Jordan Hylden: The Last Stand of Rowan Williams

I hate to be a naysayer . . . and so I won’t be, other than to observe that prior events have not served to illuminate the Camp Allen Bishops’ actions or non-actions to good effect.

It would be nice if they attempted to do such things as Jordan expresses, and if they all “stood together” at the HOB meeting.

It’s true, I think, that folks have viewed Rowan as the “Rorschach inkblot” and I think that the greatest effect of the early invitations to all was that “moderate” bishops of all stripes in ECUSA decided that there were no real consequences for their behavior or lack thereof.

Greg didn’t quote the following paragraph:

“If he does so—which will take nothing more than a statement to the effect that, as he previously indicated in his initial letter, invitations to Lambeth will depend upon a demonstrated willingness to abide by the decisions previously made there, without which the trust and cooperation necessary for such a conference will not exist—then it will make a world of difference. Many North American conservatives, currently pondering whether or not to join up with CANA or AMiA, will hold back, reassured that they have not been forgotten. Many in the Global South will do the same, as indeed archbishops Akinola and Orombi have indicated in their recent published essays. Lambeth will go ahead as planned, with the vast majority (save for a small cohort of Gene Robinson supporters) of Anglican bishops present, and the continuing process of covenant and ever-greater coherence will be maintained.”

I don’t agree here.  I don’t think that the ABC merely needs to reiterate what he stated in the letter of invitation which was merely a line that was “all things to all people” and of course deliberately so. 

Jordan says that the ABC should make “a statement to the effect that, as he previously indicated in his initial letter, invitations to Lambeth will depend upon a demonstrated willingness to abide by the decisions previously made there.”

But he did not previously indicate that at all.  He said this in his invitation letter: “The Instruments of Communion have offered for this purpose a set of resources and processes, focused on the Windsor Report and the Covenant proposals. My hope is that as we gather we can trust that your acceptance of the invitation carries a willingness to work with these tools to shape our future.”

Progressives in no way saw this as a demand for compliance with the decisions of Windsor or Lambeth or the Covenant.  Radical, foaming-at-the-mouth progressives are more than happy to “work with these tools”, just as they have “worked with” Holy Scripture, tradition, reason, Constitutions and Canons, and law courts to “shape our future.” They are, in fact, eager to “shape our future” and that is what they are ferociously doing, just like termites “shape our future” in our houses.

No, the ABC will need to 1) list what is regarded as “compliance” in fine detail, 2) state that nobody may attend without that compliance, and 3) withdraw invitations to those who have not.

I have no doubt that what he will want to do is issue his own “Rorschach inkblot” statement allowing progressives to interpret as they wish, and conservatives to interpret as they wish, with the result that both are temporarily pleased.

A wonderful article—it demonstrates how even a political analysis may be one of the fruits of the Spirit.  I have subscribed to FIRST THINGS for several years now, and find it to be an excellent journal for reflective Christians.

He and he alone is in charge of issuing invitations to Lambeth, and so in the end he is the one who will determine whether or not Anglicanism coheres or dissolves.

That’s the money quote.  Lambeth invitations to an England Tea Party.  No need for a Draft Covenant in place.  No need for the Instruments of Unity to be coordinated.  No more dithering and delay.

The ABC has 4 choices:

(A)  Do nothing. 
(B)  Make such little changes to the Lambeth invite list that it’s really like (A).
(C)  Disinvite all of TEC and invite all of GS.
(D)  Cancel Lambeth.

If he doesn’t have the moral courage of (C), I think he’s giving (D) some serious consideration.

I don’t think he can really afford to cancel Lambeth. That would be, under existing circumstances, a sort of abject surrender, wouldn’t it?

If the published plans for Lambeth remain in place, it has been effectively cancelled as no opportunity for concerted action(s) by the bishops is allowed for.  If it occurs, it will be a mere jamboree, as wiser heads than mine have observed since the publication of the schedule for Lambeth 2008.

Re: the windsor bishops, Jordan writes, “Despite their many differences of opinion, the entire spectrum represented at the most recent Camp Allen meeting will almost certainly stand together.” That is a stretch, a big stretch. They will attempt to pass resolutions… How many are we talking about? Less than twenty or so. The Windsor bishops were trounced in the spring meeting. Jack Iker, who originally said that he wouldn’t attend, states that he will go in respect to the ABC and then leave before the travesty of the final couple of days.

How will the ABC perform, Jordan asks? Well, we can look at his performance in the first act, that of the Canadian synod. He stated at the outset that the invitations were not in any conditional jeopardy and then gave essays, sermons and talks aligning himself with the liberal side. The result? Two resolutions, one saying that the issues were not core issues and the other rejecting officially sanctioning blessing SSRI’s but specifically not banning them. Thus, they proceed unchecked. Will Rowan’s second act be different?

He and he alone is in charge of issuing invitations to Lambeth…

While technically correct, it ignores the effect of market share.  Examples are recent EU edicts on airplane sales and MS software, or California laws on automobiles.  They have no force outside their own jurisdicitions, but they have such a large market share they can say do it our way, or don’t do business here at all.  So far, it has worked every time.

The dynamic in the AC is a balancing act of numbers of people vs numbers of dollars, with the state of +Cantuar’s backbone thrown in for good measure.  Still, it is clear that in practice this decision is not really his to make.

TUaD -  With the ABC, it’s not a matter of courage but of conviction.

On the issue of Same Sex Sex (SSS) the ABC does not have convictions that agree with God the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, nor with Scripture, nor with the Church of the Ages. 

Therefore, he cannot join with or defend those who do. 

As you say, Truth Unites and Divides.

Radical, foaming-at-the-mouth progressives are more than happy to “work with these tools”, just as they have “worked with” Holy Scripture, tradition, reason, Constitutions and Canons, and law courts to “shape our future.” They are, in fact, eager to “shape our future” and that is what they are ferociously doing, just like termites “shape our future” in our houses.

Sarah at her best, biting prose!

Too bad they didn’t have more time at Tanzania.  If they did, then the addendum could have read:  “If compliance by TEC HOB is not forthcoming by 9/30/07 to the requests made here in the Communique, then Lambeth 2008 invitations will not be extended to TEC bishops.”

(1)  Takes the decision out of ABC William’s hands about Lambeth.
(2)  Let’s TEC know what the immediate consequences are to non-compliance. 
(3)  Makes Tanzania Communique much more impactful.  It would have tempered the amazingly impudent responses by many in the HOB to the Communique.

But as it is, Lambeth is in play and fully contingent on the ABC having to make some hard choices.  Pray for wisdom and courage for the ABC.

So far, the so-called ‘instruments of unity’ have proved to be the AC version of Jim Jones’ grape Kool-aid.  No real Christ worshipper is going to be naive or undiscerning or willing trust them and submit to more years of what has taken place in the last five. 
You cannot build a good Church structure if it includes a little rotten wood.  The rot spreads.  (That is why the tiered structure notion is foolish and dangerous)  Only God can clean up what’s gone wrong in TEC for so many decades, perhaps all the last century. 
Only God can change hearts, transform rotten wood into good timber - but humble true repentance - unconditional surrender - death and crucifixion - complete abandonment of evil - are necessary.  These are what God requires.

Numbers 33:55 admonishes the Israelites not to let any ‘caananites’ remain in the land or they will become thorns in their sides and barbs in their eyes.  Just so, if we let sin remain in our lives, hearts, minds, we will remain in torment.  The next verse, v.56 warns, that if we do tolerate sin and let it remain, we will be regarded and dealt with as God does the heathen.

The ABC has 4 choices:

(A) Do nothing. 
(B) Make such little changes to the Lambeth invite list that it’s really like (A).
(C) Disinvite all of TEC and invite all of GS.
(D) Cancel Lambeth.

I would add a fifth option, which is a modified (C).  ABC Williams could invite the Bishops of TEC who have alligned themselves with Windsor and DeS.  It would be hard to understand why anyone would disinvite the SSC bishops, for example, unless it is bacause they are too catholic.  He could disinvite those who have refused to allign themselves with Windsor.  It’s not all that difficult to establish who is who in most cases. 

By all of the GS bishops, I will assume that you include the bishops consecrated at recent irregular consecations.  I do not think he has to do that to hold the communion together either.  I think that he would have to add an item to the agenda to discuss what should be done about those bishops.  The truth of the matter is that there consecrations were irregular, to deny that is to deny catholic order.  We can justify the necesity of their consecrations, and why it was the right thing to do at this time.  (As an anglo-catholic, I would want to be very careful with such a justification).  But I do think that if it was agreed that Lambeth would deal with the status of those bishops, then it would make little sense for anyone to stay away because they were not invited. 

The future of the communion does not rest entirely on the ABC.  The ball is in his court right now, and he had better not take his eye off it.  However, the communion may disintegrate even if he makes the right play in his next move. 

The situation right now reminds me a great deal of WWI.  Everyone had a battle plan that depended on their making the first move.  Once the machine was turned on, there was no turning back.  The question I have right now is whether or not the machine has gained too much momentum to stop the split regardless of what happens next.

TUaD - With the ABC, it’s not a matter of courage but of conviction.

You could be right Floridian.  But the ABC also possesses the conviction to keep as many of the pieces of the Anglican Communion together.  I’m hoping that it’s that conviction that will trump his personal conviction about the Authority of Scripture regarding same-sex behavioral sin.

Revj, that was a very nice post.  Indeed, what you write makes a lot of sense.  Yet sometimes decisive leadership doesn’t coincide well with treading carefully.

“...other than to observe that prior events have not served to illuminate the Camp Allen Bishops’ actions or non-actions to good effect”.

Ah, but this negates the possibility of all sorts of back-room deals. 

Not all the news is posted on the internet, you know. 

“The Instruments of Communion have offered for this purpose a set of resources and processes, focused on the Windsor Report and the Covenant proposals. My hope is that as we gather we can trust that your acceptance of the invitation carries a willingness to work with these tools to shape our future.”

To me, the preceding looks an awful lot like the “British polite version” definition of compliance.  If I remember correctly, it was also stated, in the invitation letter or later, that +++Williams reserves the right to reconsider or disinvite.  If I were a screaming revisionist, on that score I’d sit up and take note; but, then again, I might not even care.  Such is God-given free will…

Jordan’s analysis is a good one, especially regarding the consequences of Williams’s inaction.  The Archbishop might not like it, but the results of doing nothing, near nothing, or yet another fudge/kick-the-can-down-the-street will be worse. 

Looks like the lot of leadership, and he’s going to have to accept that or allow the whole thing to fall apart. 

Yes, the Archbishop needs our prayers.  He’s got mine. 

IC,

TS

It’s rather sad to see the constant gratuituous put-downs of Rob Roy re: Duncan, Iker, Beckwith, Stanton, Howe, Salmon, Smith, Bauerschmidt, Steenson, Lilliebridge, et al who constitute the CA Bishops and whose principles were affirmed by Dar es Salaam. I wonder why there is this animus? If Duncan and Iker and others can work for an outcome at New Orleans, it seems odd to have them so constantly second-guessed by someone who was not present. Someone asked at one point whether this just represented some kind of personal issue. I think that is apposite.

TUaD, 

The ABC, TEC, ACoC, et al, and the Tea Party at Lame-beth, are fast becoming irrelevant to the Real Church and the Real Gospel. 

Day by day, the chances for redemption of these individuals and their organizational bodies are running out. 

I pray they will hear the Truth, be granted repentance, be granted the revelation that Jesus is Lord, will because of this God-given *conviction* abandon their false gospel and nefarious agenda.  I will continue to pray for this miracle.  Isaiah 62:1-4

If I were the ABC (thank God I’m not!), I would show up in New Orleans with my steel-toed Royal Army boots on the 1st day and inform TEC that Lambeth Invitations are in play unless total compliance to WR and DES is met by 9/30/07. 

That announcement would get met with howls, hissing, boos, and shrieking.  I would then say that I’m meeting with all the primates shortly after and we will discuss your official TEC HOB response.  Even if you have no response and even if your response says that you have to punt to the next GC because of your polity.  BTW, those attempts to punt won’t suffice.

Why would I do that as the ABC?  Because that’s integrity.  And it keeps all my options open.  Because if I never shared with TEC HOB what could happen, then they would (rightly) feel betrayed if I did revoke their invitations to Lambeth later.  At least this way, they were forewarned of the severity of consequences to non-compliance.

Plus it demonstrates to the other primates how serious I am as the ABC to their concerns that I’m giving a free pass to TEC and playing the dithering delay game.

TEC will then seriously consider sacrificing Lind as a pawn, yanking her from nominee candidacy.  (Which may have been the plan all along).  VGR+ may consider resignation or receive 815 pressure to resign before 9/30/07. 

9/30/07 comes.  All bets are in.  Pot’s right.  TEC turn over your hole cards.  Whaddya got?

TUaD,  Windsor and DES do not provide sufficiently stringent requirements to remove the Western AC provinces from their folly nor the folly from them.

These documents require only minimal standards of compliance and will not begin to salvage the AC. 

Anyone who has ever been a parent knows the heart of the child is not altered by rules or punishment, even if the outward behavior changes.  A rebellious child will continue to strain and stretch the limits.  Unless there is a change of heart, the child is still in rebellion.  Jesus said, ‘If you love me (as a result) you will keep my commandments.’

This is why the tiered system will not work - it will be handcuffing the faithful son to the rebellious son, giving the rebellious son power over the faithful, allowing the rebellious son to continue in rebellion using the Father’s good name.

Would you eat any of the wedding cake if the host said, ‘Enjoy, only one tier is poisoned.’ ?

TUAD, here’s what I think Rowan will do when he gets up to the podium for the Big Speech in New Orleans:

1. Thank everybody.  Start with a disarmingly self-deprecating funny story that gets everybody chuckling and relaxed.

2. Reference the obscure research and writing he did during his sabbatical at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.  Talk about the profound insights he gained thereby.  Put five barely-related ideas into each sentence.  Speak with a resonant voice.

3. Try (unsuccessfully) to relate the preceding ideas to the broader context of the current situation in the Anglican enterprise.  Say things that cause the audience to nod sagaciously.  Oh, and mention Hurricane Katrina, but not Jerry Kramer.

4. Suggest an alternative way of looking at the future.  Make sure it bears no relation to what is really going on.  Cite some Apostolic Fathers, a famous medieval Roman Catholic monk, a previous Archbishop of Canterbury, and a 21st-century post-modern poet nobody has ever heard of.  Use the word “context” a lot.  Smile reassuringly.

5. Thank the HOB for their kind invitation.  Leave to raucous applause and a standing ovation.  Stand around for Kodak Moments with everybody.  Smile, but not too much, with hands held tightly behind back (as if handcuffed).

6. Await the glowing reviews that will immediately appear on SFIF gushing over how wonderful he is and aren’t we fortunate to have such a wise ABC and Thank God the Anglican Communion has been saved.

Well, Chazaq,  more’n likely it will be days or even weeks, or perhaps never, before the task of deciphering what the ABC actually said or meant by what he said. 

You Western voices of sexual license, of distrust of God’s word, more and more irrelevant, less and less intelligible.  You are babbling, growing faint. We just can’t hear you…our ears are tuned to the Shepherd’s voice.

Wow, Seitz writes

It’s rather sad to see the constant gratuituous [sic] put-downs of Rob Roy re: Duncan, Iker, Beckwith, Stanton, Howe, Salmon, Smith, Bauerschmidt, Steenson, Lilliebridge,

I merely quoted Bp Iker’s (who is a big hero of mine) publically stated intention, thus taking issue with Jordan’s prediction that an orthodox Episcopal bishop front “will almost certainly stand together” at the HoB. Gratuitous put down against all these men??? Where did that come from???

These are the Windsor Bishops…about which you wrote, in your now customary manner:

Re: the Windsor bishops, Jordan writes, “Despite their many differences of opinion, the entire spectrum represented at the most recent Camp Allen meeting will almost certainly stand together.” That is a stretch, a big stretch. They will attempt to pass resolutions… How many are we talking about? Less than twenty or so. The Windsor bishops were trounced in the spring meeting.

<b>Wow, Seitz writes</a>

Robroy—

Don’t worry about it, Chris frequently has these attacks and begins jousting at non-existant shadows. I went back to the top looking for your blasphemy and found none. Usually, he comes out of these fairly quickly…but then, he also has them fairly frequently. I suspect it’s the pressure of Sept. 30. I hope he’ll be all right when that date passes, TEC is sent packing and the communion reforms, strionger and more faithful than ever.

TUaD says:

TEC will then seriously consider sacrificing Lind as a pawn, yanking her from nominee candidacy.  (Which may have been the plan all along).

That’s what I thought, too!
But I disagree with this:

VGR+ may consider resignation or receive 815 pressure to resign before 9/30/07.

I was thinking they would just make his not go through with the ceremony plans he so recently announced.
I am thinking they are coming up with these new bargaining chips that can then be negotiated away, leaving them in exactly the same place they were a few months ago.

Hmmmmm….wonder how I did that????

Thanks, I appreciate the cordial atmosphere! Enjoy the blogosphere.

Thanks, I appreciate the cordial atmosphere! Enjoy the blogosphere.

Is this a sincere statement?

Been There… I think it’s more accuate to say it this way, “...and the communion *re-forms*, stronger and more faithful than ever.”

The AC is being *re-formed* as we type. 

9/30 is really not an issue now; the rebels in TEC will simply have one more chance to repent, but they have already made themselves null and non-players in God’s Kingdom.
Just viewing Baby Blue’s slide show will show you that.

Seitz-ACI,

While it is true that there are four commenters on the SF site that really can’t let go of the thought that so many ComCons aren’t keen on their particular strategy and generally won’t be along for the ride that is proposed, and those four commenters appear to blame the ACI for the position of others, like me, I don’t see that what Rob Roy said about the Windsor Bishops was incorrect or even insulting.

It appears that there are about 20 or so—so that part was truthful.

And it is true that the Windsor Bishops were “trounced” at the last HOB meeting, and frankly, due to their small numbers [which is no shame to them at all, but rather to the rest of ECUSA] if what Jordan Hylden has said about their intentions is true, they’ll be trounced again at this HOB meeting!

But again—being trounced is no shame, when it’s 85 to 20!  It’s sort of a given, and plenty of reasserting Episcopalians have had such an experience at vestry meetings and diocesan conventions!
; > )

I agree with you that there are a few here that attempt to be insulting of the ACI as representative of the whole of the ComCons, sort of like a totem . . . [although, in order to be insulted, surely one must respect the potential insulter as capable of actual insult!], but not all criticisms or mere descriptions of the Windsor Bishops are invalid or “put-downs”.

You know, at the end of the day, there are about 30 or so orthodox bishops in ECUSA.  That’s pretty dang bad, frankly.  One can’t get much worse, I guess. 

Had the ABC been clear that there would be actual consequences for bishops in ECUSA that did not adhere to Windsor, there might be another 30 or so bishops who would have come along.

But that’s water under the bridge now.  The ABC didn’t do that, and so here we all will be at the September HOB meeting—and I do heartily wish the 20 or so bishops some courage and unity and wisdom.

But Rob Roy’s acknowledgement that there are few and that they were trounced, and that, frankly, their activities have not been that strong is surely no insult, but just an acknowledgement.

RE: the actual attempts at insults, why not just take note of the four who try so hard, and simply avoid or smile at their comments regarding their favorite topic?  They often say interesting things about other topics, and with their pet topic, it’s just sort of their eccentricity that really is easy to glance over and move on.  And there are plenty of other commenters—the vast majority—who are simply reasonably analytical and critical of a variety of competing positions, on all fronts.

You didn’t ask for my advice, but I wonder if you are focusing too much on four commenters and their opinions, and failing to see the other comments from other quite fair and varied commenters who pontificate on a variety of matters, fairly critically and analytically.

So far, the so-called ‘instruments of unity’ have proved to be the AC version of Jim Jones’ grape Kool-aid.  No real Christ worshipper is going to be naive or undiscerning or willing trust them and submit to more years of what has taken place in the last five.

I hear ya’ Floridian. But I read comments all the time on StandFirm from people who absolutely, genuinely trust in the so-called Instruments of Unity.
They will get upset at you and me and all the other people who suggest that such a view is naive and that it’s most likely part of a delaying tactic that’s spiritually damaging.  I personally have felt their electronic displeasure for expressing my genuine skepticism about the ultimate efficacy and timeliness of the Instruments of Unity to do what’s needed. They believe with utter fervor in the Instruments of Unity, that it is the absolute best process, and that however long it takes, it doesn’t matter.  They are immovably fixated on the Instruments of Unity.

The theological liberal revisionists greatly appreciate these institutionalists.  Do ya’ wonder why?

That’s a very kind effort, Sarah.

Lots of hard work goes into Bishops gathering and struggling for clarity and good ways forward. From Duncan, Iker and Beckwith to Smith, Salmon, Howe, and McPherson. The summary dismissals from those who know not what was done and what will be attempted, calling the endeavor and the notion of common work ‘that’s a stretch’— that seems gratuitous and silly.

I am busy with lectures on canon and should not have tuned in. Apologies for disturbing the waters! Blessings.

The theological liberal revisionists greatly appreciate these institutionalists.

Oh? Is that why they villify them then????

Sarah,
Seitz has had a personal animosity going against Dr. Rob Roy for a long time.  He jumps all over RR’s posts, which never even come close to saying what S-ACI pretends that they say.  [comment deleted—personal insult]  Frankly, I commend RR in his restraint in his rejoinders.

Sarah:

Well posted.  I would say this, however, in Mr. Seitz’s defense:  For whatever reason we humans tend to only notice what either really bothers us or hurts us.

I know I can have 50 people tell me how nice I look and I have ONE tell me my shirt is ugly, that’s what I remember.  It’s a real stupid problem to have, but I know I am certainly prone to it.

So, perhaps Chris struggles that way as well.

I didn’t see anything in rob-roy’s first message, either, by the by.

RE: “I know I can have 50 people tell me how nice I look and I have ONE tell me my shirt is ugly, that’s what I remember.  It’s a real stupid problem to have, but I know I am certainly prone to it.”

Well . . . I think the really really important thing, in desperate times like this, is to watch plenty of the US Open in difficult times!  Really, tennis should let us all know that nothing else is really all that important.

[It’s Friday, I’ve really lost it.]  ; > )

Sorry oscewicee.  You are quite right.  I should have been more clear.

What I should have wrote is:  “The theological liberal revisionists greatly appreciate these institutionalists when they join together as odd bedfellows on the issue of “rightful” discipline and how it should proceed.  Institutionalists believe so fervently in the ‘Instruments of Unity’ that it plays into the hands of the theological liberal revisionists to create more delay, more dilly-dallying, more dithering.  Discipline may not come, if ever.  And if it comes, it will likely be watered down and diluted.  In this particular case, that is why theologically liberal revisionists appreciate institutionalists.”

CarolynP, whatever offense was or was not given in the Seitz/RR exchange, I submit that your comment and tone helped no one, informed us of nothing and in fact dragged the conversation much further down than it had been. That was unguarded snarkiness at its worst. Try taking the high road next time; failing that say nothing at all, the blog as a whole will be better for it.

Everyone back to your corners. Everyone has a bad day, once and a while. Sometimes it bleds over to the blog.  Forgive and forget.

Question for Seitz-ACI: What’s your read on the Kenya consecrations?  Does ACI endorse?

Sarah:

Can’t copious amounts of alcohol have the same effect? 

OK, OK, I’m just being silly now… think I need to take a break.

My answer is the center verse of all Scripture - Psalm 118:8 and for good measure, add Psalm 118:9 and Christ’s own words - Matthew 3:10; Matthew 7:17-18; Matthew 12:33; Luke 6:43-44 and John 15:2-16

If I am nuancing this correctly, Jesus is saying we can determine the worth of something by its fruit (alias track record).  OK, we have seen the fruit of the instruments of unity…wait a minute….let me think…. what fruit *have* we actually seen?  What fruit have the instruments of unity since Lambeth 98 (nearly 20 years) produced? 

Years of meetings, piles of documents with dignitary signatures, dire warnings, unkept promises… are these things fruit? 

What did the ACC *do* for the orthodox dioceses and parishes, priests??? 

Did they offer or impose any restraints upon the revisionist leadersip?  Sure, there were more meetings and compromises, agreements forged and more paperwork signed.  A lot of words, time and money. 

Is fruit what they write, say, sign or actually do?

We have the *compromise* in the language of Lambeth resolution 1.10 which accepts and adopts what Mario Bergner calls ‘extra-biblical’ (the sexual agenda’s artificially and intentionally produced) terminology, labels and concepts.  But most TEC Bishops are not on board with this, much less Windsor.

If the HoB and the Instruments of Unity work this time around, it will be a verifiable miracle…but let me say, I am in complete 100% favor of such a miracle.

However, I cannot eat any cake if TEC is allowed to be one tier of it and if they are allowed to use the Anglican name in their operations. 

I hope the optimists will beware of the two tiered compromise - as Marie Antoinette said, “Let them eat cake” ...but at their own risk.

think the really really important thing, in desperate times like this, is to watch plenty of the US Open in difficult times!

Isn’t this like encouraging us to take a nap???
(ducking and running….)

A big part of the problem is that 3 of the 4 Instruments of Unity depend on the 4th to call meetings.  Like King John, ABC does not have to call meetings if he chooses not to, and can invite whomever he chooses when he does.  If he is acting like Primate of All Anglicans when he is in fact just Primate of All England, then the AC is only a CoE ministry and the meetings are acts of the CoE instead of the AC.

Like King John, the ABC needs to sign an ecclesial Magna Carta, separating the AC from the CoE, and giving the other 3 Instruments power to function without his absolute control.  This could include things like letting 20% force him to call meetings within a month, letting other primates define membership, letting members set the agenda for meetings, and making the ACO (not an Instrument) represent and serve all 4 Instruments.

As it stands, ABC may intend to avoid calling a Primates Meeting until after the Lambeth Conference next year, and to stick to the existing guest list and the Delphi agenda the ACO has planned.

Dear Marcia,

That is a remarkably astute and insightful comment.  I want to publicly commend you for your wonderful contribution.

Thank you so very much.

Your Partner for His Truth and Love

Please allow me to add that I in no way have ‘summarily dismissed’ anyone’s hard work or efforts. 

I am in favor of and pray for a whole Church that includes the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant expressions of the Church under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.  However, what TEC is promulgating is not Christianity and should not be tolerated or given any part in the AC.

My fear is the perpetuation of the compromises already made by the various instruments of unity and of allowing TEC to operate under the Anglican umbrella borrowing credibility from the Anglican name. 

We shall soon see what kind of dish the ACI will set before The King.

Years of meetings, piles of documents with dignitary signatures, dire warnings, unkept promises… are these things fruit?

Does anybody know how many years, in all, it took to establish the Anglican Church? The Anglican Communion? How many years it took to root out any of the more virulent heresies? Just curious.

I thought the US Open was back in June.  Angel Cabrera won.  Are they doing re-runs of golf now?

Hey!  Watch where you swing that racket….

Dave,
I was feeling unguardedly snarky.  The ACI folks do that to me.  But you are absolutely correct - I should have just thought it, not posted it.  I sincerely apologize to all.

  Don’t we all just need a giggle out of this?  How many realise that there are folks at Lambeth watching this website?  YOU could be the next anonymous adviser to Rowan C. himself!  Seriously- from the time I started back-linking my remarks on this site until I linked my ministry resume to it I was getting weekly visits to my own blogsite, traced to servers at “London, Lambeth,” with StandFirm as the referring website.  Once I posted the resume there was one more Lambeth hit on the resume and they must have found out all they wanted to know.  So just in case the optimists are right, and ++Rowan is just really undecided about these things, you, yes you, could be his very own unsung policy advisor!  Better yet, some of the wiser posts on this site could be turning some minds toward the simple truth of the Gospel!
Robert

Thanks for sticking up for me Sarah. Sort of… ;^)

My allegiances clearly lies with the African primates, Orombi, Akinola, Nzimbi, Kolini together with ABp Venables and the oversight scheme, “Common Cause”, that seems to be evolving between them and orthodox American clergy such as the two new bishops, Bp Duncan, etc. This is entirely appropriate because they have effected more actual results rather than theory and talk to provide sanctuary for the oppressed orthodox than any other structure. My confidence in the ABC is less than null and void because I see him as actively working against the cause of the orthodox (see my postings in the Venables thread for many examples of this).

I do voice my opposition to individual or groups that oppose the formation of this Common Cause structure. I state my case. I am not hateful, and I do not use haughty, condescending language.

Thanks, CarolynP. It is difficult sometimes not to fire off a cynical repartee. My technique is to write a reply that is similarly arrogant and disdainful but then delete it and not send it. (Learned this from Abraham Lincoln.)

Ahem, back to the matter at hand which is Jordan’s intriguing essay.

I have heard this argument many times and Jordan essentially repeats: The ABC is no fool. He must withdraw invitations to to non-Windsor bishops or the communion is doomed. If he felt that way, why would he have told the Canadians, “Do what you will. Your invitations are unconditional.”? With the result that although there is no official sanction of SSU’s, there is no prohibition of them, and it is not against core doctrine (yes, in the sense of “creedal” which everyone is ignoring). This has given the green light to SSU’s everywhere not just New Westminster. If the ABC was going to make a stand, why not in Canada first?

Just a reminder.  When +Williams mets with the bishops, he will pursue the aim he has always had:
“My aim is to try and keep people at the table for as long as possible to understand one another and to encourage local churches not only on this side of the Atlantic but elsewhere to ask what they might need to do to keep in that conversation, to keep around the table.”
See http://www.anglicanplanet.net/TAPIntern0705a.html
This means that anything like an ultimatum is out of the question; so is anything which gives a clear and unmistakable indication that he’s on the side of the reappraisers.

Hylden writes very well and this is an accurate summary of the current situation.  Conservatives are hoping Williams finally holds TEC accountable while liberals are counting on another pass.  Hylden is correct in that I can’t see conservatives hanging on if Williams waffles yet again.  Another fudge here is picking sides whether he likes it or not.

J Knightly, Keeping everyone at the table certainly plays into the reappraisers’ hand. Was reading how Trinity, Wall Street may, in the near future, “buy” the Central African primacy for the revisionist side. Scary.

RE: “Thanks for sticking up for me Sarah.”

You’re welcome.  I sincerely meant to articulate that you did not appear to be deliberately trying to be insulting in your comment.  I was sincere in my effort, if not successful, perhaps in my attempt.

At the same time I understand why Seitz-ACI would feel hounded.  Frankly there is nothing that the ACI could do—given their frank mission [which is contradictory in theology and goals and ecclesiology from other orthodox Anglican groupings]—that would please some other orthodox Anglicans, while at the same time remaining true to their theology and goals and ecclesiology and stated mission.  So they will not please in any way and under any circumstances a good chunk of orthodox Anglicans.  That means that they are going to hear disagreements from that group a lot—and then they are going to hear disagreements and critiques and analysis also from those chunks of orthodox Anglicans who are actually in agreement with the ACI’s theology, mission, ecclesiology, and goals. 

So there is just going to be the dickens of a lot of disagreement from both sections of Anglitania.  ; > )

That is no great shame to either the ACI or the good chunks of orthodox Anglicans.  Just differences that aren’t fixable. 

As with all of life, and every single human being, the tricky part is trying to figure out to which chunks of people one should be listening and concerned about, and which other chunks one should be sorry for the disagreements but basically aware that nothing can be done about it, and which final chunks one should be thrilled are disagreeing with you, because it is possibly a sign that you are doing something right!  ; > )

As always, thanks for the comments, folks.

I apologize if I was unclear at one point in my article: I don’t think that the Camp Allen/Windsor/Network bishops will now all of a sudden put aside their obvious differences and become one big happy family now and forever.  Would that that were true.  I mean instead that at the upcoming meeting, their past differences will probably not matter in that they will stand together to attempt to pass crucial resolutions.  Now, it isn’t likely that they’ll be successful in terms of their passage, but I do think that it’s important that they’ll likely stand together on the resolutions themselves.  It could have been otherwise.  And their mutual effort may well work towards greater unity in the future amongst themselves.  Standing together and being counted when the rubber hits the road can have that effect.

Or so I think from here in my armchair.  Again, I apologize if I was unclear.

This is just rank speculation but I think the ABC has clearly set a precedent with Canada. He will assure them of their invitations to Lambeth regardless of the Sept 30 meeting. Anything else to him would seem like duress. I have never seen anything in the ABC’s dealings or makeup that would lead me to believe that is even an option for him.

I do think he will make certain other things clear though.

First will be that VGR and and other non-celibate homosexual consecrated by any member of the communion will never attend Lambeth or participate in any with communion functions as long as he is ABC. I think the ABC thinks VGR’s consecration was irregular even by TEC’s own canons.

Second is that the GS isn’t bluffing. There is no way for TEC to “buy this pot”. If TEC’s HOB fails to reassure the GS concerning ordaining practicing homosexuals then regardless of what future meetings are held or covenants passed the Anglican Communion will be irreparably damaged and the fault for that will lie with TEC, alone.

I think that this has been true: “Thus Williams has become a sort of Rorschach inkblot, in which very smart people on all sides have seen very different intentions displayed.”

Sarah’s first comment about the moderates seeing no consequence for adhering or not to the primates demands makes sense.  We will soon see if there is a strong coalition of Network and Windsor bp.s at the HOB that can push toward discipline, both in the sense of adhering to Communion standards and consequences for non-adherence.

I also think we need to wait and see what Williams does rather than projecting into his words what we want to hear.

I don’t think the Network/Camp Allen/Windsor bishops have a prayer of getting anyone to even listen to them when the HOB convenes in a couple of weeks.  It is obvious that they are terribly disliked by the majority of bishops and viewed as disloyal schismatics trying to “steal” their beloved properties (who cares about parishoners?) from TEC.  I suspect anything they try to advance will be swatted down with great hostility.

You are probably right, Nevin.  But if the Windsor and Network bp.s stick together and RW reads the HOB the riot act, who knows?  I think that this happening is long odds.

Tony—

... if the Windsor and Network bp.s stick together and RW reads the HOB the riot act, who knows?

Quite right but bear in mind that the Network bishops will undoubtedly stick together regardless (Nairobi clarified that), while the number of non-ACN “Camp Allen”/Windsor bishops joining them could range from zero to upwards of thirty depending precisely on how firmly and unambiguously +++Rowan reads them the riot act.  As brother Hylden emphasizes, all of the balls are now in Canterbury’s court.  So the ABC has to get some of them.  No, no, I mean ...  Never mind…
<hr align=center width=50%>
With all of our prayers for clarity (which have been repeatedly and overwhelmingly answered, of course) on the principal issues, perhaps we SF commenters could adopt some convention that clearly indicates whether we’re insulting another commenter or not.  Is there a little face sticking out its tongue?

The AC is being *re-formed* as we type

Floridian—

You’re right, of course. And our rector acknowledged in public for the first time this morning that this weekend’s consecrations were a part of establishing a new province in America. He did not say when, but I’d almost be willing to bet it will happen in October…maybe sooner. That will be done with or without ++Ropwan’s consent or approval. The role he plays in the *re-formed* communion will, to a great extent, be determined by how he handles TEC. Regardless, whatever that role is, it will be greatly diminished from it’s previous power and importance.

We know that almost all, if not all, of the GS primates will be in the US in September. I haven’t heard about the others, but ++Orombi has indicated he will NOT attend the HOB meeting. I suspect he will be attending the Common Cause meeting as will the others.

Following Guernsey’s consecration today, ++Orombi, along with Guernsey and the diocesan bishops, will make a tour of the American churces with Ugandan oversight. They are scheduled to be in Tallahassee on September 17, an event to which I eagerly look forward.

While each of the Ugandan Churches will contniue to be overseen by their Ugandan diocesan bishop, Guersey will provide direct pastoral to all of the Ugandan Churches including confirmations.
I suspect that when the new province is actually formed, the relationship with our Ugandan Diocese will change to a partnership relationship and one of the orthodox American Bishops will become the new American primate…or, perhaps a new American orthodox primate, depending on ++Rowan’s action.

If ++Rowan does the “right thing” and disciplines TEC by moving them to an associate status or totally excluding them by excommunication (which some says he cannot do), KJS will become the “Pope” of TEC, another Universalist Church which has little, if any, relationship with God and Christ.

How the new American primate is selected (appointed or elected), I believe will be a microcosm of how the new AC leader is selected. It would not surprise me to see a AC presiding Archbishop elected by his peers but term limited like the ABC is today. It would have a papal quality without being a papacy. The covenant will set the perameters of power, relationships, discipline, etc.

Of course, once again, I’m speculating but I was pooh, poohed several months ago when I said we would have the new province “wintin a year,” it now looks like I’ll be pretty close.

The last time I did some of this speculation, Chris Seitz got upset at me. It is not my intention to challenge him or upset him. At this point, I think ACI is virtually a non-entity within the framework of the new province but I think it will continue to be respected for its theological endeavors. It just doesn’t seem to have a great deal of understanding about organizational development. Further, I think ACI vastly and perhaps arrogantly, underestimated the patience or impatience of the average pewsitter who, after years and years of fudge, finally got their backs up and told their clergy “We’re mad as hell and we’re not gonna take it anymore.”

PAX

Been There, thanks for the encouraging news!

One point that may be overlooked in our celebrations is that if—as seems increasingly likely—the ABC supports creation of a new province and effective ejection of ECUSA, it will be largely due to the fact that the consensus for such action has been steadily growing among the _Primates since 2003.  Remember that when Rwanda and SE Asia sponsored AMiA back in 2000, the Communion was not amused, but by the <a >October 2003 meeting</a>, disaffection with ECUSA had begun to spread.  By <a >Dromantine</a>, the impatience was palpable and Windsor’s implied moral equivalence between ECUSA’s arrogance and boundary crossing bishops was firmly rejected. At <a >Dar</a>, there was very nearly an explosion, and the legitimacy of cross-boundary oversight was implicitly conceded.

None of this would have been possible without ACI’s exhaustive discussions of the theology of sexual ethics and the concrete possibilities for Communion discipline at the very beginning of the process.  When the overwhelming majority of _Primates sanction removal of ECUSA from the Communion, it will be due to the theological underpinnings provided by ACI, as well as the unceasing efforts among their colleagues of several leading _Primates, the ACN and ACC leadership, and so on.  Not to mention, of course, the invaluable assistance of our HoB and 815 in making their intransigent, ruthless fanaticism so obvious.

I think probably the ACI underestimated this fanaticism, the oppressive ruthlessness of 815 and its toadies, and the ability of the Anglican Communion Office to insert carloads of soft woolly bureaucratic delay into the works.  (But then so did I.)

Anyway, it ain’t over ‘til it’s over, and unless +++Rowan sees the light many more parishes will lose their buildings and memorials—at the very least a stewardship tragedy.  Keep agitating and praying, friends, we haven’t won all our Little Stone Bridges ... yet.

I think Craig is right about the impact and influence of the ACI and I, for one, am grateful to them. Instead of hyperbole, they have offered patient and reasoned discourse of a sort more likely to sway others than the ranting and raving of either “side.” I think they have helped to create an atmosphere in which change can occur - making it possible to break, I hope, what has been a long impasse. ACI’s careful theology has made a telling contrast with the bull-headed ruthlessness of 815.

<b>Craig & oscewicee</i>

Thanks for the insightful comments. I do agree that their theological contributions have been most helpful in the current situation. Where I think they have been suspect is in their read of orthodox impatience. Further, I think they have gone on record as saying the boundary crossings are/were “unhelpful.” And they virtually ignored the organizational structure that was being put in place, virtually in front of their noses. It was almost as though they didn’t want to see it because they didn’t want to acknowledge that it was occurring.

They also have failed to acknowledge the desperation of many of in the pews who have grown increasing tired of fudge, discernment, listening and all the other BS that has foolwed this issue in the last 15 years. That period was preceded by another 15 years where those of us in the pews stood around looking at each, shaking our heads and wondering what was happening to our church.

I really cannot understand ACI’s desire for further delay and discernment other than a sincere desire to keep the communion together…and it is, and has been, far too late for that.

TEC chose to walk apart in 2003…actually before…but the consecetion of VGR was the final straw that sparked the action of Global South to really listen to the pleas of disenchanted and disenfranchised orthodx in the US, though AMiA had been set up before then.

I said this on another thread sometime ago, but it appears to me that ACI has been fighting a rearguard action for TEC in the vain hope that something could be worked out.  The opportunity was presented at DAR and it has been soundly rejected by TEC twice. Unless ++Rowan is a wizard, it will be rejected again.

As for me, it matters not. I have found my shelter with the Lord in an Ugandan Church for which I could not be more grateful. I still worry about and pray for friends who are still caught in the cesspool that TEC has become. I pray that they will eventually fiind the same joy and excitement that has benefitted many of us once we made the leap out of TEC. For me, it was as though a great burden ad been lifted from me. As a result, I have been to church more in the last two years than in the last ten years I was in TEC. Once again, I look forward to it whereas with TEC, I began to hate going because I was fearful what the next innovation would be. +VGR was for me, the last straw and I believe it was for many of the orthodox.

This is C Seitz, emailing from Dr Radner’s house. ACI is an international institute. It has not gone about trying to solve specific US problems for specific US causes. In that sense the previous post is partly right. We are an international communion institute. We have worked/continue to work with CA bishops, Lambeth, C of E Bishops, Global South Primates, and other. Have we somehow not gotten on the right fed-com train? I have no way of knowing. Do I have a clear understanding of how Minns, Atwood, Murdoch, Murphy et al are meant to work together and be a solution to local problems that concern the previous commentator? No I do not (unsurprisingly). I doubt anyone but the principals truly knows, and maybe even they are working on something rather than having a firm design (building a plane while flying it). At times I am told that there is something very different about the Kenya consecrations than the others (Gledhill even intimates the rumour of this) but if true, then it confuses the so-called College idea even further. So no, ACI does not know what this College idea really means, and in that sense it is a bit like the bishops from Network who are not intimately involved in the College planning (I guess one would have to ask a David Anderson or an Alison Barfoot, or some of the other people who attended the consecrations in Africa). Does +Nzimbi mean to be a part of something wider than his care of parishes in FL and elsewhere, e.g.? I have no idea? The last time I was at a CAPA meeting (in Nairobi) things were different, and the present College idea was probably present only in the eye of one or two people. ACI does not feel it is somehow missing out on this or that new strategy; it has its marching orders connected with the last CA meeting and its plans for this month, and its convictions vis-a-vis Dar and the ABC are nothing new. Nor is it anything new to hear the constant speculation that these convictions are vain, etc. But that is OK. We are doing what we believe warrants our effort and will continue to do som through the next months. Our prayer is for Dar adjudication and we will continue to pray and work for that, with the people we have worked with right along.  Thanks for the odd comment of support. It is hard to know what a blog weighs in the Great Scheme of things! But it is also nice to have a sense that some people understand we are working hard, in principle, and cannot say things that would hurt the Communion effort of many hard at work. Grace and peace.

Hmmmmmm.  Seitz is at Radner’s house using Radner’s computer…don’t anyone call the newspapers and the left!!!  Sooooper-seeekret meeting?  Probably just a Labor Day celebration between friends…but couldn’t resist…  Back to the regular scheduled thread…...................

With all due respect, there’s an old saying: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.  The ACI is doing none of these and is thereby helping the apostate TEC agenda and undermining orthodox Anglicans.

With all due respect, there’s an old saying: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Like most old sayings, that one sometimes misses the point. I appreciate the thought and effort of the ACI. And it is perhaps mistaken to picture them in a leadership role - is the ACI intended for that? We each must do what we are called to do, including the ACI.

Newbie—thanks for doing what anonymous bloggers do so well! Enjoy your day. God bless.

FWIW - There is no evidence or ‘signals’ or background that ABC will follow through with Windsor or DES. There will be another ‘way’ found, and each of us and each re-asserter group (& re-appraiser group)will react as they will, and it will be years or decades until it’s all settled down. Crying shame. Also looks like TEC will be isolated.

My name is Mark Marshall.  Take a hike, Doctor.  Go provide more material for the TEC apostates to use against the orthodox.

Thanks, Newbie Anglican. Have a good day. Grace and peace.

Hey Newbie, your remarks are quite rude and IMO constitute a “freakout”.  We “orthodox” can do without your kind of “assistance”.

But you don’t have a problem with Dr. Seitz’s nasty personal attack on me before my response, Nevin?  You can take a hike, too.

As a transitional deacon in an ACN parish (non-TEC), I wish very much to be in the same camp as Prof. Seitz, Radner, et al.  We need theologians, and these guys are the real deal.

Amen, Jason.

Newbie, & y’all,

I preached a sermon last week that seems to fit a lot into this part of the discussion.  Instead of risking taking things off-topic (which I’ve been known to do), could I leave a link for y’all to click over and take a look at this and let me know what you think.  Blessings on y’all!

Robert

But you don’t have a problem with Dr. Seitz’s nasty personal attack on me before my response

?  Did this happen on this thread?

Nevin, Dr. Seitz was posting under Dr. Radner’s name as he stated.  I was referring to when he responded to my strong but legitimate criticism of the ACI with his little quip about “anonymous bloggers.”

If he wished to defend ACI’s role, fine.  Instead, he engaged in a petty and offensive personal attack.

+Rob:

Solid sermon, thanks.  Worth the read whenever we find ourselves wandering into a fight - even when we are clearly in the right.

“Love your neighbor”, indeed…

I think it was one of the Founding Fathers who said something to the tune of “Gentlemen, if we do not hang together, we shall most assuredly hang separately”.
Will CommCons and FedCons please remember that they are both on the same side of this dispute, and direct their efforts against our opponents, rather than against each other.

Goodness, your “strong but legitimate criticism” was hardly that.  ACI is all about reforming TEC and to accuse them of being a tool of the revisionists is hardly a fair position.  Your blanket indictment is the kind of comment that shuts down any reasonable debate, which is why you got that completely harmless rejoinder from Dr. Seitz.  Going off on him for that totally non-offensive comment is IMO a “freakout”.

Dr. Seitz recent posts dismiss our suffering as a local matter, too small for his concern. I am so grateful that the GS Primates are discerning the body of Christ, and will not ignore the pain of one part of the body, as if it were insignificant to the whole body.

I have never taken offense at a suggestion that I “go take a hike”, since I love hiking. It’s a good suggestion for all of us.

Newbie, us “fedcoms” can relax and take heart from the participation of Gomez and others in the Kenyan and Ugandan consecrations. These are not isolated, one-time events, nor are they just an effort to bluff Rowan.  Instead, they represent a significant expression on the part of a growing group of GS Primates that an Anglican Province will happen, with or without Canterbury, in the near future. Whether or not a US province will make it without (or even with) Canterbury is a legitimate topic of debate, but the leading GS voices are coming together in telling Rowan that there is something more important than a Canterbury-led Anglican Communion and that he is very close to losing half of the body.  It is no coincidence that new Bishops will be circulating around the US, along with Orombi and others, in late September. Focus more on what these Primates and Bishops are doing, and not what the ACI is saying.

I think it was one of the Founding Fathers who said something to the tune of “Gentlemen, if we do not hang together, we shall most assuredly hang separately”.

kyonge, thanks for being a voice of reason. Lobbing bombs between fed coms and com cons is destructive, distracting and unwise at a time when we should, more than ever, try to accommodate each other and work together.

How can we say we follow Jesus, when our eyes are so firmly fixed on our own almighty rights and sensibilities?  This is how the world, including some of the hundreds who will be reading these posts, will know that we are Jesus’ disciples, and how they will know that He is for real- by our love for each other, over and above our concern for our own dignity.  Jesus said if we get slapped up side of the head, to blow it off.  Can’t we, please, even deal with the turn of a phrase without jumping? 

Wilkie, thanks for the +.  I’m just a seminary junior that got to cover an empty pulpit for a few weeks at a local Nazarene church!

Robert

Timothy, that’s good analysis and good advice.  Thank you.

Newbie Anglican—

As I told Robroy yesterday, Dr. Sietz sometimes has these uncontrollable attaqcks in which he jousts at shadows which don’t exist. He usually gets over them pretty quickly. Unfortunately, he also has them quite frequently.

One of his pet peeves is anonymous bloggers which he, for some reason, struggles to identify with. He once chastised me for the same reason.  It is almost as though he feels that if he does not know who you are and what your credentials are, you may not be worthy of debating him.

Quite honestly, though, I have come to like Dr. Seitz because, rightly or wrongly, he, Radner, Turner and the whole ACI group are people of principle and they are sticking to their guns.

I understand and empathize with the fedcons as well and with their feeling that ACI may be acting as a Judas when it comes to the reformation of the AC.

I also agre with kyounge’s comment about haning together or hanging separately. I think that the comcons and fedcons are together on theology. But, it seems their approaches to getting there are terribly different.

I think the comcons are naive to think TEC can be salvaged and brought back to Christianity. That potential existed 30 years ago but then, no one took the threat seriously.

I am truly sad to see the demise of TEC. It was the first church in which I truly felt the presence of God and Christ. But, it was stolen by a bunch of crafty unbelievers who exploited the naivete(sp) of Christians who believed that turning the other cheek was the right thing to do. By the time those orthodox Christians realized what was happening, their(our) church had already been stolen.

To think it can be restored by the presentation of orthodox theology is not giving the devil his due. I believe, unfortunately, that the devil must be fought on his own terms and equallly as viciously. ACI, in my opinion does not. This is not a bad reflection on ACI because they are truly Christ-like in their approach. I wish them success for I believe that if they are successful they will have done it the “right way.” Unfortunately, I do not expect them to be successful. But, I hope and believe that when this is over we will have a place for them because we will need, then, their support and intellect.

God speed Dr. Seitz, Dr. Radner, Dr. Turner, et al, be careful not to let your lances get caught in the blades of the windmill so that you are unseated. We will need you later.

RE: “With all due respect, there’s an old saying: Lead, follow, or get out of the way.  The ACI is doing none of these and is thereby helping the apostate TEC agenda and undermining orthodox Anglicans.”

Newbie, you are incorrect.  The ACI is leading with regards to helping the Anglican Communion discipline itself, establish clear theological boundaries, and settle its identity as an orthodox Communion.

It remains to be seen as to whether their leadership will be successful—I myself have expressed my doubts.  But just because the ACI has not fall into line with yours and others strategies does not mean it is not “leading”—you just don’t appreciate or like where they are leading, just as sometimes they don’t appreciate or like where some other orthodox Anglicans are leading.

But leadership is indeed occurring.

All—please settle down.

Chris Seitz, as a blog, anonymous commenters and pseudonymous commenters are welcomed—we don’t mind that one bit, especially since we have all discerned that no matter whether a commenter posts under his real name or anonymously it has very little effect on civility.  Complaining about anonymous commenters is a bit like complaining about blogs being on the “Internet thing”.

Newbie, please don’t accuse orthodox Anglicans of “helping the apostate TEC agenda” just because you don’t like where the ACI wishes to go.  One might accuse FedComs of “helping the apostate TEC agenda” by not staying and fighting—and one would be WRONG to do so.  Also, please do not tell commenters of any sort to “take a hike”. That is personal and insulting and does not make any argument or reasoned response whatsoever.

Consider both Seitz-ACI and Newbie warned.  Please do not complain or comment insultingly about “anonymous” commenters.  Please do not insult or denigrate fellow orthodox Anglicans, no matter their strategy.

The rest of you, thank you for attempting to call people back from the brink.  I am immensely testy—and I know that Jackie is around, as well as one of the testosterone-laden other bloggers—and we have no intentions of sitting around editing comments or pleading for civility on Labor Day. 

Not to mention that the Commenatrix is always in a worse condition than any of us and is innately aggressive and predatory.

Been there, please do not accuse Chris Seitz of having “uncontrollable attaqcks in which he jousts at shadows which don’t exist” whether you privately believe him of doing so or not. 

Claiming that someone is “helping the apostate TEC agenda” is indeed meant to be an insult, and inappropriately responding to such an attempted insult is not “jousting at shadows which don’t exist” unless you actually think that “helping the apostate TEC agenda” is not an insult.

Everyone,

I know that Jackie is around, as well as one of the testosterone-laden other bloggers—and we have no intentions of sitting around editing comments or pleading for civility on Labor Day.

I don’t have time to sift out what all is going on here, but either behave yourselves as as Sarah has asked, or I will give her the Ban Hammer and let her go to town. I will ignore subsequent emails pleading with me to reinstate your accounts.

I would much rather return to see that all of you are still here. Thank you.

There is no need for Mr. Griffith, Ms. Hey, Ms. Bruchi or any other to soil their hands with this clean up.  I have returned with my rapier sharpened.  Consider this a warning.  ABSOLUTELY no personal attacks.

I can’t help myself.  I am genetically predisposed.  I am biologically determined to personally attack….... my food!  I’m like the Cookie Monster on Sesame Street!  I personally attack cookies!

Sometimes, when there are flies in the house, I grab a flyswatter and personally attack them!  I also play a mean game of Tic-Tac-Toe.  I personally attack the other person’s X’s or O’s.  I never lose. 

Please don’t ban me!!!  AiiiiiiEEEEeeeeiiiii-aaaaah!!

Since we’ve been discussing the ACI—the domain <font face=“Courier New, courier” >anglicancommunioninstitute.org</font> seems to have been abandoned, which would not be such a cause for concern (other than pointers all over the Internet leading to its cornucopia of papers) except that the current ACI site (which displays in a rather squirrelly way on my Firefox) apparently has no papers available earlier than 2006.

This means that much foundational writing for the period 2003-05 is currently unavailable, not to mention older SEAD works.  Is anyone handling this?  Although not quite up to the burning of the library at Alexandria or Louvain, it would be a terrible loss to the orthodox cause if all this good stuff simply hit the bit bucket…

Craig, could they just be in the process of building the new site. Where *is* the current site?

The web site for ACI is:

http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/

Thanks, Elves!

I am immensely testy

You are frequently testy, and once so, it is difficult to distinguish if it immense or just simply “testy?”

And, yeah, newbie anglican also was a bit testy but he had, indeed, been the victim of one of Chris’s “anonymous blogger” attacks. It was my intent to encourage him to overlook Dr. Seitz’s attacks of any kind. Recall that yesterday he accused Robroy of blaspheming Iker and other Windsor bishops and he was wrong.

I know you have the power of “ban” and I respect that. I think you suitably chastised me, Chris and Newbie Anglican. But, c’mon Sarah, you’re over-reacting. Dr. Seitz is a big boy and he did an excellent job in defending the position of ACI.

While he whines that he doesn’t quite understand blogging, he holds his own amongst many who are really quite hostile to ACI’s actions. Newbie Anglican stated a position that has been put forth here numerous times.  Then, he got upset when Chris took a swipe at his/her anonynimity. He’s done that to me and others as well. My criticism of him for that was true, direct and honest and, I hope, inoffensive in terms of blogging.

I could care less about his reaction to being criticised for being a pawn of TEC. Sometimes, I have those feelings myself and I think I have illustrated them above both fairly and, I hope, again, inoffensively.

Sometimes, the referees just need to let the game play. Chill out and get over being so testy.

God will make everything work out in the end.

Pax

But, Been There, sometimes lately it has looked like ACI was on trial here. And ACI is not our enemy, whether some of us think ACI is doing all it can or not. Also, one who is posting under his own name and being attacked is apt to feel testy, too, at being attacked by people who are behind a pseudonym. Obviously I use a pseudonym myself (no, really <g>), so I understand why one would. But I also understand that it could make someone using their own name feel at a disadvantage.

oscewicee—The usual way to move a site is to renew the name registration (which is quite separate from the actual physical server), then transfer everything to the new server and set up a name resolution pointer (which lets your computer look up the actual server’s address based on its name) indicating the new server, if necessary with yet another pointer on the old domain’s home page indicating the new name.  (If all this is incomprehensible, don’t worry.)

But apparently the <font face=“Courier New, courier” >anglicancommunioninstitute.org</font> name registration hasn’t been renewed yet, and comes up to Network Solutions’ “pending renewal or deletion” page.  My concern is not so much for the name per se—although the change will invalidate 13 pages of Google links—as that there is no sign that older documents have been retained. 

And all this right when +++Rowan has shaken the sand from his sandals and returned to his office, doubtless to review ACI’s excellent work before coming to a decision…

Duh, I knew that, Craig. I wasn’t thinking. I hope the older pieces will turn up in some form. Do you suppose not putting them there is a reflection of a shift in focus? Or perhaps merely the belief that later pieces incorporate the fundamental ideas more accurately?

I’ve said this before and I think, for some reason, it holds true.

Many Fed-cons err in their seemingly irresistable tendency to suggest a lack of courage or leadership on the part of com-cons (I am not innocent in this) who disagree regarding strategy and who have more than proven their courage…

Many Com-cons err in a strange sort of condescension that understands even substantive criticism as somehow beneath them…there is a sort of “how dare you…” attitude as if criticising a com-con…especially one with a phd…is a sure and certain sign of an uncouth and unanglican boorishness

RE: “You are frequently testy, and once so, it is difficult to distinguish if it immense or just simply “testy?””

They are actually indistinguishable from one another on this blog.

; > )

But I also understand that it could make someone using their own name feel at a disadvantage

oscewicee

I sympathize with those who feel that way, but the reality of the blogosphere is that some do and some don’t use their names and there’s no reason to feel disadvantaged one way or the other. Sarah said it earlier that it makes no difference if you do or do not use a pseudonymn(sp) related to civility of comment. I don’t know, but I accept her judgement based on her experience. I know that Chris has a big problem with it and has pounced on numerous people for not using their real identities. I will NOT use my real name on a blog but I did tell Chris all he has to do is email me and I will have no problem giving it to him in the background. I never heard from him.

I think that Matt+ and Anne+ have experienced the nastiness that can happen when you use your real name. I admire their courage after Kaeton incident. I won’t subject myself to that and no one needs to, including Chris and Ephram and Turner.

The reality for this thread is that newbie anglican got bent out of shape after Chris flogged him for being anonymous. I, unintentionally and unfortunately, fueled the flames in asking newbie to fergit it because Chris does this often. (He does) Sarah, being immensly testy, comes into the situation and flogs all of us, I believe unnecessarily.

I have criticised Matt+, Greg and Sarah for being over-senstive to some things…mostly things they personally don’t agree with. I also respect their need to try to keep comments civil. In the end, I respect that it is their blog and they can run it however they see fit. And, God bless them as they do it.

as if criticising a com-con…especially one with a phd…is a sure and certain sign of an uncouth and unanglican boorishness

Thank you Matt+, that was what I was trying to convey and you did it very well.

I admire their courage after Kaeton incident. I won’t subject myself to that and no one needs to, including Chris and Ephram and Turner.

Well, give them some credit for their courage, too.

Soooooo, umm, do you think that +++Rowan Williams really thinks this is his last stand?  Or do you think that he thinks he can kick the ball some more and buy some more time?

If his true motivation is to dither and delay until the next ABC, then if it were me, I’d put a full court press on everybody to not do anything until the Draft Covenant is in place.  I’d just promise the moon that the Draft Covenant will satisfy all parties and that it will do what it’s intended to do.  Everybody, just wait til the Draft Covenant is in place! 

Don’t you think an approved Draft Covenant will solve most everything??

RE: “The reality for this thread is that newbie anglican got bent out of shape after Chris flogged him for being anonymous.”

No Been There, Newbie first wildly accused the ACI of “helping the apostate TEC agenda” and whether a person believes that or not, it is a blatant insult; no orthodox Anglican worth his or her salt will take that as a non-insult.  Then Seitz once again sniped about anonymity.  Then Newbie said to take a hike, not only to Seitz but to some other hapless commenter.

RE: Sarah, being immensly testy, comes into the situation and flogs all of us. . . “

A point of clarification.  I don’t warn people of violating the clearly posted and reminded comment policy because I am testy.  People get warned because they overtly and obviously violated the comment policy. 

The only point about the testiness is that I don’t intend to spend my time patiently editing and asking for people to follow the comment policy.  Commenters may speculate about how I might spend my time on this thread, being testy, but it will certainly NOT be doing what I did yesterday which is going through and deleting gratuitous insults and vile and unverified slander.

Please return to the topic of the post.

Thanks.

I had great hopes for a covenant, but in the light of TEC actions and statements over the summer, I don’t think TEC will do anything more or less than what the folks at the top choose to do, regardless of the rest of the communion. I don’t see TEC even signing onto a covenant.  Wait, I can see TEC signing on, then immediately violating it. Sort of like the PB’s return from DES. With the recent consecrations, and things going on here in the U.S., I think there is tremendous pressure on the archbishop. Delaying much longer will be difficult, I think, because events seem to be getting ahead of him.

Sorry, I’ve been away from this thread for awhile, and I read this quote provided by J. Lnightley: “When ++Williams meets with the bishops, he will pursue the aim he has always had:
“My aim is to try and keep people at the table for as long as possible to understand one another and to encourage local churches not only on this side of the Atlantic but elsewhere to ask what they might need to do to keep in that conversation, to keep around the table.”  Wow. He is kidding, right? I mean, we’ve been through “listening” and “waging reconciliation” for a good number of years already, havent we?? Does ABC Rowan realize how firmly entrenched the two sides have become? Does he not yet realize that there is little more left to say, because it would only be so much re-hash? I hope he has a plan “B”, because if thats plan “A” and thats all he’s got….I mean, say it aint so.

For the record, I am reminded that when the Virginia churches were going through periods of discernment, we recognized that there were biblical examples for several different paths that any of us could take.  We saw them as a different boats, but all aiming in the same direction. Some churches needed sanctuary right away, some needed to band together, and some we recognized - churches and individuals - God may call to be a remnant.  All were biblical positions and in Virginia today we still have an informal coalition of friends who make up all these different paths.

I see ACI as a remnant inside The Episcopal Church.  While I might have personal views that would wonder whether it is a wise thing, I can still make a biblical case that the Lord may call those who are involved and supporting all that ACI is doing as a faithful remnant inside The Episcopal Church.

As an evangelical, I pray that one day we - Anglicans, Episcopalians, and of course all the other parts of the body of Christ, will be reunited and our relationships restored.  Even here in Virginia I pray that we may find a way to live peacefully - or as Bishop Lee once said “in as close communion as possible” as Episcopalians and Anglicans.  I pray for that. 

There are believers that the Lord will call to remain in The Episcopal Church.  He hasn’t given up on that Church even if I am close to it myself - I am confident that as long as two or more are gathered together in His Name in The Episcopal Church, He’ll be there.

Our love for the Church - formally or informally - causes us to make decisions that we pray are best.  I cannot know the heart of another and condemn them.  The Lord looks at the heart - and He has a track record of picking the most unusual men and women to be His people. A close look at Scripture would not cause us to think that many of the folks He picks follows The Seven Habits of Highly Successful People.  He seems to look at the heart - the one thing we do not have privy to.

Again, the miracle of the work of the Holy Spirit is how He puts us together - inside and outside the structures of the Church.  There is so much more we have that binds us together than should tear us apart - the most important of these being our devotion to Jesus, to Him as Lord and friend and not the Idea of Him, but to Him.  I’ve seen amazing things happen when we - who share that same bond, covered in the Blood of Jesus - come together, not in spite of our differences, but through them.

Our “conversations” have been done not in board rooms, but in fox holes.  We are a remnant of a remnant and still there is a remnant.  We should pause before cursing those whom God may call to be a remnant and instead pray for God’s mercy.  Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison.

FedComs, ConComs, or as I like to call myself a PomPom (rah rah rah) - we are all called by the Lord to love one another as He loved us.  It is our love for the Church that causes us to make difficult decisions, tough decisions of love to separate, but always with the prayer of reconciliation, either in this world or the next.  We are evangelists, even if it means to our own brothers. We can’t forget that, even as we see and experience the pain of watching an institution overrun by gnostic paganism and despair masked as liberation.

And God will call some to carry the swords, their theological swords, directly into the fray, as Ephraim and Chris and others that I can think of still in the Diocese of Virginia, true Lions of the Faith.  God bless them!  They go where angels fear to tred.

But there are many, many refugees - some who’s names we know and many more, many many more whose names we don’t know because they are gone, gone all ready.  Who will gather those lost back?  That’s where I see these bishops - and others God raising up - as being shepherds who will look for the lost sheep, some in churches with towers and lawsuits, and some wandering homeless on the highways of spiritual desolation.

As I’ve written before, I am somewhere between the church spiral and the open highway.  I am an Episcopalian who has found refuge in a CANA Church.  I watch and pray as September 30th approaches.  The rest, as we say, I wait for the Lord.

Will I remain Episcopalian?  Will I be a remnant or a refugee?  More and more it seems I am following the refugee path - but I do understand the call God can make when He says, “wait.”

I pray that when He says “Go,” we go in humility and mercy, for He is so kind and forgiving to us.

bb

if thats plan “A” and thats all he’s got….I mean, say it aint so.

A lot of folks have been feeling that way, Bob. Several have hoped that +++Rowan, being a highly intelligent man, has a rabbit he is getting ready to pull out of the hat.

I don’t know any of my relatives unaccounted for, but hey, most anything’s possible.

from the Briar Patch,

BabyBlue, thank you for a beautiful comment.

Draft Covenant is plan A, plan B, and plan C for +++Rowan.

Some folks think that he’ll repeat his actions from Canada earlier this year.  I hope he’s smarter than that and strongly realizes that he must uphold the Authority of Scripture and Lambeth 1.10 where it states that same-sex behavior is incompatible with Scripture.

Bob K., my thoughts exactly.  And I think ++Rowan has already decided TEC gets a free pass to Lambeth.

As to my earlier comment about ACI, it was not meant as an insult.  But it was a rather strong broad statement without clarification.  For example, I think some of the ACI’s statements of late are being used by revisionist forces as a stick with which to beat orthodox who feel they must leave.  But I DON’T think ACI is trying to help TEC bash leaving orthodox.  Also, I don’t at all mean to imply that the gentlemen at ACI aren’t orthodox themselves.  They clearly are.

I should have made those and other clarifications or just shut up rather than make the exasperated broad first post I did.  I did neither, and was thereby excessively provocative.  And for that I apologize.

This thread really breaks my heart. I’m glad I’ve been busy most of the weekend with the joy of weddings and wonderful worship and good times with friends.

We are each called to do a task and we do not know the orders of another. I’ve personally witness AMiA take a lot of flack by folks who now APO bishops but told in an email “the day of bashing AMiA are over,” as if one can say mean things then on dime declare all okay now. I’m seeing a lot similar with the ACI on these blogs recently. It kind of funny one cavorting with AMiA recently should stick up for ACI, but seriously I see this much as I have over the last five years, just First Promise is now “in” and SEADS is “out” back in the day it was reversed.

Honestly, we have such a limited view of reality, we do not know what tomorrow will bring, we do not know how the Lord will act or bring this through. History gives us some lessons and I’ve attempted to understand some of other crisis. If the general theme of the comments hold then there maybe folks wrong twice even if they’re 100% correct—they might have once slandered the Lord’s advance team and ridicule the rear guard in the Lord’s actions.

We know very little and so often confuse our own orders from the Lord, how can we be so sure of another’s? We seem to becoming experts in shooting our own!

Well, I hope your daughter’s chapel was enjoyable Greg, I found that one of the more edifying parts of this thread.

One of the irritating things about Jesus* was that he said both

Mark 9:40 - for whoever is not against us is for us.

and

Matthew 12:30 - He that is not with me is against me.

OK Lord, which is it?

I have said that the covenant is a method for a people to stay on the same path, not a method to draw together people on different paths. It will not save the orthodox in their affliction. It will be wonderful after the Anglican church has been cleaned and renewed. What will save the orthodox is not the ABC, “He has never done anything in support of the orthodox.” What will come to the aid, nay has already come to the aid of the orthodox and will do much more in the future is the Common Cause partnership that seems to be developing. Not only the orthodox in America, but it will be the force that renews the entire Anglican Communion.

I think Newbie agrees with this assessment. But, Newbie, which verse, Mark 9:40 or Matthew 12:30? It appears that Newbie is going with the later in regards to the ACI.

* Father Matt, do I need to do penance for saying the Lord did something that irritated me?

rob-roy, I wish I had the time to give you an answer that your thoughtful post and question deserve.  Unfortunately, in the midst of academic stress already, I don’t.

I do think your assessment is a good one.

re: If [RW’s] true motivation is to dither and delay until the next ABC

OK, I’m about to reveal my woeful ignorance here, but just how long is it “until the next ABC”? Does the ABC hold office for a fixed term, for life, or what?

oscewicee wrote:

I had great hopes for a covenant, but in the light of TEC actions and statements over the summer, I don’t think TEC will do anything more or less than what the folks at the top choose to do, regardless of the rest of the communion.

Have you lost hope that the covenant can do any good, or simply see events as moving so fast that nobody will wait and see whether it does any good or not?

I don’t see TEC even signing onto a covenant. Wait, I can see TEC signing on, then immediately violating it. Sort of like the PB’s return from DES.

IMO, if TEC refuses to sign on, the Covenant will have “worked”, in some sense, by removing an unrepentant TEC from the Communion, even if the ABC does not make a “stand” and withdraw Lambeth invitations to TEC (although I think he should do so unless the HOB agrees to the moratoria, suspends the lawsuits, etc). I think if they sign, then violate the Covenant, and are allowed to get away with it, things will look very bleak for the future of the Communion as a believing Christian entity.

kyounge1956, regarding the covenant. The covenant basically uses conciliarity as glue to hold the communion together. But glue does not draw to broken pieces together, external forces must do that, for example, one’s two hands hold the pieces together when repairing a broken teacup, the glue is applied, and the glue then holds the pieces together.

The covenant does not draw divergent factions together. The two factions have been allowed to diverge that there does not exist an external force (short of a parting of the Red sea type miracle), that would bring the pieces back together, so that the glue can work. I do tire or the charge of schismatic that the revisionists and com-coms hurl at the Common Causers. Schimatics are people that cause schism, necessarily in the future. Currently, 15 of the 29 provinces are not in communion with the TEC. That schism is in the past and present. Acknowledging the schism that is already present does not cause schism. Thus, the charge of schismatic is a false one.

Ah, but the covenant is a way for the TEC to declare itself out of communion. That is a really sad self admission of impotency of the Anglican church. The American church has defied Lambeth, Windsor, Dromantine, and will now defy DeS. Each of these are progressively weaker. DeS only calls for moratoria. Yet, the Anglican church as a whole cannot recognize what the individual provinces clearly see, that the TEC is not in communion.

But, suppose we all waited for the covenant. What is the timing? Discussed at Lambeth 2008. Final draft sent to provinces to discuss and approve by 2011. This would certainly solve the problem with of the orthodox, because there would be no orthodox left, Truro and the other churches in Virginia and California will have been lost causing a disheartening followed by a diaspora (to Rome, to LCMS, to nondenominational, to congregational church with regards to Ms Hey, but worse some to nothing at all).  And this, of course, assumes that the final wording is something close to the draft proposal.

“He has never done anything in support of the orthodox.” I have not heard anyone dispute this charge of Bp Duncan. Yet, Jordan, hopes that he will see that light later this month. Canada was his proving ground and he was proved wanting.

I will dispute the charge above vs. Canterbury:

He has, since becoming Archbishop of Canterbury, consistently upheld Lambeth I.10 within the public decision-making process of the Communion;  he has supported and in fact led the Primates, from 2003 to Dar es Salaam, in supporting I.10, and in moving steadily towards and through a process that would both discipline TEC and provide safe oversight for Communion-teaching-oriented American congregations;  he has done this through his support of the Windsor Report, his work at Dromantine, and at Dar (among other things), and his public teaching regarding marriage and its Scriptural basis and normative character;  he has done so counseling canonical latitude on the part of 815 for Network bishops, and by providing such latitude, in his public and private counsel, for extra-jurisdictional oversight.  All this and more has been and remains a remarkable record of “support for the orthodox”, coming from a man whom “the orthodox” roundly vilified and rejected from the time of his appointment to Canterbury.

What Canterbury has NOT provided is a personal rejection of TEC bishops who have not complied with the Primates’, ACC’s, Windsor’s, and his own requests.  If, when, and how he might do this, however, is matter of great debate.  Including on this blog, obviously!  It must be said that, even if he were to do this tomorrow, the question of “safety” with respect to litigation would not disappear;  indeed, it might grow.  What WOULD undeniably be the case, however, is that there would seem to be a greater connection to Canterbury in the midst of such litigation (that is not without importance in terms of encouragement). 

What has also happened, negatively, is that the June announcement of provisional invitations to Lambeth seems to ignore the significance of much of the record outlined above.  This has proved very confusing to people, and well it should.

And what remains unclear is whether he will carry through with the otherwise consistent course he has already pursued, in convening the Primates after Septebmer 30th and acting in a manner that is congruent with their previous decisions (e.g. at Dar) and that carries these forward in logical way.  However, this is only unclear because it lies in the future, and Rowan Williams himself is not and never has been someone who announces ahead of time his respones to conditional eventualities (something that I myself think tends to be prudent rather than not in most cases).

There is much to question about the Abp. of Canterbury’s conduct and decision-making over the past few years—“question”, I would say, rather than “judge” or “condemn”;  but one place I would not raise a question is, in a blanket fashion, his “lack of support for the orthodox”.

Sorry—I am only back now online. I was writing between bites of a great cookout yesterday. I see there was a lot of further commotion. Sorry to see that. I only meant to respond to remarks that ACI was out of it (I guess that would require better information than many have; it may be that people see us as unhelpful, but I assure you we are as involved as ever—for better or worse!).  It is troubling at times to see the levels of insinuation (we don’t care about local suffering; only deal with PhDs; Seitz is pouting—one of my personal favorites—ought to take a hike or return to Ivory Towers, etc).  But I take it that is what the blogs are for. My response to Newbie was exactly as Nevin characterised it—a completely harmless rejoinder. It does give me pause to think that it could be read as something more high-flying (pouncing, mean, nasty, etc), and so the blog as a form of communication must be 65% effective at best. Anyway, Radner seems to be returning to matters of substance and that is good. We are entering crucial weeks now and a lot is happening. I know everyone will be praying for strength and discernment from Communion Instruments and leaders, here and abroad. Grace and peace.

Drs Radner & Seitz;

Dr Radner wrote this above:

in moving steadily towards and through a process that would both discipline TEC and provide safe oversight for Communion-teaching-oriented American congregations; he has done this through his support of the Windsor Report, his work at Dromantine, and at Dar (among other things), and his public teaching regarding marriage and its Scriptural basis and normative character;

I think you have made a very positive case for the Archbishop’s work on behalf of the orthodox in North America.  Clearly there is something there that we should take heart in as far as Williams’ actions are concerned.

Yet at the same time Dr. Williams was the one who presented, out of the blue, the report that said TEC has substantially complied with the requests made at Windsor.  Something all sides with any intellectual honesty would probably agree is not the case.

A month later he announced that nominations for the Primatial Council were due at his office, but then never took any action on setting this council up.  That was a clear request from the Primates and it did not happen.  Did the Primates give him the authority to let TEC’s intransigence veto the Primatial Council?

He also spent part of lecture series in Toronto (I think) making the case that Paul didn’t really condemn homosexuality in Romans 1 but rather he was writing against those who thought they could keep the law and were upright.

These events left many speechless (ok, maybe not speechless, the blogs went berzerk) and aghast at Williams’ statements and inaction.  In light of these events and the early invitation list to Lambeth with only token non-invitees, what leads you to believe that something similar will not happen again? Or that he is working to uphold the orthodox end of things?

This is an especially serious question now that Williams knows the GS will not be rolled in a primates meeting and thus has no incentive to call a meeting where some closure could be brought to this sordid affair.  If his stated goal is to keep everybody at the table and talking, what is his motivation to heed the primates’ call and actions for disciplinary action against TEC?

It seems what is happening is what he wants to happen.  Borders get crossed and TEC doesn’t get kicked out and everybody gets all hot and bothered by all of it.

My questions are not meant to open the door for another round of ACI-bashing.  I’m rather tired of that end of things; as well as the so-called-fedcom/comcon argument.  I think you all do good work even if I disagree on some points.  I’m genuinely trying to find the basis for your solid hope in +++Rowan’s future actions on behalf of the orthodox when his actions have been mixed at best.

Radner can of course make his own case in the light of what he has written.

1. There emerged a standard description of +RDW in relationship to the initial report at Dar, esp from what is often called fedcons; this was at odds with descriptions I and others received about +RDW in relationship this initial report;
2. ACI is strongly of the view that the Primatial Council should have been set up, we said so at the time, and urged CA bishops to nominate; +RDW’s role in not bringing this to pass is tied up with the mechanisms of Communion life, and their cumbersome nature, but we see no reason to believe that it is dead—though many here believe that; indeed, we have hope that the primates as a whole will be consulted, and see no reason to believe that won’t happen after RDW’s visit;
3. I for one (G Kings also has spoken to this) believe the Lambeth invitations are still under negotiation, as +RDW himself intimated;
4. I doubt very seriously indeed that anything +RDW said at Toronto changes in the least his commitment to Communion processes, including the centrality of 1.10 in them.

If Communion Instruments are not a part of a full-scale adjudication of requests made by the Primates, and Windsor/CA principles, and TEC meets and everything is judged in order, the Communion will collapse. Fully. I do not believe +RDW is in favour of this; is working secretly for it; or wishes to see TEC go its own way and still be a full Communion member. At issue is how to hold on to Communion decisions, instruments, processes in such a way that those who no longer wish for this set of communion constraints to govern their life to be able to declare their intentions, conciliarly, orderly, and with sober acceptance of what they have done. That is what the end of this month is about.

I must now get back to work and will check in later this evening.

PS—I should add.

I believe it might be useful to distinguish between those who genuinely want a federal alliance of erstwhile Anglicans, no longer in a Communion, but associated with something like a college of a subset of Primates and their newly consecrated Bishops, etc.

And those who only want it because they judge the odds of Communion life being furthered as too long, and now impossible, because of opinions they have about +RDW, etc.

I would find this useful, because it would separate those who believe anglicanism OUGHT to be a Canterbury-free, federal association of these and those Primates and their subordinate bodies, from those who accept that this may be what will happen if their present predictions come true. Then at least the debate could be about speculations, not about genuine convictions (as in believing that a new federal anglicanism is a good idea, and ought to be implemented regardless of what happens).

R 1:16.  I too am puzzled.  In addition to your points, I wonder about the reappraisers appointed to key communion roles, the ties to affirming catholicism, the complete absence of public statements of support for the network (as commented on by Bp. Duncan), the choice of members of the panel of reference and its moribund nature, the persistent efforts to frame primatial meetings with the apearance of normalcy (e.g., inviting all to communion), the criticism of Bp. MacPherson’s description of the range of acceptable theology in TEC, the choice of members of the working group.  Although I have read some of his statements in support of Lambeth 1.10 (e.g., teaching of the AC), I have not heard him articulate support for the underlying biblical and orthodox arguments, and certainly not in reference to the actions of TEC.  I have heard him describe the “listening process” in terms that include the possibility of overturning Lambeth 1.10. 

The, shall we say, inaccurate working group report coupled with the early issuance of invitations to a recast Lambeth crown a record that is not quite encouraging to this reasserter.

Dr. Seitz,

Thanks for your quick and concise response.  It is good to see that ACI (or at least you) recognizes that the communion will fully fall apart should TEC get a pass, after a firm deadline was set and everything else that has happened.

I also think your distinction about those who are forced to accept a federated communion as opposed to those who think this is the best option is an excellent point.  One is the result of circumstances; the other seems to be a form of conservative Lutheran polity—bishops linked together but congregational underpinnings.

Nothing wrong with that for those whose theology can fit under sych a system.  But it puts another deep dent in the Anglo-Catholic armor that has been standing on side of Anglicanism for a long, long time.

I think that the matter of the initial JSC report on TEC’s Convention to the Primates is a red herring—there are completely contradictory descriptions, by persons present, as to Williams’ relationship to this report, and given this, it is best simply to set this element aside as a matter for judgment. 

What is undeniable—because it has been reiterated by several GS Primates who are not prone to praising Williams—is that he was a leader in bringing about the final agreement of Dar es Salaam, including the “Scheme”.  This fact cannot be dismissed.  “Without Rowan, Dar would not have happened”, is what one Primate told me.

Now, it is clear to most people that Williams is not someone who wants to “kick” anyone out of the Communion—TEC, Nigeria, etc..  He is uncomfortable with this kind of discipline, for a host of reasons, some probably personality-related, others theologically motivated.  This makes his style of proceeding, from the get go, problematic to those for whom the model of ecclesial discipline seems essential to the nature of the Church in her practical life.  I believe, however, that Williams has developed, over the past few years, a growing theological appreciation for discipline as an ecclesial essential, but it is an appreciation that vies with some deeper habits of thought and relation. 

But the positive (to my mind) result, nonetheless, is that he has shown himself able to open a path for discipline to emerge as a communal task and ministry on the part of of the Communion’s leadership.  He is certainly not leading the charge;  but he is nonetheless clearing the way.  It is therefore crucial that the other Primates stay the course in working together to make such discipline a reality precisely as a communal ministry.  Williams has given them that opportunity.  Individual, yet unintegrated, actions of discipline, while responding to a real need in a concrete way, risk losing the formation of a communal ministry of discipline that will truly be rare in the life of the larger Church since its early centuries.

Regarding the Williams’ lecture in Canada that touched upon the Romans 1 passage:  I don’t think that Williams was trying to say that the text has nothing useful or true to say about homosexual sex in the abstract ;  rather, he was arguing that the text’s fundamental interest lay elsewhere than in the elucidation of a sexual ethic and that, if taken in its fundamental orientation, the passage actually serves to relativize the moral standing of those who judge (analogous to the speck/plank imagery of Jesus), now explained in a comprehensive history of human corruption.  The lecture, after all, was about the way that Scripture must address US, the hearers, so as to move and change us by drawing us into the life and being of Jesus.  And the “US” here, of course, includes those who already know that homosexual behavior is prohibited by the Law. 

My own response to Williams’ remarks in this case is that he is generally right, but that his choice of this text—which he admits is “contentious”— to make his larger point about how the Bible ought properly to be received and used was risky, unnecessarily provocative, and in the end, confusing and distracting.  But I’d give him high marks for chutzpah.  And having said this, I would agree with those who wished his chutzpah would sometimes extend more visibly to matters such as those mentioned earlier in this post!

What might be useful is the question of how long the See of Canterbury and the Anglican Communion will tolerate, and through this extreme tolerance, have implicitly de facto enabled, encouraged, and abetted gross heresy and apostasy in a House of God?

Addressing this question will drive answers to subsidiary questions.

I also think your distinction about those who are forced to accept a federated communion as opposed to those who think this is the best option is an excellent point.  One is the result of circumstances; the other seems to be a form of conservative Lutheran polity—bishops linked together but congregational underpinnings.
Nothing wrong with that for those whose theology can fit under sych a system.  But it puts another deep dent in the Anglo-Catholic armor that has been standing on side of Anglicanism for a long, long time.

This is an excellent point, and akin to something I’ve been thinking about for some time.  The reason that Anglican Evangelicals and Anglican Catholics have been able to co-exist under the same “umbrella” (so to speak) is that Anglicanism has, up to now, assumed a catholic ecclesiology, which arguably creates a context conducive to a greater diversity or spectrum of theological viewpoints and opinions.  What frightens many ComCons of “catholic persuasion” is that this broad spectrum will be irretrieably lost under a federalist scheme.

I believe it might be useful to distinguish between those who genuinely want a federal alliance of erstwhile Anglicans, no longer in a Communion, but associated with something like a college of a subset of primates and their newly consecrated Bishops, etc.

And those who only want it because they judge the odds of Communion life being furthered as too long, and now impossible, because of opinions they have about +RDW, etc.

IMHO, there are many more options than just these two.  For example, some fedcons may desire to see the communion reformed, perhaps with canterbury freed from the erastian aspect of governmental control.  Some may contemplate a temporary federation to ease separation; the ABC himself mentioned “associate” and “constituent” members, in which it sounds as if associates are in some reduced relationship (federation?) and constituents are in communion.

On a different, almost OT note - it does appear that if there is a near term, safe place formed for the missionary efforts of various primates, it may very well be a federation overseen by a “subset of primates.”  I think that this question should not be confused with the question of what the communion should look like.

Thanks, Ephraim for taking time out from the move. Annette told us about the lugging boxes of books up three flights of stairs, etc. Fun. Your students will love you and benefit greatly from your gentle wisdom.
——————————-

There is talk, and there is action. The archbishop has stated “I believe that Lambeth 1.10 is still the teaching of the church.” Well, even Susan Russell would say the same thing while she and others work strenuously to change that fact.

There is talk and there is double talk. People frequently cite “The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today” but that essay was essentially entirely negated by his essay, “The Bible Today: Reading and Hearing” which is referenced and refuted point by point by Robert Gagnon’s essay here.

His work at Dromantine? Don’t know, wasn’t there. Do know that, despite the sense of urgency from the primates, it took the ABC seventeen months to name the Panel of Reference and the choice of the head of that commission doomed it from the start.

Finally, there is DeS. He stated that before the conference that only four hours would be dedicated to the TEC issue. Then at the beginning of the conference, he sought to influence the entire conference’s tone by bringing out his subcommittee report. This stated the TEC was largely Windsor compliant. Unfortunately, one of the subcommittee members, the primate of Central Africa, had not even seen the document. The certainly smacks of manipulation and machinations. Next we have ABp Drexel Gomez’s statement that the ABC worked vigorously against imposing a specific deadline. In the end, the ABC did accede to the unanimity the primates. But after the conference…

He did not, as the ACI called for, announce his candidate for the pastoral council. He did state that he would take into account the wishes of the primates in the issuance of the invitations which he did not do with the early invitations. He did give the Canadians a free pass to Lambeth, not conditional of any outcome of their synod.

The entire Anglican Communion suffers from a lack of trust. But trust must be earned. Empty words with actions that speak oppositely do not garner trust, quite the contrary.

Certainly the ABC has a difficult if not impossible job. Invectives are hurled at him from both sides. He deserves better. He deserves our prayers. He does not, however, deserve our trust.

I was in clinic writing my response to Ephraim in snippets between patients and see that many contributed, including Eprhaim himself, in the meantime after I had hit the submit button.

In particular, Eprhaim wrote,

I think that the matter of the initial JSC report on TEC’s Convention to the primates is a red herring—there are completely contradictory descriptions, by persons present, as to Williams’ relationship to this report, and given this, it is best simply to set this element aside as a matter for judgment.

I consider myself fairly on top of all things Anglican. I have not heard the ABC disavow the subcommittee report even after it came out that one of the prominent members of the subcommittee had not even seen the report before it was released by the ABC. So until he does disavow it, we need not sweep it under the rug.

I think that the matter of the initial JSC report on TEC’s Convention to the primates is a red herring—there are completely contradictory descriptions, by persons present, as to Williams’ relationship to this report, and given this, it is best simply to set this element aside as a matter for judgment.

Dr, Radner

++Rowan signed his name to it and presented it to his fellow primates, are you suggesting that he does not stand for his own word?  Are you suggesting that as he read it out he had no idea of less than truthful content of his speech?

We have all read ++Rowan’s words and know where he personally sides on these issues.  The question that hangs in the balance is whether he will stand with the heretics and bring down the Communion, or if he will stand by the faith once delivered.

Look forward to being both decimated and enlightened by your reply.

RS Bunker

RobRoy—In the light of your ‘on top of things’ anglican perspective/connections: When +RDW presided over the achievement of the Dar communique, after much effort, would you say it was of a different spirit and direction than a JSC report composed by a committee? And (presumably) if so, is it your view that the ABC presided over a communique that did not suit him? Many view the communique as a genuine achievement of diplomacy and hard work. Did you believe that the ABC was not at the heart of that, truly? I ask because your comments would suggest that the ABC presided over a communique that was against his will (and sources reliable simply do not confirm that). Many thanks indeed for your clarifications. Grace and peace, C Seitz

Dr. Seitz.

Abp William’s “will” was expressed quite clearly in the subgroup report that he attempted to push through the primates meeting…when his “will” was thwarted he certainly signed onto the Communique “willingly” but there were elements of the Communique with which he and even some orthodox primates would have been more than willing to leave off…such as the inclusion of the sections regarding the AmiA and Cana.

rob-roy wrote:

The covenant does not draw divergent factions together. The two factions have been allowed to diverge that there does not exist an external force (short of a parting of the Red sea type miracle), that would bring the pieces back together, so that the glue can work.

Why conclude that the Covenant is futile before it has even been attempted? I’m not sure which two divergent factions you mean. If you are speaking of the two factions within TEC I agree that it would take a literal miracle to put them back together. But when I look hopefully toward the Covenant I am thinking of the possibility that it will be useful in preserving the Communion as a whole in the near term, and in providing a way to resolve similar conflicts that may arise in the future.

Ah, but the covenant is a way for the TEC to declare itself out of communion. That is a really sad self admission of impotency of the Anglican church. The American church has defied Lambeth, Windsor, Dromantine, and will now defy DeS. Each of these are progressively weaker. DeS only calls for moratoria. Yet, the Anglican church as a whole cannot recognize what the individual provinces clearly see, that the TEC is not in communion.

If it’s impotent, it’s impotent. Impotent isn’t dead. Sure, it would be better if the ABC were to take a strong stance and rescind the Lambeth invitations of unrepentant TEC bishops, just as it would have been better if Isildur had cast the One Ring into the Crack of Doom as soon as he had taken it from Sauron’s hand. But his failure to destroy the Ring did not make the triumph of evil inevitable, and I do not think the destruction of the Anglican Communion becomes certain even if the ABC fails to discipline TEC at the end of this month (assuming the HOB gives the expected response). Isildur’s failure meant the battle was much longer and harder, many more died, there many sad partings at the Gray Havens, and a much higher price was paid by those who opposed Sauron. But in the end, the Elves were victorious, and I think that even without immediate, decisive action by the ABC, it is possible that, when all is said and done, the orthodox will win in the Communion (not TEC, which I would agree is a lost cause at this point) . And I think it is worth taking the extra time, effort, and pain to preserve the Communion if it is at all possible.

But, suppose we all waited for the covenant. What is the timing? Discussed at Lambeth 2008. Final draft sent to provinces to discuss and approve by 2011. This would certainly solve the problem with of the orthodox, because there would be no orthodox left, Truro and the other churches in Virginia and California will have been lost causing a disheartening followed by a diaspora

Nobody who doesn’t have the gift of prophecy knows what will happen in the future. Why predict defeat when it has not happened yet? (again, I’m referring to the Communion, not TEC.) IMO, repeating over and over “unless there is immediate action, there’ll be no orthodox left” is in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Kyounge1956. I love the draft version of the covenant! It provides a wonderful mechanism for the new and improved Anglican Communion (which does not include the TEC) to not repeat the mistakes that have brought us to this sorry state. The Communion will be dead if we try to coast till 2011 or whenever it finally passes. Thus, at this point in time it is a distraction from the hard choices that need to be made.

Professor Seitz, the archbishop of Canterbury scheduled only 4 hours, that is to say 240 minutes (or 14400 seconds but you get my drift) to discuss the TEC question at DeS. How preposterous is that? His first order of business was to drop the subcommittee report bomb and, fortunately, it bombed. ABp Gomez discussed how the ABC opposed the DeS deadline (which would have resulted in yet another worth- less- than- the- paper- it’s- printed- on- because- the- TEC- will- use- it- as- toilet- paper document. Who gets the most credit for the DeS communique? I don’t know but my bet would be Peter Akinola the Lion. But given these three facts above, it is painfully obvious that the ABC was not too far behind KJS in the dragged, kicking and screaming category.

The saying “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” is apparently Chinese. I would be so bold to add, “Fool me 17 times, I am a moron.” It is my contention that we orthodox are have been mighty moronic with respect to the ABC. And still, people are saying, “I think this time the ABC is going to finally stand with the orthodox later this month.”

Most of us are of the era that we grew up with the wonderful comic strip “Peanuts.” One of the running jokes in that comic was when Lucy would convince Charlie Brown to attempt to kick the football one more time, and this time she, scout’s honor, would not pull it away. Well, the ABC is Lucy, and we have been Charlie Brown.

RobRoy, I like your summary up above of ABC action at 6:35. 

I also want to point out that at the time, it was a bit of a surprise that the ABC himself personally spoke the words of the subcommittee report at the opening of the meeting.  In every way he threw the full weight of his person and office behind that report.

Sorry—but it was a transparent full-court-press, all-eggs-in-one-basket, secretive, well-prepared strategy that nearly worked.  And I don’t doubt for a moment that that was THE plan worked out in advance.  It was a surprising, bold stroke by the ABC and by the grace of God and the intransigence of the Primates, it failed. 

I had never trusted the ABC and had always sounded the alarm bell about his actions concerning DELAY, which was his clear primary goal from the emergency Primates meeting onward, but the brazenness of the political chicanery that he attempted at Dar Es Salaam . . . well . . . I had not realized until that point just how far the ABC was willing to go.  Delay of action is one thing, but that sort of political brazenness is quite another.

On the other hand . . . Kyounge wins the “line of the day” award at SF!  ; > )

LOL—very nice.

“Sure, it would be better if the ABC were to take a strong stance and rescind the Lambeth invitations of unrepentant TEC bishops, just as it would have been better if Isildur had cast the One Ring into the Crack of Doom as soon as he had taken it from Sauron’s hand. But his failure to destroy the Ring did not make the triumph of evil inevitable, and I do not think the destruction of the Anglican Communion becomes certain even if the ABC fails to discipline TEC at the end of this month (assuming the HOB gives the expected response).”

My issue with waiting on the covenant, KYounge, is that it falls in line with the ABC’s clear desire of delay.

It also makes silly, trivial, moot, and grotesquely hypocritical the entire Windsor Report and the processes that have ground its way down throught the past THREE YEARS.  It makes the so-called “deadlines” and “responses” and “withdrawals” asked of ECUSA ridiculous, as there was never any consequence, one way or the other, for not adhering to the requests or the deadlines or the “responses”.

If it really was all about the “covenant process” than all the ABC had to say in late 2003 was “folks, the Communion is not set up for any kind of discipline.  Sorry—but that’s just the way it is.  What we’re going to do is go through an interminable “covenant process” whereby we draw up a few rules and consequences and every province has to sign on to it or not.  It’ll have to go through all four instruments—be approved by the Primates meeting, the ACC, the Lambeth Meeting, and me—and then it’s got to grind through all 38 Provincial synods.  So, my fellow Anglicans, we’re looking at a good six year process.  Sit tight, and sometime in 2009 we may have some sort of document that will work all of this out.”

He didn’t say any such thing.  And the reason was that the outcry would have been IMMENSE and a vast herd of Primates would have said “good luck with your covenant process, sir—we’ll be over here in our new Confessional Anglican Federation.”

So Rowan Williams simply did the Clinton-Technique—new deadlines every few months, new made-up markers, new little processes to fiddle with, new reports, new “receptions of reports”, new “highest legislative body”, etc, etc, etc, . . . absolutely none of which meant anything at all, since nothing was ever going to be enforced.

Honestly, I actually feel sorry for ECUSA/815/revisionists.  For Pete’s sake, we all suffered through GC 2006, sweating bullets, and slaving away and committeeing and resolutioning and amending and Roberts-Ruling . . . and it was a ridiculous display . . . all for Absolutely No Reason.  Had ECUSA simply IGNORED the Windsor Report there would have been no consequences at all, and we could have all saved a whole lot of energy, not to mention live-blogging-time.  Basically, the ECUSA revisionists and apparatchiks made fools of themselves and compromised their convictions for no reason at all! 

Not even for an apple.  Or switches and ashes in their stockings.

For NOTHING. 

We went through all of that MISERY [and so did the progressives] making a ludicrous public and legislative display of ourselves, and in the meantime, the ABC is thinking “okay—that takes care of the month of July . . . hmmmm . . . gotta analyze their response of course, must appoint committee, so that takes care of August and September.  Then of course, there’s a Primates meeting to discuss it all and what on earth they meant.  I think we can stretch it to December 06 . . . but then, what to do . . . what to do . . . “

Kyounge, with that kind of manifest strategy, I am fully confident that Rowan Williams can certainly think of some further delaying tactics post-2009.  After all, there will need to be a committee appointed to analyze ECUSA’s GC2009 response to the Covenant, which I assure you will be just as obfuscated as ECUSA’s Windsor Report response.  Then there will need to be a Primates meeting, and another report from a subcommittee.  And then there will need to be some HOB meetings to respond to the Primates meeting . . .

My fertile mind can think of even bolder strokes too.  Let’s suppose that the ABC actually has a definitive date that he is looking at that he wishes to get to with no discipline for the Communion.

Let’s try this one on for size—the covenant is nicely approved by the Communion, ECUSA at GC 2009 disses it . . .

. . . And a few months later, having “experienced the joy and grace of this unique world-wide fellowship, and having travelled safely through our most recent unhappy divisions and achieved some measure of peace and unity” . . . the ABC announces his resignation.

Geez Sarah, your post above is written like a true FedCon!  Are you changing colors? 

Same as always, TUAD. I’ve been consistently stating the above for three years, and at least two of those years blogging.  People can find my Very Bleak Non-Expectations of the ABC carefully inscribed for all to see from quite a long while back . . . and he has thoroughly lived up to my expectations.

None of that changes the ComCon convictions I’ve expressed over a variety of essays, and indeed they are entirely consistent with my expressed thoughts above.

Generally speaking, my hope has been in the Primates as a whole, not the ABC to save the Anglican Communion.  It’s looking pretty ominous, frankly.  So the goal, of course, for the apparatchiks at the ACO will be to attempt to NOT have a Primates Meeting after the HOB fiasco.

“...the matter of the initial JSC report on TEC’s Convention to the primates is a red herring—there are completely contradictory descriptions, by persons present, as to Williams’ relationship to this report, and given this, it is best simply to set this element aside as a matter for judgment. “

What contradiction exists among the reports of William’s relationship to this report?  He delivered it, for goodness sake.  The only “contradiction” was the Primate of Central Africa’s clarification that he had not previously seen the report.

Was the report written by elves and mysteriously put in Williams pocket before the meeting?

rob-roy wrote:

The Communion will be dead if we try to coast till 2011 or whenever it finally passes. Thus, at this point in time it is a distraction from the hard choices that need to be made.

There you go again! How do you know the Communion will be dead by 2011? How do you know hard choices must be made at this time? Please explain your reasoning behind these statements.

re: “On the other hand . . . Kyounge wins the “line of the day” award at SF!  ; > )”
(smiling modestly) glad you liked it.

Timothy is curious:

Was the report written by elves and mysteriously put in Williams pocket before the meeting?

Try an elf named Kearon and his little friends.

Note that +++Rowan’s tone changed quite radically (for +++Rowan, anyway) between his Reflection and DeS, and sending out the Lambeth invitations much earlier than necessary was also uncharacteristic.  My hunch (no evidence whatever) is that the Anglican Communion Office put on the full court press. 

God knows what +++Rowan will do at the HoB meeting—so He’s the one to stay in touch with…

We hear a lot about what the ABC could do or should do to support the orthodox, and the dire consequences if he doesn’t come down hard on TEC soon after October 1st. It occurred to me today to wonder what would happen if he does. Would that precipitate a crisis within the C of E? (Someone from the UK. please tell us whether this is so.) The fact that each side accuses him of favoring the other suggests to me that he may be trying to go between Scylla and Charybdis: on one side a break-up of the Anglican Communion and on the other an internal fracture in the C of E. He’s managed to avoid both perils—so far.

But that’s speculation. To me the most important question question is, can the AC survive, or has the lastest action of the ABC, HOB, or whoever, struck it a mortal blow? Is there a move on the board, or was that checkmate? If it’s not checkmate yet, I don’t much care that the Covenant or the Windsor report didn’t work, or was a diversionary tactic (if that’s what it was).

I agree Timothy. There are only two choices:

1. Either ++Williams supported the report to which his name is affixed and for which he pushed at Dar or
2. He did not support the report to which his name is affixed and for which he pushed at Dar.

Either one of the above makes ++Williams untrustworthy.

kyounge,
The differance between Discipline and covenant has been explained to you a great many times.  Once by me was here: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4631/#86779

If you don’t get it, you just don’t get it…

My fertile mind can think of even bolder strokes too.

Sarah, the inveterate optimists among us have been picturing +RW coming to TEC HOB and pulling a breathtaking bubbly bunny out of the hat, which brings TEC back to the table.

Based on the above posts, I am considering revoking your membership in the Briar Patch Optimists society. (Oh wait, can’t find your membership application—could it be you never joined?)

Your fertile pessimistic prognostications lead me to speculate that +RW will arrive in New Orleans not with a rabbit in his hat but with a rubber chicken up his sleeve.

from the Briar Patch,

Br_er Rabbit—You know, TEC HoB can’t pull a bubbly bunny out of the hat if you hop far away from New Orleans here shortly

Correct, Hosea, and I haven’t noticed any of my cousins and nephews and nieces coming up unaccounted for lately.

from the Briar Patch,

  Sarah:  “I had never trusted the ABC and had always sounded the alarm bell about his actions concerning DELAY, which was his clear primary goal from the emergency primates meeting onward, but the brazenness of the political chicanery that he attempted at Dar es Salaam . . . well . . . I had not realized until that point just how far the ABC was willing to go.  Delay of action is one thing, but that sort of political brazenness is quite another.”

Matt:  “Either one of the above makes ++Williams untrustworthy.”

Sarah and Matt, two peas in a pod.

Sarah and Matt, two peas in a pod.

You just HAD to go there? ... Didn’t you? ...

Thanks for the Spencer’s link that de-linked discipline and the covenant. The discipline in some sense has already happened. 15 of the 29 declared they are not in communion with the TEC. This is a very biblical discipline, that of non-association. I have argued that KJS’s perfidious “nobody signed nothin’” sealed the expurgation of the TEC. The Common Cause partnership is moving ahead, eyes fixed on the cross, as evidenced by the joyful ordinations we have just witnessed. The question is how all of us, swimming in this lobster pot, will react.

The ABC will come around. He has to. The Common Cause have three aces, the people, the gospel and a missionary zeal. The TEC has a four flush and bluff and bluster (admittedly they hold a lot of chips but no cards).

OK, I wonder if we can make some progress on questions posed yesterday about what fedcons are working toward. It is by now familiar to hear the view that Seitz and Radner are benighted; the ABC sought to commandeer a JSC report and manipulate the Primates; Dar was an accomplishment against his wishes, etc. Dar is dead. Lambeth is not to be attended, etc.

Because ACI does not share this view, it has a clear sense of what it is seeking and with whom it is working etc. Others are persuaded this will fail, etc. OK, fine (no one has that long to wait).

Presumably this is not just a kind of blog contest (I hope not, at least). So what do those who share this view want? Let me suggest what I think I am hearing, to get the ball rolling. I am curious, as it is not a view I share nor one ACI is engaged with as we work toward 30 September.

1.  The ABC is a sneak and worse, and so not to be trusted and dispensable;
2.  A group of Primates will consecrate Bishops and create something like a College in the US;
3.  A small number of US bishops are prepared to think this is a good way forward, and will presumably join in this and seek a formal province;
4.  Parishes in these dioceses, and others, will seek to affiliate and take their churches with them;
5.  The new province will be supported by a group of Primates, but not by the ABC, ACC, Primates Meeting as a whole – that is good, because these Instruments are unwieldy, un-anglican, too recent/fraudulent (I think this is an accurate catalogue of what I have heard);
6.  TEC will consist of revisionist bishops and others too cowardly or nearing retirement, etc;
7.  There will ensue a legal battle of serious proportion for those seeking to take their properties; some supporting Primates will be angered by this and urge people to leave their property;
8.  The new province will include those in favour of women’s ordination, and those opposed, but a strategy will emerge to make everyone happy with this, because the supporting Primates are themselves holding different views;
9.  The covenant process and subsequent meetings of Instruments will cease, or will take on new form in a new province and new federal Anglican estate.

In this description I am trying to understand what it means to declare ACI and the work it undertakes, as well as the work of various Instruments, +RDW, etc vain and benighted, etc. Please do not read this as defensive, but rather as a way to hear people out on the alternative plan, in detail and not in terms of ‘not that; this will fail; you are wrong, morons, etc.’ It would be very helpful to hear how the alternative work sees its next steps. Meantime, ACI will continue to do its work, as it has in times past. Apart from registering an opinion, at a distance, what does the federal plan look like, as we survey the coming years? I genuinely welcome a detailed response. Grace and peace in Christ.

Dr. Radner, you said:

But the positive (to my mind) result, nonetheless, is that he has shown himself able to open a path for discipline to emerge as a communal task and ministry on the part of of the Communion’s leadership.  He is certainly not leading the charge; but he is nonetheless clearing the way.  It is therefore crucial that the other primates stay the course in working together to make such discipline a reality precisely as a communal ministry.  Williams has given them that opportunity.  Individual, yet unintegrated, actions of discipline, while responding to a real need in a concrete way, risk losing the formation of a communal ministry of discipline that will truly be rare in the life of the larger Church since its early centuries.

But does it truly follow that individual actions responding to a need make a communal discipline more difficult?  It has never seemed all that plain to me.  I can just as easily, if not more easily, argue that doing nothing encourages the failure of communion discipline, for then there is no incentive to follow that path.  If we can truly trust the Archbishop to pave the way, the continuance of these individual actions - which I note have been only on the part of parishes in the US, not diocese, to date - can well be argued to put more pressure on the communion to discipline TEC, not less.  For it has always been the position of CANA and the other reasserter parishes that have departed that they want to remain part of the communion.  All that has to be done to get them back is communion discipline and all that entails.  Are they not stepping out in faith that the communion will order itself to be able to include them?  Does not the rest of the communion want them to be a part of it?

If there would be no discipline ever, then these parishes would dissolve anyway, so why complain of their loss?  And if there will be discipline in a few centuries, then they can be brought closer into the fold then.  So, no mourning.  Take the long view.

Please do not read this as defensive, but rather as a way to hear people out on the alternative plan, in detail and not in terms of ‘not that; this will fail; you are wrong, morons, etc.’ It would be very helpful to hear how the alternative work sees its next steps. Meantime, ACI will continue to do its work, as it has in times past. Apart from registering an opinion, at a distance, what does the federal plan look like, as we survey the coming years? I genuinely welcome a detailed response.

With all due respect Dr. Seitz, I have personally asked of ACI what you are asking of others.  You have not once provided any specifics other than to say WHO in general terms you are speaking to.  Generalized name-dropping.  Not very helpful.  You and ACI have not disclosed in sufficient detail WHAT ACI’s specific plan is for the way forward.

For you to ask for a detailed alternative plan when ACI has not disclosed one is totally disingenuous.

Furthermore, your questions are of a completely secondary nature.  Revealing a huge blind spot to the larger and primary issue:  Gross heresy and apostasy spawning virulently in the Church.  And how to discipline it and remove it.

You are fixated on institutional questions which sadly shows your inability to grasp what the important issues are. 

Here’s an exchange of where I asked for ACI’s specific plan.

Dr. Radner:  That is why “discipline” – which is still necessary and inevitable – needs to be approached in a particular, and particularly careful, way.

TUAD:  I fully agree.  If you will, could you share ACI’s alternative plan for particularly careful discipline?

Dr. Radner:  But it pertains to your question regarding what I might think of your scenario for TEC bishops, primates, ABC, GS primates, Lambeth and so on.  Basically, I am not convinced that such scenario-imaginings, although inevitable in the musings of the moment, are helpful.  We are called to be obedient, each step of the time, to the demanded ways of judging “as a church” alluded to above.  Figuring out how to bring “pressure”, and the rest, in this or that situation ahead of time, so that consequences can be calibrated to each eventuality—this cannot work, because discernments and judgments, within the context of our true selves, can only be made in the moment as it comes as we place ourselves before God within the penitent church.  The “what if?” questions are, in my mind, inappropriate.  They were not Jesus’. The question is whether this or that bishop and this or that Primate and this or that Archbishop (including Canterbury) or this or that Global South leader will discern and judge in this way.  Together with and under the Scriptures.  Each step of the way. In this place, there are no “fedcoms” and “concoms”.  How could there be?

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5227

Grace and peace.

Re: Sarah’s 11:43 PM post (dead right, Sarah) – I believe ECUSA came to the same conclusion after seeing Williams’ maneuvering at DES.  This was the proximate cause for the dramatic ramp-up of ECUSA’s arrogance and hostility beginning at Camp Allen and continuing to this day (with an encore performance to come in New Orleans, for those who missed the original).

In short, ECUSA called the Communion’s bluff, and, with the Lambeth invitations, Rowan Williams put his busted flush on the table.

To answer Chris Seitz:
1. The ABC is sneak? Who resorted to base name calling? In my postings above here and here, I gave point by point chronology why the ABC is not trustworthy if one is orthodox. Are you debating the chronology or conclusion or inserting epithets into the debate?
2. Amen.
3. Sad condemnation of the bishops. But after all, there are only about twenty or so bishops that are conservative. Even if all of them joined with Common Cause, it would still be a “handful.”
4. Yep.
5. The ABC will say that it is “unhelpful” and perhaps won’t invite these irregular bishops to Lambeth which, for the near term, is going to be a farce. The ACC? Who cares? The primates won’t overrule. Eventually, there will be a normalization.
6. That is the situation now, for all intents and purposes.
7. Does anyone think that legal battles are not inevitable? Is there any viable plan to avoid this?
8. Are you sewing dissension by this remark? Women’s ordination is a contentious issue. Granted.
9. Did anyone say that the covenant process will stop? In fact, with the TEC marginalized, they will not be able to poison the process.

Hi Chris Seitz, from what I have observed of the Federal Conservatives I would say that your statements are pretty much accurate other than #9.

And I suspect that the FedCons would say “and your point would be?”

From my observation, the FedCons will have a few ECUSA bishops [maybe], and a number of Primates [8-10 initially, probably more in the years coming], no Canterbury, no ACC, no Lambeth Meeting,  no Primates meeting, etc. etc.

I would assume that this entity will be its own organization with its own bodies that will serve as markers and icons of its organizational identity.  They would no doubt have their own meetings, and councils.  I would expect them to implement a covenant of their own, and eventually have some sort of leading Primate, elected by the rest of the Primates. I certainly think that they will have a very clear system of recognizing who is in and who is out, and a speedy mechanism for deleting those members who stray from the confession.

It doesn’t really take a rocket scientist to predict all of this in some detail! 

But again, I suspect that the FedCons would say “and your point would be?” 

I expect when it all shakes out the orthodox in ECUSA will 1) choose the new Confessional Anglican Federation, or 2) leave for other non-Anglican entities, over a matter of the next decade.  I expect the latter to be more than the former, but significant in both instances.

Per your point #9, I don’t see any reason to suppose that the covenant process or the meetings of the Instruments would cease in the Anglican Communion.  But what that would have to do, ultimately, with the new Confessional Anglican Federation I don’t know.

The split is, to my mind, catastrophic for Anglicanism in the US, but that’s what happens when the ABC doesn’t lead, and when ECUSA orthodox bishops haven’t led for so many many decades, and clergy pretend as if they are congregationalists, and lay people don’t step up and lead and become involved. 

Catastrophic splits occur when people don’t do their duty with character, and sadly, I would say that one can really point the finger at people like me and so many many others down through the years.

Oh joy, this thread become more civil!!!!

Dr. Seitz, I’ll play:
1. I’d say +RDW is VERY political, he’s a liberal but in sense of say bishop of Maine, not EDoW or LA. The Sub-Committee report at Dar was VERY damaging, as a stunt that should never been done, it as serious as an accountant who has been caught in an improper transaction, even if this was the first or no other evidence there is breech of trust (a one night affair can still destroy a marriage).
2. I hope so, if so then long term this will look more like Dominican reform than the Reformation.
3. I’d agree, the number of bishops is probably greater than the number who’ll actually move, mainly because of the make up of their dioceses.
4. In the one who move yes, because the number here will determine the answer to the one above.
5. Who knows? CofE is just as divided as TEC under the surface, so no clue what the future will bring, the next ABC maybe very different now that Parliament is out, still unknown is how that’ll work out.
6. I’ll write ‘only the Lord knows,’ you summed up many SF commenters opinion & think folks like Dr. Noll+‘s as well. History tells me that the Lord brought the Church back from death many times before, however His timing is a lot longer than mine. Short term TEC will certainly move quite a bit that direction.
7. Yes, those one has already gotten tired, AMiA generally seeks to avoid law suits. That’s the hot button issue with many on both sides.
8. You know things have gotten really bad when WO becomes a second or third string issue. It really depends on who all moves in #3 & #4 to how that’ll play out. FiFNA basically has to move for there is no room in TEC with a female ‘PB’ (quotes for that logic).
9. Only the Lord know the future. I’ll say there is little trust in it, I got into a debate with Matt+ because I have little trust in the Dar es Salaam Communique, it goes back to the violation of trust. Even if all is pure and proper there is a lot of rebuilding of trust that needs to take place.

Dr. Seitz, you posted a jumbled list of, apparently, “things you have seen on the blogs”, to wit:

1.  The ABC is a sneak and worse, and so not to be trusted and dispensable;
2.  A group of primates will consecrate Bishops and create something like a College in the US;
3.  A small number of US bishops are prepared to think this is a good way forward, and will presumably join in this and seek a formal province;
4.  Parishes in these dioceses, and others, will seek to affiliate and take their churches with them;
5.  The new province will be supported by a group of primates, but not by the ABC, ACC, primates meeting as a whole – that is good, because these Instruments are unwieldy, un-anglican, too recent/fraudulent (I think this is an accurate catalogue of what I have heard);
6.  TEC will consist of revisionist bishops and others too cowardly or nearing retirement, etc;
7.  There will ensue a legal battle of serious proportion for those seeking to take their properties; some supporting primates will be angered by this and urge people to leave their property;
8.  The new province will include those in favour of women’s ordination, and those opposed, but a strategy will emerge to make everyone happy with this, because the supporting primates are themselves holding different views;
9.  The covenant process and subsequent meetings of Instruments will cease, or will take on new form in a new province and new federal Anglican estate.

This list is of quite varied character, and must be sorted out if we are to have an orderly review or debate over them. Let me start by taking them one at a time.

1.  The ABC is a sneak and worse, and so not to be trusted and dispensable;

This is, of course, opinion and/or gratuituous characterization. It is one side’s view on the debate fostered by the title of this thread: the Last Stand of Rowan Williams. Rowan Williams still has his defenders, and the debate goes on. Can he be trusted? Some have pointed to past actions which seem to betray trust. Is he dispensable? Apparently he is dispensable only if he cannot be trusted. What if he is both untrustworthy and indispensable?

2.  A group of primates will consecrate Bishops and create something like a College in the US;

This is not something that is subject to debate, it is simply facts on the ground. A group of primates has consecrated bishops and they have created the College of Common Cause Bishops (CCCB) which will meet 20 days hence, Sept 25-28.

Conditions are ripe, of course, for rampant speculation about who exactly will be attending the CCCB, and what actions they might take and/or plan for, both publicly and privately.

3.  A small number of US bishops are prepared to think this is a good way forward, and will presumably join in this and seek a formal province;

It seems apparent that there are indeed some U.S. (I assume you mean TEC) bishops who are prepared to think this is a good way forward. We will continue, of course, to speculate on the positions of individual bishops who are holding their own counsel.

The prospect of joining the new structure(s) is worthy of full-scale debate, for the implications are profound, with impacts on property, pensions, Diocesan stability and polity, TEC stability and polity, and massive lawsuits. After counting these costs, it is well worth investigating what the most-likely scenario will be the result, and questioning whether Anglican concerns both U.S. and globally will be set forward or set back.

4.  Parishes in these dioceses, and others, will seek to affiliate and take their churches with them;

There is little doubt that this will happen; although we may speculate to what degree this will happen.

[Semantic note: a parish cannot of course leave its diocese, since a parish is a jurisdictional subdivision of a diocese. A church (ekklesia) can indeed leave its diocese, since a church is a congregation of Christians, usually with a recognized leader. A church (kyriokos) cannot leave its physical location within the diocese, since it is merely a building. Its ownership, however, can and most probably will be the subject of litigation.]

It would be a worthwhile to make a full inventory of the advantages and disadvantages of a church (ekklesia) which seeks to affiliate with whatever new structure(s) should come out of the CCCB, although this may be premature, not knowing what those structures are going to look like.

5.  The new province will be supported by a group of primates, but not by the ABC, ACC, primates meeting as a whole – that is good, because these Instruments are unwieldy, un-anglican, too recent/fraudulent (I think this is an accurate catalogue of what I have heard);

If there is a “new province”, it will no doubt be divisive; supported by some parts of the AC, opposed by other parts. 
Regarding the Instruments, it seems apparent that they are unwieldy, or at least time-consuming. This may be an advantage or a disadvantage; another subject for debate. Regarding the “un-Anglican” assertion, I don’t know how that can be, for Anglicans are us. What we do is Anglican, by definition. What we ought to do is the issue. Regarding too recent? I’m at a loss. Maybe some group such as ACI can provide some clarity here. Regarding fraudulent? Hmmm. Sounds like the complaint of someone who has lost in a political process. Certainly the orthodox have not made any wins lately at the TEC level, and the recent political events in the wider AC have been a mixed bag. I don’t think the fraudulent position has been adequately defended.

to be continues…

(sorry about the missing close on the block quote above)

(continued from above…)

6.  TEC will consist of revisionist bishops and others too cowardly or nearing retirement, etc;

Actions of bishops which seem “revisionist” are of course quickly noted on this particular blog. None of those bishops so identified (to my knowledge) have expressed an interest in new exterior structures.  Several bloggers have spoken up to defend against the accusation of cowardice, and the commenatrix herself hovers like the death angel over those who dare to express such a view. The fact is, there are bishops who do not identify themselves with revisionists nor seem willing to affiliate with outside structures. Flummoxed by such a position, orthodox bloggers here resort to speculation about episcopal motivation. The “nearing retirement” allegation has been tossed about here, but I have rarely (if ever) seen it applied to a specific instance of a bishop with a specific retirement date. It is no doubt a factor in isolated cases. At the level of presbyter, this is no doubt in operation. How does one make a graceful exit when you have tired of a fight you never knew you signed on for?

7.  There will ensue a legal battle of serious proportion for those seeking to take their properties; some supporting primates will be angered by this and urge people to leave their property;

The legal battles are already well under way, they are already of serious proportion. This is simply one of the facts on the ground. The “some supporting primates” allegation, as far as I know, is a speculation unsupported by demonstrable fact. However, the legal battle of monstrous propostions will come if and when an entire diocese seeks to leave and take its property. I have seen some speculation about this, but I have not seen this issue tackled seriously by anyone with the requisite training and experience in civil and canonical law.

8.  The new province will include those in favor of women’s ordination, and those opposed, but a strategy will emerge to make everyone happy with this, because the supporting primates are themselves holding different views;

The proponents of the new “province” (if that is what the new structure will be) include proponents and opponents of WO who seem to be determined to forge foward together anyway. This is not a result of the views of the supporting primates: it is a result of the makeup of the orthodox who are dissatisfied with TEC. The orthodox, however, have beeh happ

9.  The covenant process and subsequent meetings of Instruments will cease, or will take on new form in a new province and new federal Anglican estate.

There is almost too much going on here in this ninth ‘point’ too tackle at once. Let me take it apart somewhat:

9a.  The covenant process ... will cease.

I don’t know why that would be the case. Is it not possible that there will come to be two covenant processes for two parts of a divided Communion? (Divided Communion—Now there’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever seen one.)

9b.  The ... subsequent meetings of Instruments will cease.

Would such a thing happen?
i.) ACC, with its vested funding from TEC, is unlikely to give up its bully pulpit. ii.) The primates are unlikely to stop meeting, although these may become an instrument of division rather than of unity. iii.) Lambeth—a once per decade event—could be called off, I suppose, but +RW and/or his successor will no doubt call another one someday. iv.) Will the Archbishop of Canterbury renounce his status as primus inter pares? Conceivable, I suppose. The operative question will be, who will care? Judging from this blog (I have spent very little time on reassesor blogs) those who care about +Canterbury as an instrument depend on whether the current +Cantuar comes down on their side or the opposing side.

9c.  The covenant process and subsequent meetings ... will take on new form in a new province.

Might one say instead, “will be rivalled by similar processes” in a new province? Again, the much-hoped-for “new province” may not be the structure that will come about, at least in the near term.

9d.  The covenant process and subsequent meetings ... will take on new form in a new ... federal Anglican estate.

Could not “Covenant” and “Federal” estates be mutually exclusive? An adopted covenant becomes a power greater than an individual province. And how do we know that the new structure(s), if they come about, will be “federal” in nature?

I dunno. Perhaps I have muddied the waters rather than advanced the analysis. My contention remains that the nine points above have little resemblance to one another, are not an ordered set, and as a whole are a poor foundation for the furtherance of reasoned debate.

from the Briar Patch,

In my comment on point #8, I meant to say that the Orthodox of differing positions on WO are happy to take advantage of the differing positions of the various primates.

My contention remains that the nine points above have little resemblance to one another, are not an ordered set, and as a whole are a poor foundation for the furtherance of reasoned debate.

Br’er Rabbit, the last part of your sentence just sent me over to the Laffin Place.  I see you’re already there giggling.

Besides, I think the 9 points are totally secondary and completely distract from the key issue of how to deal with gross heresy and apostasy.  Of course, an institutionalist frets about such things.

Gosh, Truth-Divider, ‘be set not round with dismal stories’! (sorry, just in from opening chapel service, with Bunyan’s grand hymn). Of course ACI is working for (1) CA Bishops to be in compliance, as they are now in word and deed, with Windsor, (2) the prosecution of Dar, (3) full consultation with Primates, (4) celebration of the Communion and its Instruments (conciliarity) such that those who do not find this path desirable or possible, must decide and so walk the path of their choosing. As the Constitution and Canons of TEC (in case this is not clear to you as a non Anglican) declare TEC to be a constituent member of the Communion, our prayer is that those compliant with Dar, Windsor, and Instruments will be invited to Lambeth and continue to sit in counsel with Communion Family. I’m sure we have said this repeatedly and published it abroad in booklets and talks, etc. Be no longer in the dark! I look forward to hearing response from those who judge this vain and moronic, as to the alternative, which involves, as we understand it, a subset of Primates, Colleges of Bishops, etc (see previous notes). For some this may be a contingency, but for others it is clearly a desirable way forward. Fine. Can we know a bit more about how this will play out, since +RDW has been judged lacking or malfeasant or both, etc (see previous note). 

Now, OK, I’ll study all the takers above and read what has been proposed. Many thanks indeed. CRS

Thank you Dr.s Seitz and Radner, for the hard, thoughtful, work that you and ACI do and have done.  I’m sorry you have to take so much flak from other theological conservatives who happen to have a very different ecclesiology.

May I take this opportunity to thank Brer and others for their help in explaining how things may go for those who believe ACI’s work is in vain, and what a ‘fedcom’ view is. That is extraordinarily helpful. I have had trouble understanding what people were prepared to accept in the new federal arrangement—much of which people are now hard at work on with the College idea. All blessings, C Seitz

Let’s attempt to establish priorities.

1.  ABC and the Primates disciplines TEC effectively, biblically, and timely.  (Assuming TEC doesn’t genuinely repent).

2.  Ecclesiastical considerations if #1 is not done.

So why all the hullabaloo about a “new federal arrangement” when #1 hasn’t had a chance to occur yet?  Is ACI doing it’s own form of research into Contingency Planning much like ACN did earlier this summer?  Because if #1 (Discipline) happens, then #2 need not occur at all.  So why is ACI focusing on #2?

UNLESS.  Unless ACI is making a tacit admission through its backchannel discussions that the ABC will not administer timely and effective discipline by revoking TEC’s Lambeth invitations.  Is ACI admitting to this?  And is that why ACI is so curious now about a “new federal arrangement”?

As Jordan Hylden wrote: 

Will it work? And if it doesn’t, will Anglicanism fall apart afterwards? It is precisely this that falls in large part to Rowan Williams to decide. He and he alone is in charge of issuing invitations to Lambeth, and so in the end he is the one who will determine whether or not Anglicanism coheres or dissolves.

Incredible thread.  As someone faithful to my mainline TEC parish in a liberal diocese, a parish where the Gospel is still preached and the Lord still served, I more than appreciate the wonderful parable of many boats leaving for the same shore (Baby Blue, from Monday).  And there are sharks in the water.  In my heart I am a FedCon, but in my head I am still a ComCon.  None of us knows the future—there are still many surprises in store for us.  God is working His purpose out.

“...what does the federal plan look like, as we survey the coming years?”

hmmm…it depends.  As a lay peon who is not even sure of the terms, I would say that there are probably multiple plans or thoughts that vary with events and the actions of various parties.  For example, the response of the ABC and the primates to Sep 30 will be most instructive.

Discipline?
Perhaps a plan is the associate/constituent model with TEC(v.1) relegated to associate status (discipline!) and a constituent organization TEC(v.2) is formed in its place.  Perhaps a different plan is to recognize that TEC(v.1) has walked apart completely (discipline!), then form a replacement TEC(v.2) and reform the instruments of communion along with the covenant process.  If TEC(v.1) is really in some lesser status, I have difficulty seeing problems with the creation of TEC(v.2).  Of course, reconciliation would be possible only with reform and repentance – the prodigal son returning.

No discipline?
Perhaps WR/DC/DES will not produce any meaningful discipline and we should recognize that the AC has failed (no discipline!), and that repeating the process without biblical reform will produce similar results – in such case, perhaps a plan would be for reasserting provinces to (i) seek to be biblical in their dealings with false teachers in the church, including possibly treating TEC(v.1) as being in a de facto “associate”-status or out of communion – as many provinces have already stated; (ii) form a provisional, “constituent”-status province TEC(v.2) for pastoral care and mission in the US; (iii) to the extent possible, influence (e.g., with the covenant) and reform the instruments of communion; and (iv) organize themselves for coordinated action within the AC, to the extent possible.

If (iii) is proven fruitless, then perhaps (iv) will help produce a coordinated response to that unfolding fact.

I may be a fed/com/pom/con/whatever, but at the end of the road, I pray for reform of the AC and a better relationship with other catholic bodies.

Dr. Seitz,
You wrote:  “our prayer is that those compliant with Dar, Windsor, and Instruments will be invited to Lambeth and continue to sit in counsel with Communion Family”

OK, I’ll bite…  Just who do you think will comprise such a band of “compliant” bishops?  In your mind would these be just the ”Network bishops”, perhaps only “Windsor bishops” or would this include any bishop who hasn’t recently endorsed SSU’s?  The point I am getting at is that I want to know what you would define as “compliant”.

Let me be clear and state my view that as a member of any body, one is presupposed to hold to the views of that body unless a specific denunciation of a particular viewpoint is presented.  Therefore, to my thinking, in absence of a clear denunciation of TEC’s actions and a corresponding affirmation of and commitment to DES, a bishop could not be considered “compliant”.  Of course it goes without saying that then they must also walk the walk.

What is your understanding of “compliance”?

Following up on Spencer’s comments, the idea of the “Windsor bishop” grouping as a nobler way seems to be practically flawed.  Let’s say we do come to a situation where many ECUSA bishops are judged to have “walked apart” while our Windsor grouping is judged to be “compliant” (however that’s defined).

Do we really think Geralyn Wolf is going to Lambeth if Katharine Schori and John Chane aren’t?  I mean, she may understand the reason events played out as they did, but is she really going to break with ECUSA in that way?

Similarly, if Bruce MacPherson were to march off to Lambeth while most of ECUSA sits home, implicitly placing allegiance to Canterbury over allegiance to Katharine Schori and Bonnie Anderson, do we really think he’ll be long for his bishopric?

Those who have watched even casually should know that ECUSA is a jealous, bitter, vengeful lover.  The idea that “Windsor bishops” will remain un-deposed in the event they demonstrate Communion loyalty rests on shaky ground.  Of course, they could always try to be loyal to both, but then, they will prove to not really be Windsor bishops at all.

Phil
It is better to be shot in the chest knowing well the face of your assailant than to be stabbed in the back by a masked foe.

Yeah, good point, Jackie.

No one is suggesting levels of nobility. If communion instruments are seeking a way to find compliance to communion proposals/requests, as happened at Dar with reference to ‘Camp Allen principles’, and as happened in the Dar requests to TEC, then these would be the means to determine Lambeth invitations, etc. All along this has been the plain sense reading of Graham Kings, ACI and others.

With all due respect Dr. Seitz, you are evading the question.
You ask FedComs for a detailed plan but you offer only ambiguity.

He and he alone is in charge of issuing invitations to Lambeth, and so in the end he is the one who will determine whether or not Anglicanism coheres or dissolves.

Dr. Seitz, do you have reasoned speculation about whether +++Rowan will revoke TEC’s Lambeth invitations?  Perhaps from your highly placed sources via backchannel discussions?

Also, what import do you attach to Lambeth invitations, particularly as a means of discipline for TEC?

Sarah Hey wrote:

From my observation, the FedCons will have a few ECUSA bishops [maybe], and a number of primates [8-10 initially, probably more in the years coming], no Canterbury, no ACC, no Lambeth Meeting, no primates meeting, etc. etc.

I would assume that this entity will be its own organization with its own bodies that will serve as markers and icons of its organizational identity.  They would no doubt have their own meetings, and councils.  I would expect them to implement a covenant of their own, and eventually have some sort of leading Primate, elected by the rest of the primates. I certainly think that they will have a very clear system of recognizing who is in and who is out, and a speedy mechanism for deleting those members who stray from the confession.

FedCons, is this your desired outcome? Do you prefer separation from the see of Canterbury to reform of the current Communion?

Phil wrote:

the idea of the “Windsor bishop” grouping as a nobler way seems to be practically flawed.  Let’s say we do come to a situation where many ECUSA bishops are judged to have “walked apart” while our Windsor grouping is judged to be “compliant” (however that’s defined).(snip) The idea that “Windsor bishops” will remain un-deposed in the event they demonstrate Communion loyalty rests on shaky ground. 

However compliance is defined, would the actions of the non-compliant bishops, such as deposing compliant bishops, be recognized as binding by the rest of the Communion? Aren’t the non-compliant bishops reduced to “associate” or even lesser status by their own failure to comply?

kyounge, I am just a peon in the FedCon camp, but my answer would be “no.”  I think the majority of FedCons, like the ComCons, would prefer reform of the Communion.  But they believe that the possibility of such internal reform in our generation is rapidly diminishing and will be virtually extinguished if TEC is not held to strict compliance with Dar as a condition for its general participation in Lambeth.  They also urgently believe that “souls are at stake” and that a refuge is required, now, for congregations and individuals in openly disobedient jurisdictions. The cross-jurisdictional consecrations, Road to Lambeth statement and other public actions serve a dual purpose in that they make it clear to Canterbury and other what is at stake at this juncture (hopefully resulting in the right choices being made), while laying the groundwork for a new faithful church structure (in the event the right choices aren’t made.)

Underscoring the “urgency” mentioned above, I find myself, unexpectedly, facing a significant life detour, one that will likely limit future participation in this blog.  I have greatly enjoyed your comments, as well as those of the editors and other contributors. God bless all of you.

kyounge, I do not prefer seperation from the ABC and I don’t see it happening. The Common Cause partners will set up a super-CANA or convocation with a college of bishops. Seitz points out that only a handful of TEC bishops will bolt. No problem! We seem to have some new ones now who are good and faithful and have a heart for mission. These will be considered irregular for a “season.” (It is bad when one uses KJS lingo.) The TEC will continue the death spiral as the Convocation increases in bounds. There will be a blurry transition from irregular to regular with full recognition of the convocation by the next ABC.

Blurry, you ask? How did Samuel Seabury and the whole early Episcopal church go from irregular to regular? That transition was blurry, too.

FedCons, is this your desired outcome? Do you prefer separation from the see of Canterbury to reform of the current Communion?

The answer lies in the realization of how ridiculous the question is.  Let me reverse it to demonstrate.

CommCons, is this your desired outcome?  Do you prefer continual and growing heresy and apostasy that endanger the eternal souls of people so that you can claim institutional communion with the See of Canterbury while putting your ostrich heads in the ground to the reality that timely, biblical discipline will not be administered to TEC which would effect reform in the Anglican Communion?

Kyounge,
You ask, “FedCons, is this your desired outcome? Do you prefer separation from the see of Canterbury to reform of the current Communion?”

FedComs do not prefer separation from Canterbury, but instead prefer to remain united with Christ.  Unity when it is not in Christ is nothing more than an idol.  If the organization ceases to be centered on Christ, and there is much evidence to support this notion, then Unity with Christ is vastly more important and separation from Canterbury, by comparison, is only a mildly unfortunate and lamentable consequence.

It is a matter of priorities.  If forced to choose, FedComs have made it clear that they will choose Christ.  Whether or not some ComCons will choose Christ remains to be seen.

Perhaps FedComs and ComCons will not be forced to choose, but that, it seems, is up to Rowan.

“FedCons, is this your desired outcome? Do you prefer separation from the see of Canterbury to reform of the current Communion?”

One ball not in play here is the wider Body of Christ. We are increasingly pressured if we want to remain in communion with the See of Canterbury or communion (though limited) with See of Rome & Moscow. While we often forget those parts of Christ Body in our struggles I’m reminded of the popes words to the ABC and the Russian Orthodox overtures last October.

While I’ve hung out with Evangelicals for the last seven years, my Anglo-Cath roots are seeing at first an aversion to this because there is a risk of breaking from Canterbury, but then opening the lens wider I see the more Anglo-Cath side of Fedcoms (FiFNA) actually remaining faithful to the larger Church, it could be said of the Evangelical side is remaining put in relation to their kin (maybe SBC or various mega-church folks for some PCA or LCMS for others).

I do not desire a break at all, but if forced to choose I’d prefer to remain in communion of any sort with the wider universal Church.

Will whoever does the underline definition thingees please do brilliantly short definitions of ComCon and FedCon for the sake of novice readers? And I’m seeing FedCoM in the comments. If this is a recognized variation, I don’t know what it means.

Yes, both Comcon and Fedcon would be worthy additions to the StandFirm Lexicon. With the host of commenters using these terms, a satisfactory locus should be now discernible for the intent of these tems.

from the Briar Patch,

kyounge:

However compliance is defined, would the actions of the non-compliant bishops, such as deposing compliant bishops, be recognized as binding by the rest of the Communion? Aren’t the non-compliant bishops reduced to “associate” or even lesser status by their own failure to comply?

Absolutely; and, I’m sure, in my scenario, that “depositions” will be ignored by the rest of the Communion.  OTOH, the practical result is very similar to that of the FedCon strategy: an isolated band of people recognized by Canterbury, but physically starting from scratch.  I just think there will be rough going for a while, even under the ACI’s dream scenario.

Timothy - sorry to see you go.  I hope your detour is not the result of bad news, but I’ll pray for you just in case.  Be well, my brother.

Do you prefer separation from the see of Canterbury to reform of the current Communion

No need to choose, because we now have both.  Rowan separated himself from large swaths of Anglicans who will not be represented at Lambeth as a consequence of Rowan’s decisions, and Anglican Primates are re-forming the current Communion around Jesus Christ, as mentioned by Bishop Guernsey in Uganda the other day.

Timothy—I echo Phil’s concern and also will keep you in my prayers.

Thank you Phil and Hosea6:6.  Your prayers are recieved and appreciated.  Keep the Faith.

Timothy—Please keep the faith and my God go with you on this life-detour.

Kyounge, you ask an interesting question.

RE: “FedCons, is this your desired outcome? Do you prefer separation from the see of Canterbury to reform of the current Communion?”

My estimation is that about 1/3 of the leading FedCons are FOR separation from Canterbury and hope that that occurs, along with a split in the Communion—some of those hope to name their side of the split “the Anglican Communion” but others are happy with simply splitting and being honest about the new entity as a Confessional Anglican Federation.  But I estimate that the majority of FedCons want for the Anglican Communion to discipline ECUSA and remain united, yet think that unlikely.

I also suspect that many many ComCons [like myself] also think that it is unlikely that the Anglican Communion will survive united and disciplined [although the FedCon solution of two Anglican entities, the old AC and the new Confessional Anglican Federation, are not acceptable options for us].

Gator, Graham Kings first articulated these categories in this way [although some of his examples of which is which have become dated in the past year]:

“B. Context of Current Reponses: A Suggested Quadrant

How do we make sense of the differing responses to this issue? Generalizations are dangerous and fixed models are not fluid, however, l have found very helpful the suggestions in the Bishop of Exeter’s address to ECUSA’s House of Bishops. He outlined four groups, each of which is located by their general stance on sexual ethics and ecclesiology:

As I look at the Anglican Communion at present I see its life threatened by two intersecting fault lines, each with its own totem.

The first is the issue of same sex relations, with its focusing in Lambeth 1.10. The second is the nature and future of Communion, with its focus being the Windsor Report and the Windsor/Dromantine process.[15]

Andrew Goddard has written a perceptive commentary on these intersections.[16] With trepidation, I will attempt to build on their ideas by describing this quadrant of responses and also developing it, including titles for the four groups and examples of names of people and groups within them.

The vertical line intersecting the quadrant concerns Resolution 1.10 of the 1998 Lambeth Conference:[17] to the right are those in favour of it, and to the left those against. The horizontal line intersecting the quadrant concerns the Windsor Report and Dromantine Communiqué:[18] above the line are those in favour of it, and below the line are those against it.

1. ‘Federal Conservatives’, in the bottom right, consists of those who are conservative on sexual ethics but who do not consider highly the ecclesiology of the Windsor Report and especially its warnings against transprovincial interventions. They would not be unhappy with the demotion of the Anglican Communion to a Federation of Anglican Churches. Examples of this group may be the Anglican Mission in America, which began with transprovincial consecrations, parts of the American Anglican Council and the Archbishops of Nigeria and of Sydney.[19]

2. ‘Communion Conservatives’, in the top right, consists of those who are conservative on sexual ethics but have a high regard for the ecclesiology and the recommendations of the Windsor Report. They are keen to hold to the concept of Communion. Examples of this group may be Fulcrum and the Anglican Communion Institute and the Bishop of Pittsburgh.[20]

3. ‘Communion Liberals’, in the top left, consists of those who are liberal on sexual ethics but have a high regard for the ecclesiology set out in the Windsor Report, if not all its recommendations. Examples of this group may be the Bishop of Virginia and the centre of the Special Commission of ECUSA.[21]

4. ‘Federal Liberals’, in the bottom left, consists of those who are liberal on sexual ethics and have a low regard for the ecclesiology set out in the Windsor Report and many of its recommendations. Examples of this group may be Integrity USA and the Bishop of Washington.[22]

Concerning the Anglican Covenant proposed by the Windsor Report, which recently has had some preliminary shape given to it,[23] groups 1 and 4 are likely to be against it and groups 2 and 3 for it.

It seems to me that the Global South Anglican movement[24] and Anglican Communion Network movement,[25] and the Anglican Mainstream movement[26] (and all three are movements, rather than just groups), include some in groups 1 and 2, though more, perhaps, in group 1. They straddle the two and responses to the outcome of the General Convention will depend a lot on the resolution of this tension.”

And I’ve fleshed out the definitions in various articles:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/4850/
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3096/
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3117/
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/3082/

Kyounge, back to your question.  One of the themes that I wrote about last year in the “Six Themes to Observe” article was this one:

“1) Some Anglican entities greatly desire that the Anglican Communion not discipline ECUSA at all.

This seems, at first, like a no-brainer. Obviously, Bishop Griswold, Bishop Schori, some 60% to 80% of the House of Bishops, and many many many clergy, along with the approximately 20% of the laity who are Worthy Opponents [remember that the Beloved Moderates just hope everyone will go back to sleep], desire that ECUSA not be disciplined at all.

Furthermore, the hierarchies of power in Wales, Scotland, Canada, South Africa, and Brazil, along with many bishops and clergy in the Church of England . . . greatly desire that ECUSA not be disciplined at all.

That’s sort of an “obvious” statement. Naturally, those fearless church leaders who support the revisal of society’s definitions of sexual morality wish that ECUSA’s current hierarchy would remain an influential and leading figure within the Communion and within the US. Even those bishops who aren’t so keen on redefining sexual morality recognize that it would be “awfully inconvenient” for the Anglican Communion to discipline ECUSA, as it would force them, sadly, to make choices rather than simple peacefully and restfully “be”. ; > )

But also we need to understand that many conservative Anglican entities and individuals hope that ECUSA will not be disciplined by the Anglican Communion.

They hope this for many reasons.

Some believe that the Anglican Communion is also hopelessly revisionist, and believe that any attempts to discipline and boundary the Anglican Communion further is but “placing a ring in the nose of a pig”.

Some believe that, if only traditional Episcopalians would give up on the Anglican Communion, all of them/us [traditional Episcopalians] would leave, join with the rest of the conservative Anglicans, and build a better “alternate communion”.

And some hope for the fracture of the Anglican Communion, and recognize that the only hope for a significant fracture of the Anglican Communion will be if certain parties—the Global South, for instance—realize that ECUSA will not be disciplined. Once a fracture of the Anglican Communion occurs, some believe that they will achieve a more central, prominent, and powerful place in the new, reconstituted, traditional fragment of the former communion than they have otherwise achieved.”

We earnestly desire the healing of our beloved Communion but not at the cost of re-writing the Bible to accommodate the latest cultural trend.

From Archbishop Akinola:  http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/5158

What Anglican category would you place Archbishop Akinola?

I think the FedCom/ComCon has many definitions depending on who is speaking.  According to Graham Kings definition above which I accept as a good definition, I am absolutely without a doubt a die hard ComCon!  However, because I do not put institutional unity above unity with Christ, many ComCons would consider me to be a FedCom.  As Hosea very astutely pointed out above (9/6 5:46AM), the issue of a real and visible ecclesiology is not so clear cut.  For every single one of us, to declare unity with one branch consequentially proclaims disunity with another branch.  According to G. Kings definition, anyone who considers ecclesial unity important could be considered a ComCon, and yet these ComCons could all claim to be united in communion even when in fact they are divided from other ComCons in other communions and have been for over a thousand years.  A true ComCon would be both Orthodox (big O) and Catholic (big C) and would devote their lives to the reunification of the “one holy catholic and apostolic church”.  Unless one does this, then it seems all arguments for remaining in communion with this or that will necessarily mean being out of communion with yet another this or that.  The net result then boils down to a Ken-L-Ration jingle which goes… “My dog’s better than your dog, my dog’s better than yours…” 

Which is why I now consider myself to be a PomPom!

I think ++Akinola is a PomPom like me. 

rob-roy, spencer, Hosea 6:6 & Sarah, thank you for your answers. That clarifies things somewhat.

Timothy, thank you, and vaya con Dios

Br_er Rabbit wrote:

Yes, both Comcon and Fedcon would be worthy additions to the StandFirm Lexicon. With the host of commenters using these terms, a satisfactory locus should be now discernible for the intent of these tems.

and maybe also PomPom, which IIRC means undecided and/or “none of the above”.

Sarah Hey wrote:

My estimation is that about 1/3 of the leading FedCons are FOR separation from Canterbury and hope that that occurs, along with a split in the Communion

Maybe the 1/3 who favor a split could be referred to as “Anglican Separatists” to differentiate them from the FedCons who hope for reform of the current Communion. I’ve several times seen on Stand Firm the assertion that ComCons and FedCons really want the same thing but disagree about how to get it. Maybe that’s so, unless the FedCon in question is also an Anglican Separatist.

Sarah, is it possible that the healing cannot begin until the split actually happens? The wounds we are inflicting on one another are deep indeed.  I can see a process of at least 10 years, maybe 20, in which healing and then convergence can take place. I base this on the so-far unsupported position that those left behind in TEC will come to dislike what they have, i.e., I think that the gay agenda will eventually wear thin and Christians without the gay uber alles spirit will tire of it.

from the Briar Patch,

rob-roy wrote:

I do not prefer seperation from the ABC and I don’t see it happening. The Common Cause partners will set up a super-CANA or convocation with a college of bishops. Seitz points out that only a handful of TEC bishops will bolt. No problem! We seem to have some new ones now who are good and faithful and have a heart for mission. These will be considered irregular for a “season.” (snip) There will be a blurry transition from irregular to regular with full recognition of the convocation by the next ABC.

My concern is that recent actions will produce a separation, even if that is not what the people taking the actions, or those on whose behalf they act, want to accomplish. I worry that the work of the Primates (Windsor/Dar/Covenant) is being short-circuited and not allowed to do what it was intended to do. I am also not as optimistic as you that the irregular status of the new bishops will be temporary. They have no way to induce other provinces to recognize them, and the next ABC (whoever and whenever) is a completely unknown quantity. It’s impossible to say whether he will regularize them or not. I don’t know why it was considered advisable to make new bishops before the 9/30 deadline, when the HoB’s final word, and the ABC’s and other Primates’ responses to it, are still unknown. And while I do not at all suggest that the GS Primates and bishops to go back on their word, I wish they hadn’t said they weren’t coming to Lambeth if TEC did. If the unrepentant TEC bishops’ invitations are not withdrawn and the GS stays away, who will oppose watering down the Covenant to more useless fudge, instead of something that might actually make it possible to discipline erring provinces (whether TEC now or others in the future)? These actions, I fear, make an eventual split more likely rather than less.

I hope that if the HoB’s final word is a rejection of all aspects of the Dar Communique and Pastoral Scheme (as I expect that it will be), that the remaining orthodox bishops in TEC will in response take some action that moves ahead along the path already laid out by the Primates. TEC claims to value its place in the Communion, but then goes off and flouts the requests of the rest of the Anglican world. The remaining faithful bishops will, I think, have a chance this fall to demonstrate what it really looks like to value the Communion and desire to remain part of it.

I worry that the work of the primates (Windsor/Dar/Covenant) is being short-circuited and not allowed to do what it was intended to do.

Was it not the TEC HOB who short-circuited the work of Dar earlier this year?  Was it not PB KJS who refused to submit candidates for the PV for APO?  Was it not +++Rowan who refused to push forward on the APO after PB KJS ignored the deadline?

Please, please, please be fair and balanced as to who is really short-circuiting the work of the primates.  There is no moral equivalency here.  None.

TUaD wrote:

as it not the TEC HOB who short-circuited the work of Dar earlier this year?  Was it not PB KJS who refused to submit candidates for the PV for APO?  Was it not +++Rowan who refused to push forward on the APO after PB KJS ignored the deadline?

Please, please, please be fair and balanced as to who is really short-circuiting the work of the primates.  There is no moral equivalency here.  None.

To the best of my knowledge you are correct to say that nobody has been nominated for the Pastoral Council yet. I don’t know if we can say that the HoB has already short-circuited the process, since they were given until 9/30 to respond and it’s not 9/30 yet, but I do not expect them to comply with the moratoria, or KJS to nominate her two Council members. I suppose the HoB may be working up an alternate plan which they will offer to the ABC in New Orleans. I don’t expect this but it’s impossible to know for sure. I hope that the others who are supposed to be nominating Council members are just waiting until 9/30, and will present their nominees shortly after that if the HoB’s final response is negative. I’ve just re-read the end of the DeS communique, and the Council is to consist of “up to” five members, two nominated by the Primates and the Chair, a Primate chosen by the ABC. I think this means that if KJS does not take her opportunity to nominate anyone, that the Council can be formed anyway.

I agree with you that there is no moral equivalency. TEC’s actions violate scriptural principles. Making bishops or skipping the Lambeth conference do not. But I do think that both TEC’s actions and some of the recent responses to them make a split in the Communion more likely. I expect no better from TEC, but I hope for responses to TEC’s acts that will help to hold the Communion together, not break it apart.

I am called to mind lately about my experiences in the third grade in an elementary school in San Diego, CA. It seems to have certain resemblances to the situation now at hand in the Anglican Communion. I will frame it as a parable, although it is a true story.

Once upon a time, there was a school for young children which had a very large playground area. At recess and lunch times, many children of several different grades were released to the playground while their teachers took their breaks in the staff room.

Although there was nominally an assigned playground monitor to maintain order among the children, she was seldom seen, and no one was sure who was going to be on duty on any given day. The larger and older children found that they could get their own way with the playground equipment by intimidating the smaller and younger children. Several bullies emerged, that would singly or in small groups attempt to force the other children to do things their way whether they liked it or not.

When one of the smaller children could find the playground monitor, she or he would complain about unjust treatment, or being hit or restrained or having a ball taken away. But the usual response of the playground monitor was to admonish the child to try to get along with the other children: “You must listen to the others,” she would say.

If the child complained a second time, a “tail” was pinned to his or her clothing that the child was forced to wear for the remainder of recess or lunch. Then the hapless child would be beset by the bullies who would follow him or her around pointing, laughing, and calling out, “Tattle tale! Tattle tail!”

The younger and smaller children did not know what to do. Some of the bolder ones, who had been beaten up once or twice by the bullies, got together and talked it over. Peter was the boldest one. He said, “Look, there’s always six or eight of us, why don’t we band together?  Let’s form our own protection club. We can call ourselves the Defenders. As soon as one of these bullies starts to pick on a smaller or weaker kid, someone can run to tell us and we’ll all show up to gather around the kid and protect him or her.”

And so they did. Since the playground monitor was seldom if ever seen, they had no interference with their plan. Boys and girls who had been afraid to go outside could now go to the playground, knowing that there was at least somone who would stick up for them when they were being bullied.

Peter was the hero after that. Everyone admired him. The children thought that Peter should be named as the playground monitor. But they knew that would never happen, because only a teacher could be a monitor. And the teachers did not seem to care.

It could have been worse. The teachers and the bullies could have joined forces to compel the weaker children to submit to the stronger ones.

I am afraid that is what we now have in TEC. The bullies in TEC who want to force through their own worldview and control the playthings are doing what they want with impunity, for they have gained control of the organization. The distressed members of TEC have complained to the wider AC, but the AC has done nothing. The leader of the AC has even brought out a report, saying, “See, they’re really in compliance. You just need to get along with them.”

But we can band together. And we have our own Peter—too bold for some, but ready to protect the weaker members of TEC who have been defeated by the political process.

Lead, Follow, or Get Out Of The Way.

from the Briar Patch,

kyounge,
In the realm of human nature, it seems to me that right behavior is only manifest when people know the consequences of their actions.  A baby might easily stick a fork into an electrical outlet not knowing what he is doing.  A child who knows that he gets a quick pop, will be less likely to do so.  The same is true for adults.  If I have never made known an expectation that marriage is to be faithful, then the unfaithful spouse claims ignorance.  TEC routinely acts as though these “bonds of affection” which bind us together (described in Windsor), are not part of our Anglican way.  They taut the “autonomous” province and ignore these interdependent bonds.  This is not unlike the unfaithful spouse claiming ignorance.  The importance of Windsor, Dromantine, DES, Road to Lambeth, boundary crossings, irregular consecrations, and a whole host of other actions both in word and deed, are that they show to those who threaten the Anglican Communion that there will be serious consequences for such actions.  They are like warnings from the faithful spouse to the unfaithful spouse that such actions are out of bounds.  Some of these words have been aimed at TEC, and sadly it seems to have become necessary that some of these words be directed at the ABC as a result of his behavior in and since Tanzania.  All these words and deeds are an attempt to influence behavior in a right direction.  If so, then these “irregular consecrations” can be a very good thing for promoting Anglican unity! 

I know some criticize such actions as issuing threats, but it all depends on your perspective.  One could just as easily claim that a godly mother who disciplines her child is just issuing threats.  On could claim that the faithful spouse is being to demanding, or worse controlling.  However, those who know the absolute need for discipline know this to be false.  Discipline is, after all, a mark of the church.  In our dysfunctional Anglican family, such discipline is not as proper as it should be, yet better for there to be improper discipline than no discipline.

Somehow this lengthy thread has become a sort of discussion of exactly how half-empty the glass is.  Interesting but not terribly productive.

There are in fact only two real possibilities:

1) ECUSA is not disciplined in any meaningful way by the Communion.  The GS distances itself from the rest of the Communion and continues/increases its support of North American orthodoxy via the various Common Cause groups.

2) ECUSA’s status within the Communion is severely reduced or it is effectively ejected altogether.  The _Primates as a body develop some sort of collegial entity (probably based on Dar) to provide oversight and structure, and gradually (probably a decade or more) the various faithful Anglican entities are reintegrated.

One could speculate endlessly about either possibility.  Clearly, though, the second scenario is the one nearly all of us would prefer.  Equally clearly the decisions of the _Primates will determine which one comes to pass.  Moreover, we know that the _Primates can be roughly divided into the Global South group (viz. Nairobi), the TEC Communion (Canada, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, probably Japan and NZ, and several others), and the moderate middle leaning one way or the other.  So the moderates will be the key to determining Communion action.  And +++Rowan will be a principal factor influencing the moderates—as Hylden points out (eeek! a mention of the Actual Topic!!!).

So rather than accuse the ABC of sneakiness (which I find implausible in the extreme), it might be more productive at this time to reflect that he finds himself in a difficult and unprecedented position, that he is receiving great pressure both from the GS and from the fanatically revisionist Anglican Communion Office (not to mention 815 itself), that he is absolutely unwilling to make any sort of crucial decision unilaterally (which would be against both his personal inclination and his conciliar Anglican ecclesiology), and that at this late date he needs all the help and support he can get to move the ECUSA mess to a Godly conclusion. 

Or would we prefer to continue to argue about what we should do if the worst happens, and what the _Primates might do if the disaster occurs, and how many bits of flotsam will be left when the ship sinks?

Grabbing for the flotsam,

from the Briar Patch,

Craig writes, “So rather than accuse the ABC of sneakiness…” Sneakiness was Prof Seitz’s word, nobody else’s. I did say that he should not be regarded as trustworthy in the eyes of the orthodox. I say this without ill will, matter of factly, for the reasons given by my chronology above. Both Matt and Sarah agreed with his untrustworthiness.  They are in the “very much in the know” category of all things Anglican as opposed to my “fairly in the know” rating. They are on opposite sides of the con fence.  Thus, there is a preponderance of evidence that the ABC is not trustworthy.

Craig,
The ABC has shown his true colors in Tanzania.  After that if there were any doubt remaining, the ABC obliterated that with the preemptive Lambeth invitations.  The ABC is in no more difficult position than each and every one of us is in every day.  We all must try our best in every situation to choose the way of Christ.  Sometimes this means actually following the Word of God.  Imagine that…  If ++Williams were to do what scripture commands him to do, then his choice is not difficult at all.  It is abundantly clear to even the most casual observer what he must do.  But, he does not want to.  He has his own agenda which he has tried to mask through the cloak of Anglican ecclesiology.  True Anglican ecclesiology has already met and decided “in council” that TEC is to be disciplined.  Rowan cannot accept the decisions the Anglican church has made.  Therefore, he is attempting to thrwart the mind of the Communion.  Make no mistake; he is NOT to be trusted!