is true, and if and when push comes to shove and these CofE bishops promise to boycott, then TEC better be prepared to repent or to be cast out (maybe via associate membership).

Jamesw:
I agree.  To me that means CANA and AMiA will stay on the sidelines at least in the near/mid-term. 

That said, I also currently don’t see any draft of a draft covenant that can pass GC09 with the current powers that be in place.  That may well play into the gamesmanship between now and the HOB meeting and now and Lambeth.  Do others see this differently? 

Also, as others have hinted elsewhere the price that TEC may well demand for near term compliance is a rebalancing of the instruments of communion.  Maybe they’ll save that for the negotiations about the covenant.

Regards,

JamesW,

The end game is to keep the Communion Canterbury centered and intact and to make change possible, but from within a Communion framework and “conciliar” process. The only threat to this end, is the fed con primates and the North American fed-con orthodox. His actions in Tanzania and since, have been geared toward isolating these. He has succeeded.

I have no doubt that he wants to effectively resurrect the sub-group report in the sense that he, and the Primates Standing Committee, will return a “cautiously optimistic” verdict on TEC in September and the invitations will stand. He can do this because he knows now that communion conservatives will never walk. Fed-cons will. His decision not to rescind invitations will eliminate those who would threaten Communion institutions (in his mind) of and make change in a more progressive direction possible in the future but in a more “catholic” or collective manner. 

This is really not at all difficult to see. Institutionalists and communion conservatives have played right into his hands. They did so in Tanzania and they continue to do so today. So long as he knows that he will only lose the feds…he will continue to go forward. TEC will remain undisciplined and a somewhat edited covenant will be proposed and passed.

TEC will remain undisciplined and a somewhat edited covenant will be proposed and passed.

Maybe, maybe not.  We’re still in the 3rd quarter of a 4-quarter game.  Lotta time left on the clock.  That news about the potential of 6 out of 10 CofE bishops boycotting just upped the stakes tremendously.  I don’t think the ABC was counting on that happening.  He’s gotta lot more to lose now.

Also please notice too that they didn’t say they’re boycotting if the GS primates came.  They’re only boycotting if there’s no repentance by TEC and there’s no Communion discipline upon an unrepentant TEC.

How you like them apples, ya liberal 815 TEC revisionists?

Of course TU. Anything can happen. But I think my analysis correctly describes the strategy of RW and the situation as it stands.

Irenaeus: “Remember that the Canadian general synod
stepped back in response to Global South and other entreaties. ” Not exactly. The bishops concluded that proceeding toward authorization of SSBs was not yet called for. And that was only one out of three resolutions—the others (sexuality issues not core doctrine, acceptance of the report on the Windsor report, blessings not in conflict with core doctrine) would not be so satisfactory to reasserters. (Source: http://theagetocome.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/anglican-church-of-canada-general-synod-2007-resolutions-summary/)

As for Fr. Matt’s basic question, I’m with Philip on the Anglicanism/anglicanism distinctions. 

The Anglican Communion will include the AoC (instrument of communion #1).  You might not want to be a member, but to be in communion with the See of Canterbury seems to be historically self-defining.

However, a separate communion of anglicans certainly doesn’t require the AoC. (instruments of communion TBD).

Fr. Matt said:

a somewhat edited covenant will be proposed and passed.

Hmmm.  I’d like to see the proposed revision marks than make it through GC09.

So will there be the “red state” sub-communion and the “blue state” sub-communion? Maybe the bishops can wear matching shirts depending on their ideology. 

But I think my analysis correctly describes the strategy of RW and the situation as it stands.

And it may very well be correct!  So let’s make a couple of moves on the chessboard; deal out new cards in the poker game; change the conditions and the facts on the ground; so that if he applies a static strategy to a fluid and dynamic situation he’ll REALLY feel the pain of aligning with TEC.  And with all these clear signals in advance, he won’t be able to claim ignorance of the coming consequences.

It’s time for all reasserters to STANDFIRM and persevere and run the race to the end.  Don’t want no Fat Lady singing to the GS primates.

Also, as someone said above, Canterbury seems to be the prize for both sides.  But I agree with you wholeheartedly… that’s utterly ridiculous.  It’s not so much that reasserters want Canterbury, it’s more that the reasserters don’t want the reappraisers to get Canterbury.  And if you think about it, that says a lot.

He can do this because he knows now that communion conservatives will never walk. Fed-cons will.

I’m not sure about this characterization of communion conservatives never walking.  They’re not reliable, but I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of them walking.

My very weak argument is based on ACI being a communion conservative organization:

(1)  Abp Gomez is on the board of advisors for ACI.  He’s also on the GS steering committee and he did not oppose their most recent statement.
(2)  The Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt is also on the board of advisors for ACI.  And he was just reported saying that 6 of 10 bishops might have to consider boycotting Lambeth, presumably including himself.

But Spencer’s post assumes that it is still possible to evict only TEC, on its own.

Nadine Kwong,
No, it didn’t.  I did consider those factors in my analysis.  I posted this on an earlier thread

I agree that TEC’s losses could be as low as 1 million, however in my 2 million figure, I was counting the losses that would likely happen in Canada, and in the CoE.  I suspect that were there to be real communion discipline then many hard-line liberals in several provinces might leave the church which would make the number go up to perhaps 2 million.  Of course I also believe that these numbers will be easily replaced by those who may be drawn back to an orthodox communion.
In any case, it seems to me that although in the US we will see enormous upheaval either way, the net result on a global scale will either be minimal or catastrophic.  Surely Rowan knows this too.  It is for this reason alone that I think he will ultimately “do the right thing”, yet I could be wrong.

I doubt Canada would leave.  They have stepped back a bit and seem to be taking a “wait and see” approach.  Only one diocese is likely to be lost in Canada.  Yes there will be some fallout across the globe, BUT this fallout will be mainly from individual revisionists and parishes leaving, not entire dioceses and provinces.  The Anglican Communion remains for the most part intact if TEC is disciplined, not so if TEC gets off the hook.

You also wrote,

Either way it falls, Canterbury’s stature and power will be greatly reduced once the break has definitively occurred.

Tis true, but it will be reduced greater if TEC is not sactioned.  If Rowan withdraws Lambeth invitations to non-Windsor bishops, he will ultimately bee seen as holding the line of orthodoxy, yet extending every measure of grace possible to TEC.  He might even be knighted or declared a saint one day for being an example of both orthodoxy and manifold grace.  (That may seem unlikely today, but I can see it happening one day.)  He would retain “first among equals”, even though it is likely that Canterbury will be more equal than it has been in the past.  Collectively, the primates will likely hold more power than the single See of Canterbury and some responsibilities will likely shift.  This is as it should be.  Yes he has ruffled feathers, but the See of Canterbury could recover.

On the other hand, if he fails to discipline TEC, he clearly has violated every communion document since ’03.  He will be seen by all as lacking any integrity.  He might be a hero to revisionists, but he will be outcast in all of Christendom.  His See will not likely visit with the Pope ever again.  Once again, either way there will be severe losses, yet not to discipline TEC clearly has a far greater risk factor for irreparable damage.  Disciplining TEC will have consequences but they will be recovered from relatively quickly.

I think the continued confusion is over what it means to be an organized church. In a very American sense, we have a hard time understanding how we could go on without Canterbury and the Communion, even as a church apart from a diocese. I am reminded that, in an Anglican perspective, Anglicanism pre-dated Patrick, which pre-dated the ABC. We’re so used to the post 4th century church that we’ve lost an identity and function that was closer to the Apostolic church. Maybe it’s time we recaptured that. And for that, we simply need to embrace our first century heritage as an Anglican identity, one where Christianity was brought by missionaries to the island of Britain.

I respect Matt and believe he has perhaps a better understanding of the situation than most.  And having moved from a very optimistic—even Panglossian—view of Archbishop of Canterbury, he also has the credibility of one who hasn’t been afraid to admit that in the past he was wrong.  I’m hoping that he’ll have occasion to do so again.  He’s got the assessment of Rowan William’s spinal strength correct.  And he’s counted the numbers properly.  But I believe one thing he has failed to account for in his analysis is the quite amazing ability of the ideological liberals to overplay their hand.  He’s assuming—as might be the Archbishop as well—that they will wink-wink-nudge-nudge in some way such that the Archbishop can, as with the Sub-Group report, wave a paper as he leaves New Orleans proclaiming peace is at hand.  But time and time again they have deprived him of that ability to do so convincingly.  They have played him for the fool, and eagerly and unashamedly so.  And if they sense weakness (courtesy of Sentamu, or the Lambeth invitations, or because they think they have the chance to force the ejection of those nasty Africans), they will certainly again overplay their hand.  And I think there is a limit to how far he can be humiliated.  I see no evidence that the radicals in the church will now be content with anything but total victory—no moratorium, not weasel words.  And this I believe is what will in the end save the orthodox in the Communion, and result in the Episcopal Church moving to some sort of subordinate status.

Spencer: “Collectively, the primates will likely hold more power than the single See of Canterbury and some responsibilities will likely shift.  This is as it should be.”

Is this the position of most reasserters? Reasserters who nearly idolize tradition (“the teaching of the church for 2000 years,” “the ‘faith once delivered to the saints’” [gosh I hate that term—it has nearly no meaning anymore…])? Restructuring the ecclesiology of Anglicanism?

Quick, Blanche, get me the smelling salts. I hear revisionism!!!

VaAnglican,
Shhhhh!  Don’t tell ‘em.  They might catch on. 

PadreW,

Ecclesiology must never take precedence over the gospel.

Oh Padre,
If you’ve read my joust with Dr. Tigue, you know I am not of the persuasion that believes in a Pope.  My position is that the historic church has always been a conciliar model of equal Sees.  From the time of the apostles until the Great Schism, the church was thus.  There are quite a few in the Orthodox Church who I suspect just might agree with this position.  Hardly revisionism…  You haven’t been into the Gaffer’s brew have ye?

It’s not so much that reasserters want Canterbury, it’s more that the reasserters don’t want the reappraisers to get Canterbury.

Dear Matt, upon further reflection my statement above isn’t quite correct. 

You asked before:  Is Canterbury essential to Anglicanism?  And by extension, is Anglicanism essential to biblically faithful Christianity?  The answer to both is NO.

So why then the struggle for Canterbury from this particular reasserter’s perspective?  It is not, as I intimated earlier, “Well, I don’t need Canterbury, I just want to make sure that you DON’T get Canterbury.”  It’s deeper, much deeper, than this juvenile response.

The big-picture answer is that it’s about God’s Glory.  In what way, you may ask.  The answer is the discipline or non-discipline of defiantly unrepentant heresy.  If the revisionists obtain Canterbury, then there’s no biblical discipline and the deceiver is glorified.  If the reasserters obtain Canterbury, and TEC is biblically disciplined, then God is glorified.  Again, if the TEC revisionists obtain Canterbury, then God and His Word is mocked (Mocked!) and His Glory is dimmed.  The enemy enjoys a visible triumph globally, albeit temporally.  BUT if the ABC aligns with the GS primates and disciplines TEC, then God is magnified and it will be shown throughout Christendom that He can’t be scoffed at, mocked, and casually worshipped.  Anglicans worldwide will know that there are strong, biblical leaders in the AC who will do His will.  The Deceiver, the Father of Lies, the Perverter will be derailed in this scenario.

And that, my good friend Fr. Matt, is why Canterbury is so important and why biblical reasserters must contend vigorously for and with the ABC.  It is also why the question of whether Canterbury is important to Anglicanism is of secondary importance.

Your Partner for His Truth and Love

Spencer, there was a time I would have snickered and refrained from saying a word.  But in their case “the burnt fool’s bandaged finger goes wobbling back to the fire,” and I doubt anyone pointing out to them that they’re apt to burn themselves will change what appears to be an irresistible impulse.  They are, after all, whole governed by emotion, and well innoculated against reason.  And God made them that way, you know, so why should they act any differently?

The question was:  “Is Canterbury essential to Anglicanism?”

No.  It seems that with the disintergration of doctrine, that the only unifying element in the Anglican Communion then is a common “Anglican” (English) language, not an ABC.

It has always been accepted that the ABC is just one archbishop among equals.  Therefore, any archbishop can be the lead archbishop among equals.

And, as someone said, if the ABC fails to act right, the ABC can always be relegated to a titular head, as was the monarchy.

TU&D,
Yes, It is about rejoicing in Godly justice!  But if I may add, it is also about ecclesiology!  It is about the church catholic!  One body, visible and present, as a witness to the world united as one in the Truth.  Ah, but ‘tis better to be united in truth with a mere remnant than be disunited in heresy for the sake of a false unity.  So, fight hard for Canterbury we will, but if it is lost, do not despair.  God will never let His church fail.  It is His after all.  He made it, He sustains it.  That is great comfort at times like these.

(2) The Rt Revd Michael Scott-Joynt is also on the board of advisors for ACI.  And he was just reported saying that 6 of 10 bishops might have to consider boycotting Lambeth, presumably including himself.

Now doesn’t it really feel odd to readers here that much ado would be made of this statement?  For a conservative CofE bishop to suggest that 6 out of 10 bishops in England would be thinking about this would be just about the equivalent of a liberal bishop of the CofE saying that 6 out of 10 bishops would consider boycoting Lambeth if ++Rowan were to revoke invitations to TEC.  Neither would have real knowledge.  It seems to me, rather than reporting either statement as news, confirm it.  Get the names of the alleged bishops, call them and ask if they would consider boycotting and on what basis?  To me, this bishop is offering conjecture about an “if” which might result in “thinking about”  If there is a story here, it would be the facts on which this speculation is based.  Personally I think that 65% of Americans or more are dissatisfied with the current administration and wish to change it. But my conjecture about what they would like to is based on surveys indicating their disatisfaction.  Did this bishop conduct a survey of his British colleagues?  If so, the results might be news worthy.  Who voted and what were the questions asked? My point: Does the bishop actually have real information or is he just speculating? If he is just speculating, those who report the information as if it were based on some credible data are not newsmen but the mouthpieces of spin doctors.  It takes time an effort to corroborate a story .  If the bishop noted above, or a corresponding liberal makes such a claim,  why not ask him on what basis he makes it and then follow-up with the alleged 6 out of 10 people he names?

VaAnglican,
Ah you are so right!  And I should know after dealing with my teenage sons!  It matters not what you say, they’re going to do it anyway!

Emily writes:

For a conservative CofE bishop to suggest that 6 out of 10 bishops in England would be thinking about this would be just about the equivalent of a liberal bishop of the CofE saying that 6 out of 10 bishops would consider boycotting Lambeth if ++Rowan were to revoke invitations to TEC.  Neither would have real knowledge.

I think that Bp Scott-Joynt has more real knowledge than Emily does about the minds of the conservative bishops in the CoE. I agree that the title to the article overstates the actual content. Editors often write these.

By the way, Emily, thanks for contributing! Your comments are very on-topic.

Speaking of Bp Scott-Joynt statement, I am heartened by fact that a member of the advisory board of the ACI isn’t buying into the position that advocates showing up to Lambeth no matter what the TEC does. It may be significant (or not) that ABp Gomez, another board member of the ACI, is on the GS standing committee that released that recent wonderfully powerful statement.

1 I love you, O LORD, my strength.
2 The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer;
    my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge.
    He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold.

(I am currently very happy that one of patients, who was have post-op problems, did wonderfully in the end, so even the Anglican wars aren’t distressing me tonight! Pax et bonum, omnis.)

I remain agnostic about the scenario Matt is painting for Lambeth ’08. Except for one thing: that the 200 or so Global South bishops who have already announced that they will sit it out will keep their word.

I think we need to ask a further question: what will Lambeth ’18 look like? In particular, what will TEC and its fellow travelers look like a decade from now? Is there any doubt that we shall see a dozen Gene or Jeanne Robinsons in purple by then. That same-sex marriage will be written into the liturgy? That all conservatives will be purged from the TEC? That there will be a whole boatload of weirdos in orders and theological seminaries? As this scenario plays itself out, those Global South bishops who do go to Lambeth ’08 (and they and the boycotters are the only dynamic churches in the Communion) will peel away from Canterbury and join a confessing Communion.

So short-term, Matt may be right, but long-term, the gates of hell will not prevail over the Communion. There may be some bishops this time round who can be cajoled into tea with the Queen; but with Charles and Camilla?

To Dr. Noll: it is a scary thing to contemplate the depths the TEC will descend to when all the orthodox have left.

By the way SF-ers, Dr. Noll has been very busy with his blog. If I may put in a plug, see here. I especially liked the discussion of the Bp Righter trial which occurred when I was one of those soporific muddled middlers.

Dr. Noll,

I hope you did not read me as doubting the resolve of the GS bishops who have pledged not to attend unless their full house is invited. I do not for one moment doubt this resolve.

I suppose I do wonder whether there will ever be a point at which those who choose Canterbury now will ever turn from this choice or whether they might see it as more faithful to die among the ruins.

Matt, I think that Radner has answered your query in words and action.

Yes, I read his latest piece. Not sure what deed in particular you were speaking of but I am quite sure that Dr. Radner will act consistently with his stated beliefs.

The ABC has invested in keeping some like +Gomez on board. If he were to publically state that he (in particular) was not coming would that change things? Do you think there will be an announcement of the responses after tuesday….do you think this will just leak out. If the ACC doesn’t leak it is that a reasonable indication that there is in fact a bigger problem than was anticipated?

Daily Telegraph writes: 

Either the C of E cuts its ties with the crazy, gay-obsessed churches of the former colonies or it splinters into disestablished sects, which would be a tragedy for England.

(1)  More disincentive for the ABC not to align with TEC.
(2)  Great adjectival description:  Crazy and Gay-obsessed churches.
(3)  I appreciate the Telegraph’s premature announcement of the AC’s death and the causes for it.  The ABC should pay attention to such announcements, and do what’s contrary.  I.e., to biblically discipline crazy, gay-obsessed, Scripture-mocking churches in the former colonies.

P.S.  Matt, did you read my former comment where I contend that it’s a matter of God’s glory that TEC be biblically disciplined?

The deed I am referring to is moving on to an academic post in Canada.

TU&D,  I can’t find that Telegraph article, can you post a link?

Ooops, sorry Spencer, my bad.  Also, it’s not a Telegraph article, it’s a Telegraph blog.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/holysmoke/july07/anglicancommunionover.htm

There’s also a thread here on SFIF where I pulled it from called “Damian Thompson….”

Regarding the potential of a boycott by some CofE bishops, Christopher Johnson at the Midwest Conservative Journal wrote:

“But as anyone who plays poker learns early on, the thing about bluffs is that sometimes yours get called. And if Dr. Williams does call their bluff and these bishops don’t follow through, C of E conservatives would forever lose whatever leverage in the C of E they have left.”

My response:  Let’s take that idea and apply it back upon the ABC and the TEc revisionists. “And if TEc does call the ABC/primates’ bluff on enforcing the WR and the DES Communique and these primates don’t follow through on consequences to violations, then the ABC/primates would forever lose whatever spiritual authority in the Anglican Communion that they have left.”

He can do this because he knows now that communion conservatives will never walk. Fed-cons will.

For all I know, you could be absolutely right Matt.  But with apologies in advance, I’d still like to run my Black-and-Decker chainsaw through this assumption.

Since I’m on record as saying that the ABC would be stupid if he were to align himself with the TEC revisionists, let me now insert my other foot in my mouth by saying that Communion Conservatives would be very, Very, VERY unwise if they were to proclaim that they would never walk away from the Anglican Communion.

Let us recall the earlier events of the year whereby Dr. Radner and Dr. Grieb made presentations to the TEC HOB.  Dr. Radner, a CommCon, was hooted and hollered at in derision.  Dr. Grieb was lauded.  Now if the FedCons were to leave, do you honestly think that the CommCons would have any reasonable chance at reforming the Communion?  Gimme a break, would ya’?  If Dr. Radner got that response with the few remaining FedCons still on board in TEC, whaddya think he’ll get when there’s NO Fedcons left? 

If the FedCons leave, then the CommCons are in a state of utter cognitive dissonance.  They really have 4 choices:  a) Leave now along with the FedCons, b) Leave later at some indeterminate time, c) doom themselves to irrelevancy, or d) admit the truth to themselves, and switch over to institutional liberalism.

I would strongly urge the ACI and all Communion Conservatives around the world to prayerfully consider joining their Federal Conservative brothers, and unequivocally declare to the ABC that if the GS primates and the orthodox Anglicans walk away from the AC, then they will too.  And the only way that the orthodox will separate is if TEC is defiantly unrepentant in its heresies, and the ABC/primates don’t administer biblical discipline to a Scripture-mocking TEC.  The CommCons need to lock arms in unison with their brother and sister Fedcons.

What CommCons need to understand is a paradox.  If they really want to save the Communion and keep it intact, then they need to be ready to walk away from the Communion when push comes to shove.  And to vocally and publically announce this resolve.

If the ABC is basing his calculus on the assumption that CommCons will never walk, then that assumption must and needs to be changed.  Again, if CommCons really do profess their love for the Anglican Communion, then they need to walk alongside and simultaneously with the Fedcons <i> in order to preserve it.<i> 

They will never have a better chance at both preserving the Communion and purifying it.

Spencer’s comment from the “Threat Revealed” thread deserves space on this thread too:

The primates will have to judge whatever response TEC makes so why not go ahead and schedule one?  Were he to do that then I think Matt’s essay here and certainly my feelings here would have been a bit different.  Also, setting up the special primates meeting prior to TECs meeting would put pressure on TEC to comply.  If he were really trying to pressure TEC toward Dar Es compliance, then it seems he would have withheld invites and called for a September/October primates meeting.  That would have made it clear to TEC that their HOB decision was going to be scrutinized by the primates with the consequence of no Lambeth invitation.  With the invites out and no primates meeting scheduled, it certainly looks like TEC will do what it wants and still go to Lambeth.

Matt:  It is my impression that the comments by Scott-Joynt and the fact that Gomez has not distanced himself from the GS SC’s statement that the CommCons are giving a muted warning to Williams that they aren’t to be taken for granted.

We need to remember that Americans are seen widely as bulls in china shops.  Most other folks speak in a much more restrained manner.  For two senior (arch)bishops in the CommCon movement to suggest that they are or may be open to walking away from Lambeth is a pretty strong shot across the bow to Williams.

My personal thought is that nobody (not even Williams himself) knows what he will do if he can’t broker in substantial compliance with DES at the HoB meeting.  Right now there are several things cutting in the conservative’s favor:

1. Growing overconfidence amongst the ideological progressives, who seem to agree with Matt’s analysis of Williams and the split between FedCons and CommCons.  This will make them more likely to give Williams an “in your face” rejection.
2. The CommCons and FedCons are not as divided as people think, and I believe that Williams knows this.
3. I believe that there is a very definite reason why the ACI has been exceedingly silent lately, and why its bishop leaders have made some very interesting pronouncements.

I think that there is a very good chance that the Ideologues will throw caution to the wind, that this will irk Williams, that he will realize that he will be in a world of hurt if he kowtows to the Ideologues, and that he will realize that the easiest course for him will be to isolate the Ideologues.  I also think that there is a very good chance that the Institutionalists will be ready to stage a palace coup to take back TEC from the Ideologues if the fight is bitter enough in the HoB.

Of course, I may be very wrong.

I think Matt’s numbers are, if not exactly on target, at least in the vicinity.  And, yes, it’s a “hard truth” to grapple with – the “truth”, that is, that we are looking at the split up of the Anglican Communion along rather major, not minor, lines, with a Canterbury that will not be able to straddle both (or the many) sides.  As some of the posters here have pointed out, furthermore, we are (at least in terms of numbers and “holding things together”), in a lose-lose position at this point:  whatever Abp. Williams chooses to do, there are bishops and primates and provinces – and therefore, congregations and clergy – who are going to separate from one another.  After all, this has already happened, and it appears as if it will not be avoided in the future.  Some people will care a lot about this;  others (as we can see) not much at all.  Whether or not, as Dr. Noll and other speculate, this or that of the divided groups ends up being a source of renewed faith and witness into the future is, however, a bit of speculation I would not try to entertain.  The history of the Church is filled with examples of groups who have thought themselves to be the bearer of God’s blessing into the future who have been proved right (just a few);  and other groups (far more numerous) who have been proved wrong.  Only God knows in this case.  I do not place bets on churches.

However, for “Anglicanism”, I think this break-up— that can be avoided only through the miracle of prayer, fasting, and a change of hearts, or by a disciplined limiting of the losses – will prove a fatal disaster.  I disagree with those, for instance, who see Anglicanism as equivalent with “Christianity” or “Mere Christianity”, the simple and “straightforward” faith of Christ, Scripture, Creeds, and … bishops or whatever.  There is no genuine “mere Christianity” any longer in a world where Christians are divided and in fact engage in moral and physical murder of each other.  There are, rather, truncated Christian groups, whose vocations (whether they perceive them or not) must be oriented to the healing of the Church in various ways.  The notion that “ecclesiology” and “Gospel” are distinct realities, as Matt suggests, is (in my mind) purely and simply wrong.

If Anglicanism is a reality and has been one, it is not only because of its doctrinal (in a broad sense) identity, but even more so because of its “historical” vocation.  I believe that a major part of this vocation – for the sake of the larger Church’s healing – has been revealed in its development of and as “communion”, in a way that might teach and offer gifts to other churches.  Canterbury has held a specific role in this vocational history.  It may or may not need to retain that role;  but more importantly, the demise or severance of that history, which of course includes Canterbury, will simply mean the loss and contradiction of that vocation.  In this, all of us bear responsibility and accountability, and we will continue to make our political decisions and strategic manipulations now within the shadow of God’s judgment. 

Some here think that I intend simply to “go down with the ship”, as some kind of virtue.  That is not the case:  there is no “intention” involved.  I am bound to a ship – the Anglican Communion – that is currently “going down”.  That is what a vow consists of.  Barring the mercy of God – and I still trust in that! – that might keep this Communion afloat for the faithful furtherance of her mission,  I will need to join with those who pronounce Anglicanism itself drowned as a whole, myself released from my particular vows, and my vocation reoriented towards another portion of Christ’s struggling Body.  But because I trust in the mercy of God, and in the fact that He equips those whom He calls to fulfill their vocations, I have neither yet “gone down”, nor am I prepared to pronounce a eulogy.  I pray daily for the leaders of our church, including the Archbishop of Canterbury.  And in this, I find great joy.

The notion that “ecclesiology” and “Gospel” are distinct realities, as Matt suggests, is (in my mind) purely and simply wrong.

IMO
1. One can have an ecclesiology with no Gospel
2. One cannot have a right understanding of the Gospel that excludes ecclesiology (ecclesiology is part of and at the service of the Gospel). 
The AC split is between those (like institutional TEC) who are at home with #1 former and those who operate from assumption #2.

I see the CommCons ultimately siding with the FedCons.  There is nothing wrong with fighting to save the AC.  We all want that.  However, the true CommCons are not institutionalists.  The true institutionalists will go down with the ship, but the CommCons will ultimately realize at the very last moment that the ship is sunk and it’s time for the lifeboats.  We have already seen a tectonic shift in several CommCon leaders.  Yes, the ACI has been extremely silent ever since Gomez made his latest statement.  Even Dr. Radner who is arguably the epitome of CommCons seems to be shifting his view.  Yet, I don’t think you will see anything definitive from the CommCons until the ship has sunk, but the very instant it sinks, they will jump.  We are very close to having the ship go down, but it has not sunk yet and until that happens we seem very divide, yet at the moment it sinks, as Gomer Pile would say, “Surprise, Surprise, Surprise”.

Well Bless my Britches!  Dr. Radner.
I wrote the above without reading your post.  It seems I surmised correctly.  When the ship goes down, there’ll be a life boat waiting for you, but I clearly understand that you won’t get in that lifeboat until after the ship has completely sunk.

Some here think that I intend simply to “go down with the ship”, as some kind of virtue.  That is not the case…. I will need to join with those who pronounce Anglicanism itself drowned as a whole, myself released from my particular vows, and my vocation reoriented towards another portion of Christ’s struggling Body.  ... I pray daily for the leaders of our church, including the Archbishop of Canterbury.  And in this, I find great joy.

AaaaAAAaay-Men, AaaaAAAaaaay-Men, Amen, Amen, Amen!  Sung woefully off-key and joyously.

Thank you very much for posting Dr. Radner.  I truly appreciate your insights and your past contributions, and most of all your love for God and His (sinful, but redeemed) people. 

Also, I hope my analysis above on 07-27-2007 at 10:40 AM wasn’t too far off the mark.  And of course, no offense was intended.

Much Peace and Blessings,

Your Partner for His Truth and Love

But because I trust in the mercy of God, and in the fact that He equips those whom He calls to fulfill their vocations, I have neither yet “gone down”, nor am I prepared to pronounce a eulogy.  I pray daily for the leaders of our church, including the Archbishop of Canterbury.  And in this, I find great joy.

Thank you Dr. Radner.  May we all remember that.

TUD says:

If the ABC is basing his calculus on the assumption that CommCons will never walk, then that assumption must and needs to be changed.  Again, if CommCons really do profess their love for the Anglican Communion, then they need to walk alongside and simultaneously with the Fedcons in order to preserve it.

Setting aside the principled stance that Drs Radner and Seitz have articluated for themselves, from a simple pragmatic standpoint a CommCon could say the exact same thing to the FedCons: if you truly care about the Communion, then follow us to Lambeth and let’s see what we can accomplish. Even Matt notes that the number of primates willing to vote with the orthodox in the context of Communion, pro Lambeth 1.10, is far greater than those willing to walk away with the FedCons. So who is abandoning whom?

“abandon” is too strong a word, and I retract that—I think we all realize that there are principled stances being taken on both sides, Federal and Communion. But I will simply say I don’t like TUD’s framing the question in such terms—that some how failure to follow the the Common Cause and FedCons constitutes a lack of desire to preserve the Communion. Clearly that has nothing to do with the ACI’s motivation, nor those who agree with its position.

Dave writes:  “But I will simply say I don’t like TUD’s framing the question in such terms—that some how failure to follow the the Common Cause and FedCons constitutes a lack of desire to preserve the Communion.”

That is a gross distortion.  I did not frame it in that manner whatsoever.  What I said was this:

They will never have a better chance at both preserving the Communion and purifying it.

A careful reading would prevent such miscomprehension.

Fr. Radner—

Please know that we pray for you and other from ACI.  We also look to you for understanding and instruction our situation.  We are not reading Hope Among the Fragments as an historical document. 

One matter seldom discussed is the distress, even anger, of some abroad that TEC cannot keep its own house in order.  We hear that Rome is impatient with its American bishops for lack of leadership; it feels the Vatican has to deal with tasks that ought to be taken care of locally.  I imagine Canterbury shares those feelings.  And many in the GS and elsewhere may feel our troubles have been a distraction from their (and the broad Church’s) mission.

Of course, you at ACI are reflecting on the Church, as institution.  We as members of the Church are the Bride of Christ.  We are, also, a very sinful people.  The passage that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” is not a mere truism—it is simple truth.  Even if the Church purifies some of the current excesses, all its inhabitants will remain flawed, broken, and sinful. 

In fact, one of the basic problems with the Reappraiser stance is that it posits some perfect society free from the scandal d’jour—racism, sexism, patriarchy, border-crossing bishops, and other blights upon civilization.  Then on to the next scandal.  But the poor we always have with us, because our spirit is poor.  Would that we just were poor in spirit.

My fear in reading the Fedcon/Comcon dialogue is that some think things are going to be better when . . . (fill in the blank).  Whether or not TEC continues on its way, whether or not the Anglican Communion implodes, our American post-modern society will still face the same pressures, and centrifugal forces will pull people—and institutions—apart. 

My only ecclesiological observation is that there will be no Utopia, and we must not look for it.  We can only look forward to a new heaven and a new earth, in which dwelleth righteousness.  In the meantime, we need to learn how to agree.  We have gotten out of the habit of assent and have mistaken laziness or silence or “don’t ask, don’t tell” or the vaunted via media for agreement.  Those who support the Anglican project in general, and especially those who value our institutions as part of the visible Church Catholic, need to learn how to come to a common mind on issues of faith and morals in this age.

That, as I see it, is the heart of your task.  Godspeed.

“They will never have a better chance at both preserving the Communion and purifying it.” —Indeed

TU&D is right.  If Rowan sides with TEC and tries to kick the can down the road to Lambeth.  (no pun intended)  Then it should be clear to everyone, that there will never be Godly discipline in the Anglican Communion.  The GS primates are right to draw the line at 9/30.  This is the day that the AC either sinks or remains afloat and sadly it all seems to be up to one man.  Thankfully, I believe that God is in control of all things and is fully able to either harden pharaoh’s heart or bring on the Damascus road encounter according to His divine will.

I am bound to a ship – the Anglican Communion – that is currently “going down”.

Dr. Radner—

Thanks for dropping by. I find your comment above “interesting.” I have been under the impression that ACI has been working diligently to try to save TEC rather than Anglicanism as a whole. Your statement above seems to be looking at the whole than the TEC piece of Anglicanism. As one who has already left TEC for Uganda, my concern now is also with Anglicanism rather than TEC which I consider to be damaged beyond repair.

I think, hope, pray that Fr. Matt is wrong but I also believe that if his worst-case scenaria prove true, we still have the strong and devout leadership of the GS primates to rescue the remnants of the communion orthodox with a shiny new orthodox Anglican ship that is built to withstand the storms of heresy and apostacy.

Spencer thinks many of the Comcons will stay on board the TEC ship until the ship sinks beneath them then swim for the lifeboats. It should serve as a reminder for those who choose to swim that the water is full of sharks. Some of them at nipping at the heels of those who have already taken to lifeboats and departed. And some who disagreed with 815 have been attacked by the sharks while they were still on the boat.

I would hope that the Comcons will unite with the institutionalists to prove Fr. Matt wrong. But I do not, for a minute, that God will allow his othodox church to drown.

I don’t know about anyone else, but the whole “fedcon”-“commcon” thing is starting to become academic.  I recognize that people are using a shorthand, but this is a case where I suspect a great many orthodox are neither one nor the other.  Let us hope that when options are before us, we approach our decisions prayerfully, and not based on some presupposed “norm.”  I daresay that at this point it seems some must have huge flowcharts on their walls, with 275 options based on various hypothetical scenarios of what the HoB might do, what ++Rowan might do, what +Bob Duncan might do, what ++Drexel Gomez says on October 3 between 9 and 11 in the morning.  Some of these must have you leaping to the Antioch Orthodox Church if scenario A7 happens, but to the Antioch Baptist Church if scenario C22 happens.
    What it comes down to, really and truly, is whether ++Rowan is willing to rescind the invitations of VGRs consecrators if they do not repent of their actions, get in line with Windsor, approve a primatial vicar, and whether he is willing to invite the bishops of the Global South who have been appointed to pastor to Anglicans in the US.  Beyond Lambeth 08 (if the AC survives that long) it will be a question of developing a structure to provide enough definition so that one can determine what an Anglican is, and whether one is called to be one.

I don’t know about anyone else, but the whole “fedcon”-“commcon” thing is starting to become academic.

Can someone point me toward a definition of fedcom, concom, and institutionalist? Please?

BillyD:

Check this out.

“And if the Ideologues win, that will be RW’s big nightmare, so the question will be - how will RW respond”?

jamesw, in my view, has a lot of this right.  The question above is similar to one I asked recently, also, in another post. 

Because I think it’s what’s going to happen.  I could be wrong, but I think the Idealogues outnumber any revisionist institutionalists in TEC.  The moderates that lean left can’t handle hearing it when Susan Russell calls up to yell in their ears.  And so, they eventually side with the idealogues anyway. 

To again quote jamesw: 

“The CommCons and FedCons are not as divided as people think, and I believe that Williams knows this”.

And, despite the fact that I’m one of those mind-controlled, pliable ones who, supposedly, has “played right into his(+++RW’s) hands”, I myself wonder about others’ wisdom of further trying to polarize FedCons and CommCons(on a public site like this), when maybe they’re not so divided after all. 

There’s a lot of water left to go under this bridge, and I don’t believe, so far, that +++RW is hankering to see the Global South, with either its witness or its numbers, walk.  Unity and the Gospel are his two primary jobs, and I don’t believe he’s forgotten that. 

It might behoove us all to pray and watch it unfold somewhat, instead of degenerating into too much “black/white”, paranoia, rabble-rousing, or speculating.  I still trust that God can take care of his own House. 

IC,

O.

He [+VGR] attacked the proposals to discipline The Episcopal Church for its actions in consecrating him. “Let me say two things about that. One is the whole notion of punishment being meted out to provinces of the Anglican Communion that are somehow non-compliant is somehow antithetical to the whole Anglican tradition, positing some sort of centralised Curia that has the ability and the authority to do such a thing, is about as un-Anglican as you can imagine. After all, our church was founded in resistance to a centralised authority in Rome. And so to pose the possibility of such a centralised Curia with those kinds of authorities seems to me to be as un-traditional as it could be.”

from:  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2155148.ece

I’ve heard that 2 marks of a spiritually healthy church are Christ-Like love and sound doctrine.  An important part of sound doctrine is corporate discipline.  So is +VGR saying that biblical discipline is wrong in the article above?  Is he, by any chance, conflating discipline with ecclesiastical authority?

What’s that Gene Robinson said?

“Let me say two things about that. One is the whole notion of punishment being meted out to dioceses of the Episcopal Church that are somehow non-compliant is somehow antithetical to the whole Anglican tradition, positing some sort of centralised General Convention that has the ability and the authority to do such a thing, is about as un-Anglican as you can imagine. After all, our church was founded in resistance to a centralised authority in Rome. And so to pose the possibility of such a centralised General Convention with those kinds of authorities seems to me to be as un-traditional as it could be.”

Yawn….this is just becoming too easy….

On Oct, 8, I would like to see all the primates come together for four days in Whitby. Final clarity required. If we need more than the IRD can fund, I’ll contribute. They can decide to come without any invitation from ++ABC. Each would commit for themselves, if they believe it important.

JamesW:  D’oh!  I love it!  I can imagine the evolving looks on +VGR’s face were he to read the elementary transposition of his words back to him. 

Bob Maxwell+:  Great idea.  Especially this part:  Final clarity required.

I do sincerely acknowledge one thing:  The Emergent Episcopal Church has the best posters for displaying their theological beliefs:

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/posters.htm

There’s even a poster that says that conversation feels better than Matt Kennedy’s hard truth.

BillyD wrote:

Can someone point me toward a definition of fedcom, concom, and institutionalist? Please?

Even more can be found describing various factions in Sarah Hey’s excellent article entitled, “Tone Changes, Category Shifts, Golden Days, & Closed-Lipped Smiles: A Look at a Past Fun-Filled Year”.

Thank you, Randy Muller. Very helpful.

“And so to pose the possibility of such a centralised General Convention with those kinds of authorities seems to me to be as un-traditional as it could be.”

Uh, unless it’s in the Episcopal Church?  Then it’s not “untraditional”, it’s “prophetic”, right?

Re: Ecclesiology v. the gospel…Timothy Fountain above said what I ought to have said had I been more articulate:

“1. One can have an ecclesiology with no Gospel
2. One cannot have a right understanding of the Gospel that excludes ecclesiology (ecclesiology is part of and at the service of the Gospel). 
The AC split is between those (like institutional TEC) who are at home with #1 former and those who operate from assumption #2.”

Thanks Timothy+

Matt,
It’s off thread but if you have not returned yet, be sure to stop through Dallas on your return and visit either Christ Church Plano or Church of the Incarnation Dallas if you would like some encourgement.

spencer wrote:

If Rowan sides with TEC and tries to kick the can down the road to Lambeth.  (no pun intended) Then it should be clear to everyone, that there will never be Godly discipline in the Anglican Communion.  The GS primates are right to draw the line at 9/30.  This is the day that the AC either sinks or remains afloat…

 
It is possible that the ABC will “kick the can down the road”. I hope he does not, but I don’t think it would necessarily mean he had “sided with TEC” or be the end of all hope for the Communion. There would still remain the possibility that (1) TEC will reject the covenant and remove itself from the Communion, or that (2) it will accept the covenant, break its promise and be expelled by means of whatever disciplinary process is included in the covenant, or even, though I don’t expect this to happen, (3) sign the covenant and perform what it has promised.

I would expect the GS primates to boycott Lambeth if 9/30 passes and the invitations of TEC bishops are not withdrawn, but would they permanently sever their connection to Canterbury at that point? From the Federal Conservative viewpoint, would they be right to do so without waiting to see whether any of the above three possibilities come to pass?

Kyoung,
No, I do not think the GS will sever ties with Canterbury, however, they will very likely go ahead with ‘realignment’.  That is to say that some existing bonds will be weakened or severed and other bonds will be strengthened or created.  I believe they will essentially setup a new province in America under some sort of PV scheme at a bare minimum.  They will hold their own councils apart from Canterbury and will not participate in the councils of Canterbury.  So for all intents and purposes I believe they will become an alternate Anglican Communion without ever having to say anything to Rowan except, “thanks but no thanks, we decline to attend your tea party”.

But here is the real problem…  I think you are making a serious error by confusing the covenant with discipline.  Discipline is the exercising of a consequence to a inappropriate action.  Discipline is an action that is employed to encourage those already living within the bonds of a covenant to keep the boundaries of that covenant.  The formation of a new covenant is meaningless unless there is first discipline.  The formation of a new covenant has as its purpose not discipline, but rather to further define and refine the boundaries of the existing covenant such that one is less apt to cross those boundaries in the future.  In essence, a covenant establishes the bond of fellowship, that is to say, the rights and privileges thereof as well as the boundaries and consequences for crossing those boundaries.  A covenant is not a document or an action but is a living entity unto itself that is lived out daily in our mutual fellowship.  Discipline is an action to uphold the covenant, but it is not an entity unto itself as the covenant is.  When the covenant is broken as has now been done by TEC, discipline must be applied.  Furthermore this discipline must bring the fruit of repentance, restitution, restoration and reconciliation PRIOR to a new covenant being entered into.

Although a covenant is much more than a business contract, would you enter into a business agreement with a company that has proven time and again that it has no intentions of living up to the terms of that contract?  Such is folly.  No.  Let the company make amends for its contractual transgressions and then perhaps one might be willing to enter into another contract with them, but certainly not before.  As such any talk of discussing a covenant with TEC until after full repentance is received is simply nonsense.

Beautiful Spencer, just beautiful.  Also, I encourage you to print and make multiple laminate copies of your explanation above on discipline and covenant for future use. 

Why you ask?  For when you and RobRoy walk the streets of New Orleans with your sandwich board signs in protest against PB KJS and 815.  When the media asks you guys what you’re doing, then you can just smile and pass out the explanation above.   

Some here think that I intend simply to “go down with the ship”, as some kind of virtue.  That is not the case:  there is no “intention” involved.

Dr. Radner, I did think that.  However, I’d like to exercise the privileges from my “Get out of Jail Free” Card in my Monopoly game.  I hope you’ll extend a measure of grace to a sweet, innocent, naive, kind, yet gullible follower of Christ who was unwittingly duped by the powerfully hypnotic rhetoric of our gracious vacationing host who wrote such a definitive declaration without any qualification like:

“He can do this because he knows now that communion conservatives will never walk. Fed-cons will.”

So can I use my “Get out of Jail Free” card?  I hope it’s understandable as to why I or anyone else thought that you, ACI, and other Communion Conservatives would ignobly go down with the ship, no matter what happens.  Am I forgiven? 

P.S.  And I sure that Matt had good reason for believing this.  He is not usually given to such bold assertions.

He lost his gambit to push through the Sub-Group Report, but he gained a much greater strategic victory: knowledge.

Matt, it sounds very much like you are describing a zero-sum game. There will be winners, and there will be losers, and success is measured by how much of the pie each player will retain.

By zero-sum rules, no party can be a winner unless the other party loses.

There is, however, another way to measure gains and losses. Someone above wanted to measure quality rather than quantity. Suppose the winners and the losers were measured by the quality of the church they were left with after-game:

The orthodox would be pleased with their new church molded on the Faith Once Delivered, and would no longer have to tolerate bishops or even priests within their midst who would seek to disregard scripture and re-interpret the creeds.

The progressives would be pleased with their new church molded on inclusiveness and would no longer have to tolerate priests or even bishops within their midst who would point out the heretical and unbiblical nature of their church.

Both sides would win. No zero-sum.

Is Canterbury essential? No, not to either side. Both sides will win (by their own definition of winning) regardless of which side Canterbury chooses.

The See of Canterbury has become irrelevant to the question.

“The See of Canterbury has become irrelevant to the question” writes Br’er Rabbit.

Nope, Br’er Fox says to look at the post by Truth Unites… and Divides on 07-26-2007 at 07:53 PM earlier in this thread for an alternative view.

Hmmmm…

Upon reflection on my post above, I see the other game afoot. I described a game between orthodox and inclusives which was zero-sum if based on quantity of primates or people, but win-win if based on quality of the church based on the desires of the gamers.

The other contest is between the See of Canterbury and a fractious communion of provinces. Canterbury wants to maintain the total communion at any cost. The fractious provinces want to mold the entire communion according to their own particular view of what a real church should look like. It has become evident, if Matt’s excerpt I quoted above is true, that the ABC has become convinced that what he wants is impossible, and that what the fractious provinces want (to mold each other) is also impossible. Framed this way, this is also NOT a zero sum game, for both of these sides are going to lose. Add up the wins for side A and the wins for side B, and they will be less than they had before the game was afoot.

TUaD, thanks for the pointer and the time stamp. I am late to the game here (I hope my computer comes out of the shop today) and have not had time to peruse the entirety of the musings on this thread.

“Add up the wins for side A and the wins for side B, and they will be less than they had before the game was afoot” writes Br’er Rabbit.

It took me a while to understand the aphorism “Addition by Subtraction”.

Holy Smokes!

spencer wrote:

I think you are making a serious error by confusing the covenant with discipline.  Discipline is the exercising of a consequence to a inappropriate action.  Discipline is an action that is employed to encourage those already living within the bonds of a covenant to keep the boundaries of that covenant.  The formation of a new covenant is meaningless unless there is first discipline.  The formation of a new covenant has as its purpose not discipline, but rather to further define and refine the boundaries of the existing covenant such that one is less apt to cross those boundaries in the future.  In essence, a covenant establishes the bond of fellowship, that is to say, the rights and privileges thereof as well as the boundaries and consequences for crossing those boundaries.  A covenant is not a document or an action but is a living entity unto itself that is lived out daily in our mutual fellowship.  Discipline is an action to uphold the covenant, but it is not an entity unto itself as the covenant is.  When the covenant is broken as has now been done by TEC, discipline must be applied.  Furthermore this discipline must bring the fruit of repentance, restitution, restoration and reconciliation PRIOR to a new covenant being entered into.
(snip) ...any talk of discussing a covenant with TEC until after full repentance is received is simply nonsense.

I think we mean different things by the word “covenant”. Maybe I should have capitalized it to clarify that I mean, specifically, the Anglican Covenant proposed after GC 06 but not yet presented to the provinces. This is not yet in effect and so cannot yet be the basis of discipline. The covenant (small c) which currently exists between the provinces of the Anglican Communion is an unwritten “gentleman’s agreement” with no specific actions defined as breaches thereof, and no specific consequences spelled out for those who breach it.

Our current situation in the AC is similar to a story line you may remember (if you are old enough) from the TV show “Hill Street Blues”. The situation was that a woman was being stalked and threatened by her old boyfriend, but the police were unable to do anything about it, because, at the time, stalking wasn’t illegal, so there was nothing they could charge him with. TEC is like that boyfriend, obviously in the wrong, but getting away with it at the moment because there is no “law” against what they are doing. The way to correct such a situation is not to wait to outlaw stalking until the stalker repents—you make a law, and then the stalker has to choose: comply or go elsewhere.

The same with an Anglican Covenant. Without some specific agreement on what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, and the consequences of breaking the agreement, we can only expect more of the same TEC shenanigans, and more hand-wringing on the part of the rest of the Communion. I don’t see the Covenant as a sure-fire cure for all Anglicanism’s ills. It might set less than godly standards, or be so nebulous it is impossible to say when some province is out of compliance, or there might not be the will to enforce it. But IMO, it is no longer possible for the AC to remain intact with only an unwritten code of conduct.

kyounge (with an “e”)

kyounge,
It matters not if a written covenant exists.  In a gentleman’s agreement, first and foremost it is expected that the parties act like gentleman.  If they do not, they are unlikely to be invited over for Tea.  The consequences of ignoring the boundaries in any relationship are whatever that offended person wants, up to and including severing the relationship completely.  It happens everyday and no one complains…  TEC has been described as an adulterous husband who wants to keep both the wife and the girlfriend and can’t understand why the wife is pi**ed off.  The wife is free to live with the adulterer or divorce him as she chooses.  The timing, measure and degree of discipline is determined solely by the faithful but wronged party.  TEC has no say in the matter.  I could be wrong, but I don’t think that relationships work differently in your locale than I have experienced in mine.

Spencer makes a very good point about discipline and the Covenant, a point I have made repeatedly over the past decade or so (most recently, see my proposed revision of the final clause of the Draft Covenant). But whereas Spencer uses a business analogy, I commonly cite the case from childrearing.

A father (or mother) wishes his child not to act in a certain way. First, he should decide that this is a behavior he really doesn’t want to see. He looks the child in the eye and says: “Billy, don’t do that! In our family we do not do that!” He may or may not spell out a specific punishment for disobedience, but it is clear from his tone that this is “core doctrine” in the family. Billy looks away, walks across the room and does the exact thing which was forbidden. Perhaps this exchange is repeated in order to be sure Billy has understood. Billy repeats the transgression.

Now in this situation if the parent fails to exact some sort of punishment, preferably fitting the offense, he has communicated an important truth to Billy, which is: “I did not really mean what I said.”

In my opinion, this is the exact situation of the Anglican Communion with regard to the Anglican formularies and Lambeth Quadrilateral, and Resolution 1.10 in particular. If discipline is not exercised, the leaders of the Communion have in effect said: “We did not really mean what we said at Lambeth 1998. We do not really consider this practice contrary to Scripture; or if we do consider it contrary to Scripture, then we are not really bound by Scripture on what has seemed a major teaching of Christianity, i.e., marriage and sexual morality.

Spencer wrote:

It matters not if a written covenant exists.

Why does having a written document make no diffence, in your opinion? Putting things in writing is one of several possible ways of dealing with the current situation, and could make a great difference to the AC’s ability to deal with similar occurences in the future. Given the distraction and damage the controversy is causing, I think that is a prudent course for the Communion to take. Do you oppose a written covenant between the provinces, or just think it’s an exercise in futility?

In a gentleman’s agreement, first and foremost it is expected that the parties act like gentleman.

Unfortunately, we have a situation with TEC where one of the parties begins to behave in an ungentlemanly fashion, after having been a member for some time, disrupting the club and making it difficult to carry out its purpose. Unfortunately, the club’s bylaws do not, at this time, spell out any way to expel such a member. We might wish that the president of the club would simply tell that member not to come to the meetings any more, but he’s already said he isn’t going to do so. Even if he did, if that’s all that was done the door would still be open for some other member to disrupt the club at some future time over some other issue. The president is instead suggesting that the club should add a section to the bylaws. If done right, it can deal with the current disruption, prevent future disagreements from causing such a major controversy, and possibly prevent the club from breaking up. I think that’s worth doing.

The consequences of ignoring the boundaries in any relationship are whatever that offended person wants, up to and including severing the relationship completely.  It happens everyday and no one complains… TEC has been described as an adulterous husband who wants to keep both the wife and the girlfriend and can’t understand why the wife is pi**ed off.

I see this difference between the situation of someone with a cheating spouse, and the current problem with TEC: in the case of a married couple, there were promises made in public before witnesses, and there is a body of law which spells out the consequences of breaking those promises. As far as I know, those public promises and that body of law do not exist between the provinces of the AC. As a result, TEC can claim that it is the one that is still holding to the agreement, hasn’t done anything wrong, like a cheating spouse who claims to have intended from the beginning to have an “open marriage”.

The wife is free to live with the adulterer or divorce him as she chooses.

True, but those are not the only options. The wronged spouse is also free to describe the boundaries more clearly, and let the cheater choose whether to comply or leave. That is what a Covenant could do in the AC.

Do you oppose a written covenant between the provinces, or just think it’s an exercise in futility?

No.  Of course not.  A written covenant would be very useful for the communion AFTER discipline is administered.  Furthermore it would not simply be a covenant for our day but for future generations.  We have a chance to improve and refine on what has come before and leave this as a legacy for those who come after.  However, without discipline, a covenant process certainly is an exercise is futility.

As far as I know, those public promises and that body of law do not exist between the provinces of the AC. As a result, TEC can claim that it is the one that is still holding to the agreement, hasn’t done anything wrong, like a cheating spouse who claims to have intended from the beginning to have an “open marriage”. 

I think scripture is full of both examples and direct instructions on how the Body of Christ, the church, is to act.  If I an not mistaken I think the Anglican Communion for the most part still considers the Holy Scriptures to be the basis of our faith and the basis of our relationship to one another.  It is from the scriptures that we get our theology and ecclesiology.  TEC cannot claim it is holding to the agreement unless it rejects Scripture, which of course it has and so they do.  However, that is not unlike the adulterous spouse announcing that they renounce the vows they took and yet at the same time say that they still want to continue the marriage.

The wronged spouse is also free to describe the boundaries more clearly, and let the cheater choose whether to comply or leave. That is what a Covenant could do in the AC.

Yes, but this is NOT what the covenant could do, this is what the Windsor Report has already done.  Now, it is time for TEC to choose whether to comply or leave.  The primates have set 9/30 as the deadline for TEC to make this decision.

For further clarification…
The exercise in futility is such, because if we use Dr. Noll’s rebellious teenager analogy, it would be like the parents sitting down with the teenager and explaining the rules more clearly, yet they still have no intention of enforcing these rules and the rebellious teenager knows it.  So, the teenager gives and nod and a wink and keeps right on doing what he has been doing and the parents, (the enablers) keep on doing what they have been doing.  Net result, nothing changes. 

Thank you Dr. Noll for this helpful analogy.

As I see it the covenant can clarify boundaries and consequences better but only among parties who are willing to join their lives together is such a covenant.  You may discuss writing your marriage vows with your fiancée, but you certainly would not discuss writing marriage vows with an unrepentant adulterous spouse.  After the adulterous spouse repents, the damage is healed and reconciliation occurs, then and only then, might such a couple sit down and renew their vows together.

spencer wrote:

Yes, but this is NOT what the covenant could do, this is what the Windsor Report has already done.  Now, it is time for TEC to choose whether to comply or leave.  The primates have set 9/30 as the deadline for TEC to make this decision.

and in another post:

The exercise in futility is such, because if we use Dr. Noll’s rebellious teenager analogy, it would be like the parents sitting down with the teenager and explaining the rules more clearly, yet they still have no intention of enforcing these rules and the rebellious teenager knows it.  So, the teenager gives and nod and a wink and keeps right on doing what he has been doing and the parents, (the enablers) keep on doing what they have been doing.  Net result, nothing changes.

IIRC, Lambeth 1.10 the Windsor report and the DES communique, are still rather nebulous about exactly what actions will be considered a breach, and exactly what the consequences of such a breach will be. References to “tearing the fabric of the communion” and so on are not specific enough.  DES is an improvement because it has a date by which the response is required, but as for what happens if the two moratoria are not agreed to by then, it only says ” this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.”  (I think those consequences ought to be withdrawal of Lambeth invitations, but there are no specifics given.) To continue Dr Noll’s analogy, “Billy, we don’t do that in this family” is too vague.  It needs to be, “Billy, if you stay out past curfew again, even by one minute, you will be grounded for a week.” And of course, the parents do have to “walk their talk” and ground him if he’s not home on time. For the Covenant to function as I describe, “Billy” cannot be left any room at all to claim he didn’t understand the rules and the consequences beforehand, because with TEC we are talking about something a lot more serious than being grounded for a while. We are talking about the equivalent of Billy’s parents disowning him. If they want to go to almost any length to keep that from happening, I’m not going to say they shouldn’t. 
It sounds from your second post as if think the Communion has no intention of enforcing the Covenant. If that’s the case, it is an exercise in futility, but what makes you think they won’t?

First off, TEC knows very well that the consequence of not complying with DES is at the very least a limited association status within the communion and at worst full disassociation from the communion.  The consequences are clear enough; the date is clear enough; the expectations of right behavior are clear enough.  However, even if they were not, You say…

“Billy, we don’t do that in this family” is too vague.

I respectfully disagree.  In this sentence alone you clearly see the imperative that this family does not do such things therefore it is clearly implied that if the rebellious teenager continues in such behavior that the consequence is to be disowned, cast out of, or at least regarded as no longer part of “this family”.  A statement such as, “We don’t do that” clearly gives the person the choice to stop or to cease to be part of the “we”.  It seems to me what you are looking for is some sort of an exhaustive and legalistic list of behaviors and consequences.  Such is not how people live in covenant.  Can you imagine a set of marriage vows that goes something like, “I promise to take out the trash every Tuesday, and the wife responds and I promise not to nag you about it when you don’t.”  This is the way people who are bound by “obligation” act toward one another but this is not the way people who are bound by “love” act.  I suggest that it would be a good exercise for all of us to go back and re-read sections A and B of the Windsor report.  Contained in these 40 pages is a nice description of what it means to live in communion.  In my mind these two sections of the Windsor Report are the best, yet sadly no one seems to talk about anything but section D.  Might I suggest that we all re-read these two sections before posting further on this thread. 

It sounds from your second post as if think the Communion has no intention of enforcing the Covenant. If that’s the case, it is an exercise in futility, but what makes you think they won’t?

Simply put, “The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.”  Enough said…

I wrote:

“Billy, we don’t do that in this family” is too vague.

and Spencer replied:

I respectfully disagree.  In this sentence alone you clearly see the imperative that this family does not do such things therefore it is clearly implied that if the rebellious teenager continues in such behavior…

Well, that’s just it. It’s implied. Several times you’ve used marriage vows as an analogy. Marriage vows are a great deal more specific than “Billy, we don’t do that in this family”, and they are clearly and publicly stated, not just implied. Love, honor, cherish, forsake all others, sickness or health, richer or poorer, till death do us part. That’s the kind of specific I meant, and it’s possible to say definitely whether someone has kept those promises or not. It’s more difficult to demonstrate that someone’s behavior doesn’t meet an implied standard. Could that be why “Billy” didn’t get corrected when he first started to misbehave years ago?

I’m not speaking from experience, but don’t family therapists sometimes suggest that parents use a set of very specific standards with specific consequences for not meeting them in dealing with rebellious teens? That doesn’t mean the parents don’t love the kid, it means they are trying to get him off a dangerous path. I think the Anglican “family” needs some therapy, quick. Not only is Billy rebelling, but recently, his behavior has gone from bad to worse—analagous to a kid who goes from backtalking his parents and staying out late, to bringing drugs into the house. Now he’s endangering the other children, but unfortunately, the parents don’t agree on what to do about him. One parent has got a clear view of how deep the rebellion goes, the other parent is reluctant to apply stern discipline. If the clearsighted parent can’t come to some agreement with the other parent on disciplining Billy, inducing him to leave on his own may be the only way to get him out of the house without breaking up the parents’ marriage. If Billy doesn’t get his richly deserved consequences before he goes, that’s fine with me. At this point, I am more concerned about having the family survive than about what happens to Billy, although I hope that when he finds himself locked out of the house he realizes that he really does want to be part of the family, cleans up his act, and comes back asking for forgiveness.

I see the Covenant as offering a similar last chance for the Anglican family to survive, even if TEC is not disciplined for its previous misdeeds come October (assuming the HoB rejects the two moratoria as expected). And I do mean last chance, because I can’t think of any more options if that doesn’t work. I admit it’s a long shot, but I hope (to return to the family analogy), the clearsighted parent does not walk out unless all other possibilies have been exhausted. If the parents split up, the family, as a family, ceases to exist. I would hate to see that happen.

Marriage vows are a great deal more specific than “Billy, we don’t do that in this family”, and they are clearly and publicly stated, not just implied. Love, honor, cherish, forsake all others, sickness or health, richer or poorer, till death do us part.

Yes and the vows we Christians take when we enter the Body of Christ are no less clear than those marriage vows you mention.  All Christians know we are to love one another, and it is also clear that TEC has not acted in a manner which exhibits this love.  I am certainly glad to hear that you agree TEC’s behavior is rotten and that the approaching deadline is last chance.

At this point, I am more concerned about having the family survive than about what happens to Billy

I agree!  The problem with this is that (if I may further your analogy) in order for Lambeth and any talk of a Anglican Covenant to produce any fruitful discussion, the rebellious teenager cannot be present.  It would be nice if we could just send the rebellious teenager off to reform school and let them do the discipline that he needs, yet this is obviously not possible, therefore the only option left as I see it is like the prodigal son, give him his inheritance and let him go his own way.  But let us be clear that for the health of the couple’s marriage, the rebellious child MUST go.

My hope is that at last, Rowan will see this too.  As much as he may not want to expel the wayward child, he must do so to preserve the rest of the family.  I believe that the clear sighted parent has been quite patient with the other parent, but this other parent cannot live in denial forever.  Something must be done, and soon.  I see no other options for Rowan than withdrawing all non-Windsor invitations.  The alternative is the total break up of the entire family.

It is clear that you and I both want the same thing in the end.  Let us hope that the family does not remain divided.

Spencer writes: 

I see no other options for Rowan than withdrawing all non-Windsor invitations.

I don’t think Rowan will have to.

If *I* was a reappraiser-in-charge at 815, this is what I would do:

o Say “Yes” to whatever ABC Williams says that TEC needs to do in New Orleans.

o Have absolutely no intention whatsoever to honoring that “Yes”. Proceed apace with litigation and Same-Sex-Blessings and Gay Ordinations.

o The weakness in TEC and the AC is that they have NO enforcement capability. ABC Williams is utterly incapable of being a spiritual cop. He will not write tickets for anyone and any province. He is a toothless, titular head.

o So TEC HOB should make a tearful show of compliance and repentance, and then have utterly no compunction of not keeping to it.

o Have the HOB do the same thing as PB KJS did when she said “yes” to the DES Communique, and then later said that she didn’t sign it. 

o Then I merely wait for the ABC to peddle this lie of compliance to the GS primates. They’ll pat him on the back for doing such a wonderful job and for saving the communion.  He’ll think he did a wonderful job as the ABC. The media lauds him. Then I wait a week or two, and just start up with SSB and SS ordinations and litigate against any parish or diocese that dares depart.

o They have no enforcement at all. They can write words that sound good. But no one in AC leadership will enforce those words.

o In their silly little documents, they won’t even write down what constitutes a violation of the SSB bans and lawsuit cessation, much less memorialize what the consequences are.

o So even if they think they have a violation they will expend vast amounts of time attempting to document it, they will spend numerous committee hours debating whether the violation in question is really a violation, and then they will ultimately do nothing.  Let’s just kick the can down the road some more.

o So why not just give ABC and the primates a phony “Yes” to their request for compliance to the WR and to the DES Communique?  In the meantime we insist with utter rightousness on no more border crossings.  GS primates keep their word.  815 need not.  We are inclusive, diverse, tolerant, and pluralistic.  We have Integrity!

TEC skates. Thank you very much.

Lambeth 2008… HERE WE COME!!! 

Liberal Revisionists’ Face: 

TU&D,
I know you well enough to know that you are joking.  Others might think you are serious!  Of course I am very very glad that you are not a revionist in charge of 815!  After hearing ++Greg Venables today, I am increasingly of the opinion that Rowan is quickly becoming irrelevant. 

Of course I am very very glad that you are not a revisonist in charge of 815!

I’ll take that as a compliment!

As you know, I think the ABC is very relevant in terms of God’s glory being manifested in a corporate sense.

To the ABC’s credit, what surprised me and gave me hope was the addendum to the DES Communique.  Midway through Tanzania the ABC pushed through the subgroup report which was laughably false.  The Fat Lady was belching and getting ready to sing.  Reasserters were naturally glum.  But then, lo and behold! the addendum came out with a 9/30 deadline!  And it was “unanimously” affirmed by all primates.  I applauded the ABC for being wondrously magical and for pulling that out of the proverbial magician’s hat.

But then the individual bishops wrote responses to Tanzania.  As did the HOB.  Canada still does SSB’s.  Litigation against orthodox parishes still continue.  Presentment against Bishop Cox.  Rev. Armstrong harassed and persecuted.  Inconsistent and arbitrary application of canons by 815. 

I don’t really see any authentic repentance by 815 and The Episcopal Church, do you? 

What will ABC Williams pull out of the magician’s hat this time?  Personally, I hope he wears his army steel-toed combat boots when he meets with the HOB in New Orleans.  He needs to switch costumes from magician to General Patton or Prime Minister Winston Churchhill.

What will ABC Williams pull out of the magician’s hat this time?

I’ve been checking with my relatives and found none of them missing. If +++ABC wants to pull something with a wiggly nose out of his hat, he may have to rely on the former Bishop of Nevada: Maybe with a primatial vicar that is putatively orthodox?

The Rabbit.

If he pulls Winston Churchill out of his hat I will be most pleased indeed!  And by the way, yes it was a compliment!

Spencer wrote (in the linked post):

I think you are making a serious error by confusing the covenant with discipline.  Discipline is the exercising of a consequence to a inappropriate action.  Discipline is an action that is employed to encourage those already living within the bonds of a covenant to keep the boundaries of that covenant.  The formation of a new covenant is meaningless unless there is first discipline. 

These are statements, not explanations. I agree that TEC has made inappropriate actions and deserves to get some consequences, but as there is only an implied covenant (“bonds of affection”) between TEC and other provinces, this is difficult to put into practice. I do not agree that the covenant is meaningless without prior discipline. It could (if they refuse to sign) get TEC out of the communion; it could create a method of dealing with future conflicts between Communion members. It could do these things whether TEC gets consequences for its past offenses beforehand or not. We don’t know whether it will do these things unless we try it and see.

In essence, a covenant establishes the bond of fellowship, that is to say, the rights and privileges thereof as well as the boundaries and consequences for crossing those boundaries.  A covenant is not a document…

The covenant I am speaking of is a document, the one that member provinces will be considering sometime in the relatively near future. Since the rights, privileges, boundaries and consequences of the bond of fellowship between Anglican provinces are not spelled out specifically anywhere (that I know of) the Covenant could serve a useful purpose.

When the covenant is broken as has now been done by TEC, discipline must be applied.

Since the Covenant is a draft at this time and hasn’t been signed by anyone, TEC has not broken it. They’ve broken a lot of other stuff—Biblical principles, bonds of affection and their own canons—but not the Covenant. I hope by the time it is offered to the provinces, it does contain some specific boundaries and consequences.

any talk of discussing a covenant with TEC until after full repentance is received is simply nonsense.

I am not so much talking about discussing it with TEC as discussing it between the other provinces. TEC will either sign on or not. If they don’t, they’re out of the Communion, and the rest of Anglicanism can move ahead together. If they it sign and don’t violate it, that’s better than what we have now, isn’t it? And if they sign it and violate it, and nothing is done, the Covenant will have been proved futile, but not until then.

Got to leave now. I’m going to be very late for work.