The Rev. Canon Robert J. Brooks: Who Can Expel the Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion?

The only written constitution of the Anglican Communion makes it clear that neither the primates nor the Archbishop of Canterbury acting alone can legally “alter the schedule” of Provinces of the Communion listed in the ACC Constitution. Any claim or threat to the contrary has no constitutional standing.

1.  The mere fact that they’re trotting this out shows that they’re running scared.

2.  I don’t disagree with their legal/polity analysis.

3.  Is there anything in this Constitution of the ACC that says that the ABC can’t revoke Lambeth invitations?

The ACC is the navel of Communion navel gazers.  And while they are busy annointing their navel as the AC constitution, with characteristic legerdemain, the primates, ABC and others will move ahead with the covenant.

If these ideas for new structures are so compelling, they should be brought by their advocates to the next meeting of the ACC in 2009 as proposed amendments to the ACC Constitution. The proponents can then take their chances on others agreeing with them in a free and open debate in the ACC, and should they be passed, in the General Synods of all the Provinces, with 2/3 required for ratification. It is past time to return to the rule of law, not “men” (which I am using explicitly since that is who the proponents are), and stop acquiescing to bullies who loudly assert new structures without submitting to the written constitutional framework unanimously put in place for this purpose by all the Provinces.

Yes, dear Faithful, please do wait until 2009, and then wait some more for each province’s General Synod to pass an ACC Constitutional Amendment, and then wait to see if there is a 2/3rds majority, and then wait to see if it’ll be enforced.

WAIT FOR T

Didn’t get to finish.

WAIT FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT!!!

AT LEAST WAIT FOR THE DRAFT COVENANT TO PASS!!!

JUST WAIT!!!!  EVERYTHING WILL BE FINE!!!

I’ll jump in early on this one. This analysis is proof of the problem with TEC and much of the Anglican Communion in the “Global North”.  Constitutions, councils, conventions…all trump scriptural truth; democracy trumps orthodoxy. 

According to the Constitution of the ACC Brooks is probably correct. Everything that has happened in the way of separation and definition on the part of the orthodox is probably out of bounds and contradicts the “authority” of the ACC (which, if you take Brook’s reappraising tack, now is infallible). 

So?  I’ll take 2/3 of the Primates, primatial vicars, “illegally” consecrated bishops, new provinces and the authority of scripture (not necessarily in that order) any day.

The Anglican/Democratic/Constitutional ecclesiastical experiment has failed.  “For God so loved the world he didn’t send a committee.”  It is time for us to walk away from the frankenstein that has been built up as a church and once again be the Church. Certainly there will be some documents and procedures, but some things can never be up for a vote.

The comments after Brooks’ article say all that needs to be said.  Jake and Co. are ecstatic to have this information out in the open.  I really think they believe that the Holy Spirit is moved by the votes and paperwork of man. 

I pray that we can have some type of amicable divorce in the near future.  With what I have been reading from our worthy opponents, I guess it will not be so.

The Episcopal Church explicitly acknowledges that the Anglican Consultative Council is the body through whose authority all the work of the Anglican Communion is done

Because it happens to be a body that TEC controls? Big surprise.

Why am I not surprised that they come to the conclusion that the only instrument of unity that can kick the TEC out is the one that is teeming with liberals, the ACC, and as such would never do such a thing? It is a sad commentary that the AC is so impotent that they cannot bring themselves to kick out a member that has defied Lambeth, Windsor, Dromantine, One third of and soon to be three thirds of DeS, but rather they try to pass a covenant so that the TEC can kick itself out. The fact is that 15 of the 29 provinces are not in communion with the TEC.

“Polity” question: isn’t the ACC constituted based on province membership?  As in, isn’t council membership based on how many parishioners each province has?  That would seem to be a more fair shake than either Lambeth (in which TEC and other withering provinces have an over-abundance of bishops, with TEC apparently having upwards of 200 present and former bishops) or even the primates’ council, in which both Nigeria and the US have one vote.

Of course, there is apparently this ACC liberal bureaucracy, but can’t they be over-ridden when push comes to shove?  The Global South should just continue on its track but be exceedingly careful not to breach bonds of affection across the whole communion, then just formalize reality in 2009.  If TEC stays around until then in impaired communion, who cares.

What is seriously lacking in this analysis is the following, FULL clause on the membership roster (3a):

The Council shall be constituted with a membership according to the schedule hereto. With the assent of two-thirds of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, the council may alter or add to the schedule. “Primates,” for the purposes of this article, shall mean the principle Archbishop, bishop, or Primates of each of the bodies listed in paragraphs b,c and d of the schedule of membership.

Despite the conclusion the ACC decides who’s in or out of the Anglican Communion, the ACC’s own constitution says merely that, with approval from GC’s and/or Primates, the membership list is a list of who is a member of the ACC, not who is a member of the AC.

Antique, that is a most excellent insight!

It is my fervent hope that the Episcopal Church USA does not need to be kicked out of the Anglican Communion, and that it listen to its brothers and sisters who are telling us that we need to stay away from Lambeth 2008 for the safety of our brothers and sisters, especially those in Africa, who are very much in my prayers. I think that ECUSA should cease and desist with all lawsuits, depositions, etc. and agree to refrain from attending Lambeth 2008. I pray that ECUSA’s house of bishops will not act out of arrogant arrogation of power and will listen to what our brothers and sisters, both here and abroad, as trying to say to us.
Your brother in Christ,
Clark

The Tanzania meeting of the Primates defined a deadline of September 30, 2007, for the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church to violate the Constitution of its own Church to accede to the two actions demanded in the ultimatum. As noted previously, this ultimatum from the Primates has no constitutional legality in the Communion itself because the ACC Constitution would have to be amended by October 1 to remove The Episcopal Church from the constitutional schedule of Provinces in order to deliver on their threat. ...

It is time to insist upon a return to the written constitutional framework as the context for discussion of the life and mission of the Anglican Communion. The message to others about the ACC Constitution is simple: Either obey it or amend it. 

The immediate question now becomes:  How much influence does this polity analysis have upon +++Rowan Williams?

What will he do???

The GS primates at the Kenya consecrations are clear:  Divine Scripture trumps any constitution.  But does +++Rowan also believe that Divine Scripture trumps any constitution too?

No problem waiting a little while longer.  But much kudos for the ACN meeting this summer to do a little contingency planning.

ECUSA appealing to lawfulness?!?  Remember, today is the feast of Paul Jones.  If you do not know his story, read it.  Then ask yourself why he is in LFF, and ask yourself what has happened to ECUSA between then and now. 

I have to say that this is all a bit surreal to see ECUSA saying, let’s stop doing whatever we feel like doing, and do things the way they are supposed to be done.  Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser.

Wow, Clark West! If only others had ears to hear.

It should be noted that for better or worse, the Communion’s Constitution, like Mother England’s, is unwritten, but the vast majority of its members know exactly what it says.

Note two more points: the ACC does not determine its own budget, and the ACC’s mission is whatever the ABC and the _Primates say it is…

A final point—I recall reading something to the effect that at the last ACC meeting, where the _Primates were made permanent members and ECUSA presented the risible To Set Our Hope ..., there was a motion to delete all mention of ECUSA from the bylaws and related documents; the motion failed, but not by much.  (I can’t find the reference, so it may be retrospective wishful thinking.  But in any case, the rest of the meeting’s actions show no particular deferential affection for ECUSA.)

Rev. Brooks’ procedural argument, and Fr. Jake’s joy at having discovered a “trump card” by which the reappraisers can defeat the rejection of TEC’s defiance by the Communion, is so sad. Procedure is a means to an end, not the end in itself. This procedural argument is a little like the Pharisees rejecting Jesus’ healing on the Sabbath. This argument is also a little like the C.S. Lewis novel “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader”, wherein the King of Narnia visits a remote island over which he is also King. After the King’s long absence, the local governor is essentially disloyal. When the King arrives and demands that the governor account, the governor tries to defeat him by claiming that the King cannot have an appointment until the following week!

In essence, this is Rev. Brooks argument. Procedure trumps substance. Of course, we all know that when TEC wants to do something, they can do it. Just examine B-033…

Polity, polity, polity, bullies, polity, high road, polity, polity, bullies, polity, votes, polity, process, polity, polity.

More pleasure polity from the folks who give polity all of its pleasure.

Everybody feel better yet?

yeah, rob-roy, I agree. Seems like we gotta get the turnips out of our ears, or as my daughter says when she plays with her doctor kit, (which I suspect you as a doctor yourself might appreciate), ‘daddy, time to get elmo and big bird our of your ears!’ I’m afraid I still have a few beasties crawling in there giving me fits!!
Your brother in Christ,
Clark

BTW, now that Cantuar is done with his sabbatical/vacation/strategic disappearance, would it not be reasonable to expect some kind of statement from him regarding the tempest that has raging away while he was kicked back in the library with a good book? Just wondering…..

the snarkster

Amen, brother Clark.

snarkster, the brass library at Georgetown is really cool and you’d want to spend time there too if you had the opportunity.

It is time to insist upon a return to the written constitutional framework as the context for discussion of the life and mission of the Anglican Communion. The message to others about the ACC Constitution is simple: Either obey it or amend it. (emphasis mine)

Since when has TEC been in the business of being obedient or amending a %$#@%#@$ing thing!  We disobey our own constitution and canon and use maneuvering to circumvent the tedious process of amendment.  Such pompous statement tee me off!

If +++Rowan cites this Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Counci as tying his hands, and if he refuses to revoke Lambeth Invitations to TEC, and if he insists that the Draft Covenant must be ratified before any informal or formal disciplinary measures take place, then the Anglican Communion will probably, should, and must split.

It’s absurdedly ridiculous already for the situation to have gone on as long as it has.  To mock God and His Glory and Holiness even further would be more of an unholy travesty for His faithful in the Anglican Communion.

Christ >>> Institution of the Anglican Communion.

I’m not sure I agree.  The Anglican Communion is worth trying to preserve and strengthen if it can be done.  It has to proceed by the rules.  We expect TEC to play the rules, so we have to expect nothing less from ourselves.  I don’t think Williams is playing underhanded games, he’s just not a strong leader.

If Lambeth isn’t canceled and TEC remains invited, that’s still not the end of the game.  I know we all want results now, but that may not be in the cards.  If the ACC can get us results (via ACC resolution and assent by the primates), that must be considered, and there needs to be some respect for the polity, as much as we may feel like we got abused by it in TEC.  The alternative is congregationalism.

The Anglican Communion is worth trying to preserve and strengthen if it can be done.

Absolutely, absolutely.  That’s a mighty big IF.  Souls are at eternal risk.  God’s Glory is not a trifling matter.  Look at what Jesus did with the moneychangers and how they dishonored and profaned God’s House.

The alternative is congregationalism.

I’m not sure about that.  A little hyperbolic.

Am I confused or don’t I remember that last year or before the ACC expelled TEC from all committies and right to vote?  They were given observer status?

In particular, the Primates request, through the Presiding Bishop, that the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144); and
2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134);
unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion (cf TWR, §134).

The Primates request that the answer of the House of Bishops is conveyed to the Primates by the Presiding Bishop by 30th September 2007.

If the reassurances requested of the House of Bishops cannot in good conscience be given, the relationship between The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion as a whole remains damaged at best, and this has consequences for the full participation of the Church in the life of the Communion.

What are the consequences and when will the consequences be applied if TEC does not repent in good conscience by 9/30/07?

What’s the point of writing in a date for compliance if there are no or toothless consequences? 

+++ Rowan signed off on this.  Why not revoke TEC’s Lambeth invitations?

Regarding congregationalism—I was saying that the alternative to having great respect for polity is congregationalism, not that a split means congregationalism.

Of course this is all part of the crisis, but it is a little concerning that the moment an article like the above comes out, so many folks start ridiculing polity.  Part of the issue here is whether we can create a polity in which we see Christ’s work done even where we disagree with it.  Unfortunately, part of being an apostolic church is knowing that we must adhere to it even when we disagree about some things. 

The problem here, of course, is that TEC hasn’t submitted and is threatening to stick around and make us have to make tough decisions.  But, that being said, we do need to understand the value of our common life and that each church doesn’t get to decide for itself what the Bible means.  The ACC is part of that, as long as it is a player in good faith.

I think we need a real discussion of how the ACC works here.  Like it or not, I don’t think the whole thing is going to be resolved by Lambeth 2008 one way or another, and we shouldn’t talk as if it is without knowing what might happen after that conference.

To add, I don’t mean to sound snippy, and I think writing posts quickly can lead to that.  I’m sure most of us Anglicans agree that we must formulate a common life together that reflects a robust, orthodox Christian faith.  But, frustration with this increasingly exasperating situation shouldn’t lead us to forget that an apostolic church means that we all must submit to it at times when we disagree and that we must at least adhere to the Church structures.

Regardless of what Williams thinks about this deep down, he does have a role to play as arbiter and to enunciate clearly how the Church operates.  He also must occasionally submit to polity (such as the Dar es Salaam decision).  He is just not doing those parts of the job adequately right now.  We must continue to pray for him and the Church.

Like it or not, I don’t think the whole thing is going to be resolved by Lambeth 2008 one way or another, and we shouldn’t talk as if it is without knowing what might happen after that conference.

Kick the can to Lambeth 2008?  How about then kicking the can after that to GC 2009?  What’s another year?

Some folks were thinking that primates meeting in Tanzania 2007 would bring ultimate clarity.  No dice.  Told to wait until 9/30/07.

Now you must wait until Lambeth 2008.  Ooops, check that.  Must wait until 2/3 rds ratification of any amendment to the Anglican Consultative Council’s Constitution.  But the ACC is just one instrument out of four instruments in the Instruments of Unity.

An all-primates meeting shortly after 9/30/07.  Announcement that Lambeth Invitations are reconfigured due to unnrepentant non-compliance.  Those are the 2 most important steps that +++ Rowan can take to try and keep the Communion together.

Here is what I would like to see happen.  This is all wishful (prayerful) thinking on my part.

1.  Primates meeting sometime in Oct 2007.  They declare TECUSA out of compliance with Windsor, Nottingham, and Tanzania.  A situation of broken communion exists between TECUSA and the Anglican Communion.  +Cantuar recinds the Lambeth ‘08 invitations for either non-Windsor bishops (preferably) or all TECUSA bishops.

2.  +Cantuar and Primates anounce that they will accept as a provisional member (pending validation at the next ACC meeting) a province in the USA that is composed of the American African bishops with one of them (+Duncan) as the primate.  These bishops will receive invitations to Lambeth and +Duncan will be seated as a Primate with voice and vote at the Primates Meetings.  +Shori will also be invited to attend as primate of TECUSA provided that she stops the lawsuits and allows parishes, dioceses, clergy, and bishops to transfer to the new province if they desire.  Otherwise, neither she nor any other TECUSA bishop will be invited to any communion wide event.
3.  Lambeth ‘08 will focus on the covenant and all member provinces will be expected to ratify the covenant at their next legislative meeting.  Those that do now will be removed from the ACC and will not receive invitations to any communion wide events.

4.  TECUSA realizes how important their membership in the Anglican Communion is and puts mechanisms in place that ban public blessings of ssu’s and will not ordain any more practicing homosexuals until TECUSA can persuade the rest of the communion that this new teaching more accurately reflects the Mind of God.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

Dear Philip Snyder,

From your heart and mind, to your keyboard, over the internet, to +++Rowan’s computer monitor, and then to his heart and mind, for decisive action.

Communion saved.

If not, then Communion split.

Phillip Snyder, even if it all played out as you pray, I can assure you that TEC will still proclaim that they are the only Anglican province and that they are still in the AC.  The pewpotatoes that I know would believe them.  Then what? raise an army and go in?

Why am I not surprised that they come to the conclusion that the only instrument of unity that can kick the TEC out is the one that is teeming with liberals, the ACC, and as such would never do such a thing?

Because, “democratic” and teeming with liberals as it may be, the ACC is the only body that so far has taken decisive steps to throw ECUSA and ACCanada out, permantently, once and for all. 

point—I recall reading something to the effect that at the last ACC meeting, where the _Primates were made permanent members and ECUSA presented the risible To Set Our Hope ..., there was a motion to delete all mention of ECUSA from the bylaws and related documents; the motion failed, but not by much.

Right. at the last ACC meeting in Nottingham, the Global South took command of the Agenda, and raised a motion from the floor to throw both ECUSA and Canada out.  The motion did not fail—- rather it was withdrawn after a (foolish?) plea from the ABC that Natural Justice meant that ECUSA had to be able to make a response at its General Convention (rather than take the actions of ECUSA in electing Gene as a clear decision to abandon not only the Communion by also Christ). Anyway, the Global South accepted this strategy, and so the motion was not put to the vote.

When the ACC meets again in 2009 after Lambeth, there can be no doubt that ECUSA will be thrown out and replaced with just one representative nominated by the Network.
Of course the ABC can invite whoever he likes to Lambeth: Methodists, Orthodox and Catholic and Muslim observers, an ECUSA delegation if he wants, but the ACC constitution is the document that says who is in the Communion (even if the English don’t like this because they don’t like written consitutions).

Frankly, I’ve always thought the ACC constitution actually worked very well, and there was no need for a Covenant (other than, well, to help liberal “churches” stay in the communion). There was a clear majority to throw ECUSA and Canada out in the Nottingham meeting; a majority that will only have incrased as ECUSA continues its racist actions and policies. Had ECUSA been expelled in 2005, then this mess would all have been over - and the important job of the Anglicans suing to get the property back from ECUSA could have begun in earnest.

My own analysis - and refutation - of Canon Brooks’ memorandum is here:

http://reader.classicalanglican.net/?p=1118

Frustration understood, TUAD.

And now for a pessimistic look at the ACC:

This is the composition of the ACC, courtesy anglicancommunion.org:

The membership of the council shall be as follows:

The Archbishop of Canterbury

Three persons from each of the following, consisting of one bishop, one priest, and one layperson:

Anglican Church of Australia
Anglican Church of Canada
Church of England
Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)
Church of the Province of Rwanda
Church of the Province of Southern Africa
Church of South India
Church of the Province of Uganda
Episcopal Church (United States of America)

Two persons from each of the following, consisting of one bishop or one priest plus one layperson:

Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia
Church of the Province of Central Africa
Province of the Anglican Church of Congo
Church of Ireland
Anglican Church of Kenya
Church of North India
Church of Pakistan
Episcopal Church of the Sudan
Anglican Church of Tanzania
Church in Wales
Church in the Province of the West Indies

One person (preferably lay) from each of the following:

Church of Bangladesh
Episcopal Anglican Church of Brasil
Church of the Province of Burundi
Anglican Church of the Central America Region
Church of Ceylon
Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui
Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean
Nippon Sei Ko Kai (Anglican Communion in Japan)
Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East
Anglican Church in Korea
Church of the Province of Melanesia
Anglican Church of Mexico
Church of the Province of Myanmar
Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea
Episcopal Church in the Philippines
Anglican Church of the Southern Cone of America
Scottish Episcopal Church
Church of the Province of Southeast Asia
Church of the Province of West Africa

Rough guess is I count 26 definite yes votes to kick out TEC, out of 58 total.  I count 17 most likely no (Canada, England, TEC, Australia, Wales, Ireland, Scotland), which is 29% already.  Who knows about the rest.  All TEC needs is 18 votes and it can’t get kicked out.  So, as a practical matter, the ACC isn’t going to do anything in all likelihood.

The only fence-sitter I see is Australia, and I really don’t think they care enough to kick out TEC.  Shoot, ++Aspinall invited Spong to speak, even if to foster dialogue.  Now, I’m sure that ++Aspinall is not a secret Spong admirer, but still.  SPONG.

I do firmly believe that the hope of a primates’ meeting at the end of the year to declare TEC out is almost surely not going to happen.  First, there’s been no hint of such meeting from Lambeth Palace since that cryptic remark in South Africa or wherever.  We’ve heard plenty to the contrary since.  Second, and this is so key, the primates have always acted by consensus.  They are a highly collegial group that plainly values this collegiality greatly.  There will not be unanimity to kick out TEC, even if they ask Shori to leave while they take a vote Survivor-style.  Third, there are no bylaws or anything in the primates’ council that would indicate what indicates action taken.  Majority?  2/3?  Everyone but Canada?  I cannot imagine ++Williams would let such a thing happen.  From his perspective, that would potentially be worse than letting Africa and Southern Cone walk.

If Williams won’t do the deed, by the above calculus the only conceivable way to get TEC out once and for all is a covenant that it refuses to sign in 2009.

Dear R&R;,

I’m more short-term focused given the high possibility that there will be a biblical separation occurring if visible, timely disciplinary steps (that are actually within +++Rowan’s purview) are not taken.

Specifically, revocation of TEC’s Lambeth invitations.  If that happens, then and only then is there a possiblity for other hoped-for events and scenarios to occur, such as TEC refusing to sign the Draft Covenant.

First things first.  Revoke TEC’s Lambeth invitations. 

(BTW, I’ve read the Draft Covenant and think it’s pretty mild.  If I were TEC, I’d sign in a heartbeat.)

This whole article is nothing but a lot of legalism. How did Jesus treat those Pharisees who threw this kind of stuff at him? With utter contempt. We need to do the same. Just ignore them. It’s only their desperate efforts to try to scare us. As long as we remain in the truth, as God states it in his Word, then we need have no fear. God is on our side. Let these false teachers continue in their false teachings and lies. They will have to answer to Jesus on their judgement seats. Let’s all just do what we know is right—follow God’s Word and not let this mess of worldly legalism sway us.

The ACC has no authority or jurisdiction: it is a group of people talking at a meeting.

While Canon Brooks is worrrying about what happens de jure, the Anglican Communion will move on de facto. And that will be the answer.

If Williams won’t do the deed, by the above calculus the only conceivable way to get TEC out once and for all is a covenant that it refuses to sign in 2009.

Dear R&R;,

As I mentioned before, I think the prudent course is to focus on revoking TEC’s Lambeth invitations.  With regards to the Covenant proposal, it’s slightly problematic.  Please consider the following excerpts:

o “If the purpose of an Anglican Covenant is to maintain unity, it should forthrightly commit the entire Communion to it by forswearing schism. ...  Its new feature should be a commitment to debate disagreements until a solution appears that gains the acceptance of the Communion.” [Can you say never-ending Listening Process?]

o   “If the Anglican Communion remains true to its past, whatever mechanism is adopted for resolution of interchurch disputes will be administrative only, not adjudicatory. ...  Above all, a covenant would exclude schism as a means of terminating debate. Serious engagement must continue until a matter is resolved. One side cannot say “We have no need of you” and leave, or expel the other.”

From:  http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3784 

(hat tip to MCJ)

If this kind of covenant is adopted… don’t you think it’s farcial?

(BTW, I’ve read the Draft Covenant and think it’s pretty mild.  If I were TEC, I’d sign in a heartbeat.)

If afraid, TU&D;, that even if were tough and thoroughly orthodox, the TEC would sign it it it were in its best interest to do so. Further, having signed it, TEC also would have no hesitation to reject it, again if it were in its best interest. Their track record is quite clear in this regard. They are totally untrustworthy.

I’m more short-term focused given the high possibility that there will be a biblical separation occurring if visible, timely disciplinary steps (that are actually within +++Rowan’s purview) are not taken.

Once again, I think you’re spot on. Too many steps have already been taken, patience is extremely thin, past fudge has created resentment and intolenrance of future fudge. The events of this past weekend were positive signs that the province will been place soon and the GS primates are not going turn the other cheek again to ignore heresy and postacy.

A Canterbury led AC has one chance for survival and its in the specifics you laid out above. And despite the wringing of hands and knashing of teeth and wails that the Anglican Communion is not the Anglican Communion without Canterbury The Orthodox Anglican Communion will survive. This communion is not about men (++Rowan) nor is it about places ( Canterbury), it is about a deep and orthodox belief in God, Jesus Christ, scripture and the faith once delivered to the saints. If Global South and other orthodox primates pull out, they will take the spirit and soul of the Anglican Communion with them leaving nothing but an apostate and heretical shell under the eladership of ABC that will eventually wither and drop off the vine.

+Brooks little revelation is nothing more than another TEC liberal attempt to intimidate the orthodox and perhaps ++Rowan as well. If his premise were spot on (and it has been well refuted) there is nothing, whatsoever, to prevent the orthodox from rejecting the Canterbury Communion and re-establishing the Orhodox Anglican Communion under different leadership.

In fact, it might be a good ploy to start calling it The Canterbury Communion now to distinguish it from orthodox anglicanism.

God’s Will will be done whatever it may be.

First line reads If afraid, TU&D;,... It should read: I’m afraid, TU&D;,...

One thing I disagree with—if the covenant is truly orthodox and word-for-word taken from Dar and Windsor, I doubt TEC will sign it.

Dear R&R;,

Take care of the immediate problem of Lambeth Invitations by revoking TEC’s invites, then and only then do you possess a slender reed of hope that the Communion will stay intact long enough for the possibility of an orthodox covenant to be presented for provincial approval and ratification.

Here’s how it works Reason and Revelation:

1)  TEC goes to Lambeth, Anglican Communion Splits.

2)  TEC disinvited to Lambeth, Anglican Communion might hold.

It can’t get any simpler than that.

Any so-called covenant that has no provision for the discipline of those who violate it ain’t worth toilet paper. TECusaCorp. will simply do as it has always done: Whatever it damn well pleases and then invite everyone to dialogue about it until they decide to agree with TECusaCorp’s enlightened position. Phooey!

the snarkster

I think the focus for now should be to get a second province in - it is the obvious compromise - with an American Church on both “sides” it becomes an easier fight longterm- especially as TEC declines in numbers and becomes even more radicalized.  Remember Rome was not built in a day.

Hi Been There,

Why not simply call the one the “Anglican Communion” and the other the “Confessional Anglican Federation”.  That way we can keep the two straight.

One maybe possible useful pressure point is whether Williams and the Church of England wants the Global South church-planting in England five years from now, starting with African ex-pats.  That would be a little humiliating but an expected outcome of a split.

I love receiving confirmation in indirect ways that a proposed solution is quite good and sound.  Paradoxically, this is called confirmation by non-confirmation.  Or uncomfortable silence and tacit assent.

I put forth that revoking TEC’s Lambeth invitations is the best short-term step to pursue.

Except for “Been There”, others keep talking about a Covenant.

Ergo, the withdrawal of TEC’s Lambeth invitations must be the correct initial disciplinary step!

Because that will be felt the most by TEC!  That will sting the most!  FAR, FAR, FAR more than having near-endless meetings about the wording of a covenant and the process to get it “canonically” approved.

For TEC to be OUTSIDERS looking in hungrily at the once-a-decade Lambeth Tea Party would be a source of tremendous anguish to them.

If you want TEC to eventually repent, and sign the Covenant in good conscience and faith, then the ABC MUST withdraw TEC’s Lambeth Invitations.

That is my reason and my revelation.

Why not simply call the one the “Anglican Communion” and the other the “Confessional Anglican Federation”.  That way we can keep the two straight.

Because deep down inside fedcons believe that schism is worse than heresy? 

<i>Why not simply call the one the “Anglican Communion” and the other the “Confessional Anglican Federation”.  That way we can keep the two straight<i>

Well, this might well be starting another fight here, but your suggestion begs the question as to which one is the “real” Anglican Communion and entitled to use that name.

Assuming we split, and I pray that we do not, should +Rowan get to keep the name “The Anglican Communion” simply because of Canterbury’s relationship, tradition and history?  Would that be the case, even if the split comes because +Rowan sides with heresy and apostacy?

It would seem to me that if the orthodox separate from Canterbury and “take the spirit and soul” of the Anglican Communion with them, they actually would be carrying on traditional orthodox Anglicanism and therefore entitled to the name The Anglican Communion. I inserted Orhtodox as part of that to distinguish it from the “old” but now heretical Anglican Communion. It also might accomodate any legal questions regarding the name.

I don’t really care for the terminology “Federation” because it seems to me that it connotes what the Anglican Communion is today…a loose federation of churches with what used to be common doctrine.

If we are successful at creating a covenant which gives us a common identity within the confines of the faith once delivered, it would seem that we would be more of a “communion” than we are today.

And, at least to me, the word “communion” carries with it a certain religiosity and commonality that is not present in “federation.” However, considering the differences among the Anglo-Catholics, protestants, com cons and fed cons, the word “federation” is not totally inaccurate. Still, I look more at the commonality of those groups rather than the differences and if, despite those differences, we are all willing to come to the table together, we are in communion.

If we altered your suggestion to replace “federation” with “communion,”(i.e, Confessional Anglican Communion) I would find that acceptable to distinguish it from The Anglican Communion.

Quite frankly, though, if GS separates from Canterbury because Canterbury has become heretic and apostate, then I don’t think that Canterbury should call itself The Anglican Communion because it no longer subscribes to the faith once delivered…thus I dubbed it the Canterbury Communion.

  In the end, however, it is not the name that’s important, it’s faith and doctrine.

I put forth that revoking TEC’s Lambeth invitations is the best short-term step to pursue

TU&D;

I think you misread or misunderstand your colleages. I think you and I and many others have agreed in the past that this is the best immediate course and is the single most important step for +Rowan to take if he is concerned about the salvation of the communion. I think the reason you did not get a response, positive or negative, is because we all (or many or most of us) agree on this premise.

Don’t fret, don’t worry…we agree.

DON’T WORRY, BE HAPPY,... Don’t worry, be happy…don’t worry be happy….Source: Big Mouth Billy Bass.

FWIW,
I almost completely agree with TUAD here, when he writes, “For TEC to be OUTSIDERS looking in hungrily at the once-a-decade Lambeth Tea Party would be a source of tremendous anguish to them.” As a reappraiser in this arena’s lingo, I would indeed be in anguish to be cut off from my brothers and sisters in Africa, and here in America as well, whom I have grown to love and respect, but who profoundly disagree with me on these matters. That is why I have argued above for ECUSA, of which I am currently a priest in good standing (is there really such a thing??? I wonder sometimes), to voluntarily withdraw, so that we are not spat out by an angry, righteously angry Anglican Communion for not listening to what we are being told. I am pretty sure I agree that only if ECUSA refrains from forcing its way to Lambeth, and is absent from it, can an orthodox covenant come into being. And I also agree with TUAD’s statement: “(BTW, I’ve read the Draft Covenant and think it’s pretty mild.  If I were TEC, I’d sign in a heartbeat.)” I too would sign it in a heartbeat, but I am afraid that the heated rhetoric on both sides of the aisle has made many of my brothers and sisters in ECUSA fearful of such a move. I think it will take a measured conversation (not endless listening, I hope, but calm, patient listening) to convince the leaders in ECUSA to sign such a document. And I would might sign it even if it meant that ECUSA was subsequently disciplined under its current formulations, for continuing toward full inclusion of gay and lesbians via ordinations, blessings, etc., which I am also in favor of. Discipline, as my friend and brother in the faith Ephraim Radner has been teaching me for many years, is a gift from God, one that I have found to be the very way into the heart of the gospel—my saviour Jesus Christ.
Now all of this may very well be pie in the sky, the thought of ECUSA doing any of what I am proposing. I admit it, I am a bit of a dreamer. And I won’t bother you all over here too much more with such dreams, as I fear taking things off topic. This is my fish to fry in the very limited role I now have in the councils of the church (hell, I don’t even have my own parish anymore, so who the heck listens to me anyway?!). I wish all of you God’s peace, and pray for the healing love of Christ to begin for the sake of all of us.
Your brother in Christ’s undying love,
Clark+

Thanks for the affirmations Clark.  Ya know, I don’t really understand you.  I strongly disagree with your blog entry from a few days ago that Greg Griffith posted.  I gotta be honest!  And yet you agree that TEC should accept not being able to attend Lambeth.  And that TEC should sign the Draft Covenant even if it means it might be disciplined later.

My dear Clark, you and Tom Head are the most honest reappraisers I have ever had the pleasure of interacting on SFIF.  May God bless you and keep you.

Pax in Christ alone.

Dear Truth,
I can’t even begin to say how deeply thankful to God your words have made me. I know we don’t agree on all things, and I will admit I may be a little nutz, but I trust in my heart that at the resurrection of the just, we will meet, if not before then, face to face.
Your brother in the sharp two edged sword of righteousness,
Clark

Just read the Covenant.  I agree, it’s toothless.  More Anglican fudge.

Just read the Covenant.  I agree, it’s toothless.  More Anglican fudge.

Thank you R&R;.  Now do you see why I’m staunchly advocating that +++Rowan withdraw TEC’s Lambeth invitations so as to keep the Communion intact and semi-united?

Anybody got a link to the covenant?

Here you go Been There:

http://www.aco.org/commission/d_covenant/docs/Draft Covenant Text 070504.pdf

The Windsor Report included the proposed text of an Anglican Covenant.

RE: “Assuming we split, and I pray that we do not, should +Rowan get to keep the name “The Anglican Communion” simply because of Canterbury’s relationship, tradition and history? . . .
It would seem to me that if the orthodox separate from Canterbury and “take the spirit and soul” of the Anglican Communion with them, they actually would be carrying on traditional orthodox Anglicanism and therefore entitled to the name The Anglican Communion.”

Well, according to that which was voted on at Lambeth, yes.

“—The Lambeth Conference of 1930 articulated the formal definition of the “Anglican Communion” in a resolution as “those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury” with three characteristics, among them that they are “bound together” “by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference” and that they are “particular or national churches”.”

Reminds me of my gathering my friends who believe in the principles espoused by the Constitution of the United States of America, gaining the support of a few governors, and claiming that since the U.S. no longer observes the principles of the Constitution—a founding document, no less—me and my friends as well as 6-8 governors are now “the United States of America”.

We would ““take the spirit and soul” of the United States with us, and thus we would be actually carrying on the American spirit and principles and therefore entitled to the name “United States.”
; > )

No, if a group leaves an organization, rather than reform it from within, they cannot claim the name of that organization from which they have departed.

Just as should I leave ECUSA, though it be with clergy, laity, and bishops, we cannot claim ECUSA’s name.

Been There, 

I’m almost in there with you, but I think that has been the “Achilles Heel” of Protestantism from Day One.  A Confessional Church seems to always be begging a redefinition of the Confession, and a subsequent redefinition of membership. In practical terms, there should be confessional standards set within the Church so that we maintain good dogma in our teaching programs, so that dogma can show in strong families, mercy ministries, etc.  However “high” or “low” our respective comfort zones might be, the Church Jesus instituted meets together, and is manifested as such, not around the Book alone (as rabbinic Jews around the Talmud), but around the Table, whereon is the Book.  Our agreement and unity is not found merely in a collection of the right confessional statements, but in Christ Himself through faith in Him.
Admitted, the “Achilles’ Heel” becomes more like the feet of iron and clay, but it is Christ Who hold us together, and never our own internal structures!<address>Robert</address>

clark west wrote:

I am pretty sure I agree that only if ECUSA refrains from forcing its way to Lambeth, and is absent from it, can an orthodox covenant come into being. And I also agree with TUAD’s statement: “(BTW, I’ve read the Draft Covenant and think it’s pretty mild.  If I were TEC, I’d sign in a heartbeat.)” I too would sign it in a heartbeat, but I am afraid that the heated rhetoric on both sides of the aisle has made many of my brothers and sisters in ECUSA fearful of such a move. I think it will take a measured conversation (not endless listening, I hope, but calm, patient listening) to convince the leaders in ECUSA to sign such a document. And I would might sign it even if it meant that ECUSA was subsequently disciplined under its current formulations, for continuing toward full inclusion of gay and lesbians via ordinations, blessings, etc., which I am also in favor of.

This has been confusing me all day. It sounds like you wish to see ECUSA sign the covenant and continue toward full inclusion of gays in ordained ministry and SSB’s. I think the Covenant is pretty mild too, but signing it does commit member provinces to “uphold and act in continuity and consistency with the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, biblically derived moral values…” and to “seek with other members, through the Church’s shared councils, a common mind about matters of essential concern, consistent with the Scriptures…”, but “Full inclusion” is discontinuous with tradition and biblically-derived moral values, at variance with the common mind of the Communion (expressed in Lambeth 1998 resolution 1.10, the Windsor report & the DeS Communique), and inconsistent with the Scriptures. Why bother to sign the Covenant if there is no intention of keeping the commitments? Wouldn’t it be more honest to not to sign at all?

Or have I completely misunderstood you?

Dear Kyounge,
No, you’ve understood me, and I am confused as you are, maybe. But my heart is torn in two, for I love my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and their spouses with all my heart, and I love my reasserting brothers and sisters and their spouses with all my heart and I see division looming on the horizon. So what am I to think, what to do? I have seen Christ’s beloved mystical body and light in both places, and received blessings from the mouths, hands and hearts of both of the so called sides. What would you have me do? My heart is already torn. Would you have me try to put it back together again by walking apart from one side in favor of the other. How could this be the Truth? I am chained here in what feels like hell, awaiting a word of hope from my savior. And I trust and hope, but just barely these days, that my precious Jesus will come to me here where I lay in my agony, as he came before on that first Holy Saturday, that he will embrace me, bind up my wounds, kiss my lips with the spiritual balm of peace, let me rest my aching head in his arms (you see how late it is as I write—I barely get any sleep anymore and i know that hell is this insomnia of watching and waiting for some sign that he will come relieve me of this burden of pain. What else can I say to you, to him, to whom I have sent up cry after cry to heal the division, the wound, the trauma that I am quite sure others besides me are feeling right now, this night, in this darkness.
Forgive me, Kyounge, for having gone on so. You did not ask for this, nor did anyone else. Please go this night in peace, and know that I will be praying for you and many others who have joined me in the pit. Your words to me tell me that I am not alone, and for that, at least this night, I am grateful.
Your brother awaiting a word of hope,
Clark