Archbishop Rowan Williams’  Opening Remarks: “Despite what has been claimed, there is no ultimatum”

But if that’s the case…what about that HOB meeting back in the spring?

Despite what has been claimed there is no “ultimatum” involved. The Primates asked for a response by 30 September simply because we were aware that this was the meeting of the House likely to be formulating such a response.

I knew there wpould be a hook and a loop hole! What is the real purpose of Sept. 30th now?????

And when exactly will the new ‘John Galt Plan’ be unveiled?

I wrote this back at the first of the year ... boy, do I *HATE* being correct here!!!

I’m surprised by some of this. If anything, we now have the complete picture of the ACN and some Global South Primate intentions. That is- that there is no comprise with TEC, and that they are moving foward with thier plans to erect another province. This will happen regardless of what TEC says, does, or doesn’t do.

Now we Know.

When does the Common Cause meeting in Pittsburgh start? I really hope it’s time for a new Communion, I don’t see any point in hanging around TEC. I don’t trust them, I don’t believe them and I don’t feel called to endure them anymore.

After this I shall be sharing what they say, along with my own assessments, with the Primates and others, inviting their advice in the next couple of weeks. I hope these days will result in a constructive and fresh way forward for all of us.

No ultimatum…..Primates only advise…hopes that TEC can come up with a constructive and fresh argument so we can fudge that awhile…
I hope he is sand bagging or the AC is toast.

Make no doubt about it, Anglicanism centered in Canterbury is dead. Let’s be prayer for the Common Cause Bishop’s Meeting next week.

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.

Did Williams read what he agreed to at Dar?  Am I missing something?  At best his above statement is misrepresentative.

“The Primates asked for a response by 30 September.”
Ok, so no ultimatum….. however the primates will respond and one prays they will respond much as they forced the issue at DES.  i.e. there will be consequences that the abc and ecusa will not be happy with.

It is business as usual for the ABof C and ECUSA! It is now time for the Common Cause Bishops & the Global South Bishops to “checkmate” them and let us move on with a new province and do the work that God has for us to do and has commissioned us to do. Enough is enough! The handwriting has been on the wall far too long and now it is beginning to run. I, quite frankly, do not want to be apart of the ink running onto the floor into oblivion! That is a block hole of unhappiness!

It seems that the ABC has left no room in the Anglican communion for me, and that is sad, but if there is no ultimatum, no accountability, then there is no possibility of my staying.  So, now I am left dependent upon the Global South and the Network to provide me with safe haven…when do we expect to hear from them?  I assume that it will be after they meet, but I have lost track.

Talk about a rollercoaster ride.  ++Anis speaks clearly and eloquently.  Our hopes ride high.  The ABC speaks of comprimise and dialogue, bringing us back down to the reality of the situation.

It seems to me that while the ABC talks of ambiguity with regard to the DAR requests to TEC, he finds a way to literally (and beyond) to the requests for no more boarder crossings.  Why take one literally and the other not?  Perhaps he has an agenda after all.

Very disappointing.  The ABC should be ashamed of himself.  He knows better.

Its not surprising given all of the data coming out over the last few weeks. Unfortunately ++Rowan’s true nature and standing are coming to the light. KJS also had no intentions of backing of the course set for 815 eitherm, especially if you have seen any thing lately with her “offical” tag line on it, which is:

The Rt. Rev. Katherine Jeffert-Schori
Presiding Bishop of the 110 DIOCESE, 16 NATION EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
(My emphasis added)

This just goes to show what many of us have been saying for awhile. TEC doesn’t care what the AC does or doesn’t do. This new tag line by KJS shows that 815 and the so called leaderhip of TEC believe that they are thier own communion and are now openly seperated from anything that the AC and the Primates in general have to say, unless its something that they want.

Its a sad, dark day.  I just hope the Primates step up and a few send high level representatives to the Common Cause meeting so that we can start the process of having one new and true formal Anglican province in the US.

Humpty Dumpty was English, no doubt about it!

Humpty Dumpty was English, no doubt about it!

As a matter of fact ... he was English.

I’m not sure what one would realistically have the Archbishop say, under the circumstances.  He has outlined the fact that these will shared with the Primates, who will then “advise” (he has not said under what mechanism, but in the “next couple of weeks”).  From this will come, he hopes, a “constructive” outcome.  He has been careful not to preempt either the assessments or the advice, let alone the outcome.  Given the fact that it is not really his brief to do any of these things alone, the remarks seem perfectly reasonable and well within the frame of Dar’s process.  The unanswered questions, to me, are not this framework, but the content of the assessments, advice, and outcome that remain to be articulated.  That, of course, is not even possible yet, until the HoB itself provides some formal response(s) from their side, which has not yet happened. 

It seems that what is disturbing people on this trhead is that the Archbishop has chosen explicitly not to call the Dar request an “ultimatum”.  Personally, I consider his careful rejection of such a term a matter of public politics, which, in the church, is always a pastoral and prudential matter.  I am not bothered by it at all.  He has the Primates themselves—whose own commitments are more diverse than we sometimes remember—to hold together and lead into a common discernment and response;  he also exercises some influence (perhaps) on moderate TEC bishops whose sense of the duties of the present moment might not be properly clarified by the use of a quasi-political-military term. 

I hardly assume that all will be well in this playing out of this meeting.  But these few remarks, it seems to me, shed very little, if any light, on the direction this playing out will take.

Shane Copeland wrote: “Make no doubt about it, Anglicanism centered in Canterbury is dead. Let’s be prayer for the Common Cause Bishop’s Meeting next week.” I’m with you, Shane.  “And I gave her space to repent of her fornication, and she repented not”... (Revelation 2:21).

Everyone take a deep breath and reread what R&R;posted from the Communique:

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.

No, there is in a very real sense, no “ultimatum” given in Dar.  There are no clear set consequences - i.e. if these reassurances aren’t given, then the Lambeth invitations will be withdrawn.  All this is true.  An ultimatum is often seen as having immediate and direct consequences, and Rowan Williams is correct in saying that Dar does not contain such.

But, also clearly, and Rowan Williams has acknowledged this, a serious and weighty decision is called for.  The Sept. 30 decision is nothing less then TEC’s decision as to whether it wishes to renew its commitment to interdependent Anglicanism or whether it wishes to continue its disengagement from Anglicanism.

Rowan Williams’ job will be to work with the primates to determine what the continued disengagement will look like, and whether there will be any TEC bishops and dioceses that would wish to renew their commitment to Anglicanism despite the disengagement decision by TEC as a whole.

Its sort of like a marriage counselor asking the wayward spouse whether they really want to make the marriage work or not.  If the spouse says “no, my mistress is just too important to me”, then the counselor will not likely pull out a divorce order to be signed that minute.  But make no mistake that the divorce order will come in the future.

I think we’d better stop the rush to judgment here. The conference isn’t over yet.

Ephram and Jamesw,

  I truely respect what each of you have stated above, and in your arguments your assumptions and points are correct. However, many of the Primates, and many of the Orthodox here in the US, along with Common Cause Partners, all agree that the final line in the sand has been drawn.  TEC and its HoB has, on way too many occassions to count, failed or just outright refused to follow any counsel and reccomendations given by the Primates and the Layity of the communion for years.  We keep being told, well lets keep open a dialouge and have a “listening process”. Jesus told us in the Gospels, that his disciples are those that listen to the Words of the Father, and then do them. The time has come to do them.  Through this whole listening process, TEC has continued pretty much unabaited in doing what it pleases, when it pleases, without much regard to true Christian prinicples and the counsel of so many good and Godly Primates.
One must not only “hear” but “do”. We are getting tired of waiting for TEC to start the “do” part.

I agree with James W and Ephraim.  +Rowan is trying, I suspect, NOT to ratchet up the rhetoric.  We Americans would prefer to pull our six shooters out and challenge, “This town ain’t big enough for the two of us.” 

I still believe that he is more Teddy Rooseveltian than George Bushian.  He is speaking softly yet carrying a big stick.  James W’s quote recalls us to that.  +Rowan does not use words lightly.  He does not play power politics. 

He has said that actions have consequences and that the decisions of the American House of Bishops will have consequences.  Just because he doesn’t speak in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS doesn’t mean that the consequences will not come to fruition.

Neal & Ephram, it is not just these “political” words that bother me, but also the reponses to questions asked of him.  Questions regarding the care of the orthodox in difficult places for instance.  He seems to have little, if no, regard for those of us challenged mightily by the forces that really do wage war against us.  Also, the firmness with which he speaks regarding the consecrations of orthodox bishops who are sent to take care of us.  He does not speak so hesitantly against these. Where is his “political” posturing here?

I would agree to an extant that the ABC was trying to keep the pot at a low boil. But call +Minns, et al “illicit” was not a good move and seems pretty clear cut.

There is diplomacy and then there is squeamishness.  And then there is the simple fact that the ABC is dealing with an American church that is accustomed to using gentle language as a means to deceive rather than to alleviate conflicts.  Certainly Williams should have figured this much out by now.

I’m not ready to throw in the towel, and ABC could still do right by us when it’s all said and done.  But the early signs aren’t promising.

Wolverine

My first reaction was to go “Oh !!!!!!”, but then I had to step back and take a deep breath.  I think that +Rowan is trying to let the HoB have all the rope they need to respond or not respond over the weekend.  I think that was his plan with the subgroup report at DES saying the TEC had complied with 2 out of 3 on Windsor:  OK, you said you were in compliance, so I’ll raise your compliance to the level of “Yes”, and then watch if they consent to any non-celibate gay or lesbian bishop or move forward with the officially unofficial SSBs.  We also have to take this in context of the other Archibishops’ statements to the HOB that was clear about what was expected.  Just my 1.5 cents.

In the liberal diocese where I live and worship, “ultimatum” is the term that the revisionists use to characterize the Dar communique. So I appreciate the ABC’s refusal to repeat that characterization.  I understood the Dar communique to be a compromise between some who were then ready right then to expel (or the Anglican equivalent) the TEC, and those who wanted to remain in discussions.  And TEC was given a decent and reasonable amount of time to respond—seven months.  So I think the Archbishop was on target, so far.

<NYT: Archbishop. The address that +Anis gave the HOB today states in clear terms what some primates expect. I wanted to ask how reflective that message is of what came out of DES. Do you sense any room for compromise on the Communion side?

ABC: The primates said the DES is the place to start. Some would give a more robust interpretation some less. That is the nature of a communiqué with common language. It has been represented sadly as a set of demands and deadlines. It was not that way. We are inevitably in a position of compromise. It would be a mistake to see DES as questions that must be answered without room for maneuver.>

Given +++Williams response to ++Anis speech, it is clear that he does not hold the more “robust interpretation” that the GS Primates hold. That is why he can say “there is no ultimatum.” If DES is the “place to start,” where is the finish point?

Exactly Shane, that is the chief concern if RW wasn’t fudging here.
++Akinola makes clear in his interview with Ruth Gledhill that for RW Lambeth is the answer and everyone needs to get there. It’s a grave error on RW’s part if that’s true and everyone knows it. TEC only wishes to get to Lambeth intact. Once Lambeth has passed TEC will gladly withdraw from any meetings the AC has, refuse any covenant as unanglican and concentrate on lawsuits and liquidating assets.
TEC will wait for Lambeth 2018 when surely everyone will have got to the same point TEC has. At which point Provinces will be trying to expel TEC for baptizing dogs and cats or something.

The sense in the room was that the Archishop was not in any way, even subtly, suggesting an end to the conversation. He was most animated, and seemed to be arguing with someone who was not in the room, when it came to questions regarding DES. He was most adamant that there are really no limits to the conversation and that September 30th has no significance with regard to the place of the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion. Compromise is inevitable in the communion.

Moreover any sense that invitations might be recalled prior to this meetings, must, IMHO, be re-thought. He seems to have no heart for that. Indeed, Lambeth must go on and all must go. It is the cross we all must bear.

But what is that “cross”? The cross, from his perspective, is learning to deal with one another in a faithful way. That he sees lambeth as a cross that, in particular, Akinola ought to be willing to carry, is a certain and sure sign, in my mind, that he is not planning to withdraw invitations…that he sees lambeth as the setting for concliar discussions and reconciliation. Dr. Radner and Canon Neal, I do disagree with your understanding of his words. I think that when he says there is no ultimatum, he means that all sides must learn to live with one another. Certainly this will mean compromise on the part of TEC, but there will and must also be compromise on the part of the GS primates.

I certainly think that some of the Archbishop’s personal views were hinted at in the question and answers:  e.g. stop the litigation;  stop the consecration of new extra-jurisdictional bishops;  Americans should sort out their disagreements in a way that does not put the entire Communion in turmoil and on hold;  non-Americans should assist according to the councils of the larger Church;  there is a “Christian way of life” that makes constraining demands on homosexuals (even if their desires do not represent medical “disease”); the Dar requests admit of negotiation;  etc..  Those who hear these things are not without justification (although, as listed, they cut in a number of directions, and do not all represent a “hard” or a “soft” line on important matters).

However, all that being said:  I do not think that the Archbishop has stepped outside the planned process that came out of the Dar, nor has he overtly committed himself to any approach that would subvert that process:  the bishops of TEC need to make some response in the next couple of days;  these responses need to be evaluated by those visitors present;  and the Primates need to advise.  Out of this will come, relatively soon it sounds (“a couple of weeks”) some kind of response from Canterbury himself.  Others will no doubt respond themselves, but hopefully, if they are a part of the Primates’ Meeting or the Communion itself, they will do so in concert and not alone.  And hopefully, the same is true of Canterbury.

Matt, What if TEC won’t compromise? What does the ABC do?

After this I shall be sharing what they say, along with my own assessments, with the Primates and others, inviting their advice in the next couple of weeks.

The ABC has been clear and consistent that he will not decide these matters alone, but in concert with other primates.  If you were expecting a final verdict from him when the HOB has not even issued a formal statement you were misguided.

I am not surprized that the ABC is creating the appearance of flexibility.  These leaves him and his fellow primates room to work in.  I am confident that primates like ++Anis who we heard from will provide the firmness necessary to make the response to the HOB a dividing line between those who are prepared to live within a communion with discipline and those who simply want to do what they want to with no consequences.

ABC’s primary constituency is not the press or us.  So if none of us seem to be pleased by the statement here I am not surprized. 

I think his real obligation is to God Almighty and I expect having said that someone here will be glad to tell us what God thinks of it.

Publius,

I think, Dr. Radner’s interpretations notwithstanding, that he has indicated that he will continue the conversation indefinitely and challenge ++Akinola et al to take up the cross of being in communion. He will not withdraw invitations. There is no hint whatsoever of a Primates meeting in the offing. He will ask for their responses but the possibilities that invitations may be withdrawn is far far more remote today than it seemed to be yesterday.

As a real shepherd, not a metaphorical one, I have considerable experience in herding sheep.  When a flock of sheep is out in the pasture and you want to get them into the barn, you don’t charge into the middle of them, yelling and waving your arms.  They would scatter in a hundred directions.  Instead, you get far behind them and walk very slowly, first one way and then another.  To get them to go right, you walk slowly to the left.  Slowly enough that some even continue to graze unalarmed.  In short order, they are all in the barn.

I think this is what the metaphorical shepherd, Rowan Williams, is trying to do with ECUSA.  I don’t think he will be successful, and I haven’t got a clue what he will do when it is apparent he is unsuccessful.  But I think this explains what he is doing now.

Publius,
It is not a matter of expecting a “final verdict” from the ABC. I agree with you that has made it clear that he will not decide that alone. But he could still do that AND maintain that Sept. 30th is the date by which a response from TEC is expected by DES. To instead go out of his way to state the opposite, “no ultimatum” is very disheartening.

This is all endless listening and conversation over matters which ++Anis makes clear are outside the bounds of the Faith. “We believe that such diversity should not be unlimited and should not contradict the essentials of our faith…we want unity but not unity at any expense.” It seems to me that the ABP appears to hold the a different opinion: unity no matter what the expense.

Shane, I just don’t get the ABC’s paralysis. Agreed, he holds a weak office with few enumerated powers. Yet he still is in a position to lead the other instruments of unity, and seems very passive, reluctant to lead.

The ABC seems to think that, even now, TEC will compromise. I don’t. I asked Matt what the ABC would do if TEC defies this “last chance”, and Matt replied (above) that the ABC will effectively pretend that TEC’s defiance is really compromise. If the ABC does that, it reveals not only poor judgement, but an astonishing unwillingness to recognize reality. Such a vacuum at the top of the Communion will reduce the ABC’s influence and prompt the other Instruments of Unity to fill the void. In the chaos, the Communion will shatter into many pieces. In the end, the ABC will lose the powers he has, and the Communion he has.

I just don’t get it. Now is a time for decisive leadership which can still save the communion, even if it is too late to save TEC.

I would like to see 2 things:
The ABC to lead and TEC to respond honestly. ++Anis called on them to do this. If they really believe in this new religion (and by all accounts they do), then move ahead and accept the consequences.
And let those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus, the God-man, is the Lord and Savior of all who believe in his atoning death and resurrection get on with the mission proclaiming and living out the Gospel in a lost world.

Perhaps the ABC should invite the Methodist Bishops to Lambeth. In equal standing with those from the TEC.

Mark McCall, the sharing of your experiences as a real shepherd are helpful. Where the analogy falls flat, however, is that the majority of the leadership of TEC seem not to be His sheep; they are…something else. They will not hear the voice of the True Shepherd “...because [they] are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” (John 10:26,27) By the same token-despite his high position, is the ABC, in Spirit and in truth, one of Christs undershepherds? I will not venture an answer at this present time, but depending upon what the ABC says over the next week or so, the subsequent actions of the Common Cause partners-and I have no doubt about their being a part of Jesus’ flock-may provide that answer, because “...a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him; for they know not the voice of strangers.” (John 10:5)

What really disturbs me among many other things, but most importantly, is the word “compromise”. We are talking about the church of Christ here. We are talking about the Word of God. God has told us what is right and what is wrong in his inerrant Word. There is no “compromise”. Either TEC is willing to accept the authority of the Scriptures or they’re not. Right now they’re not. There can’t be in all honesty any talk of “compromise”!!! TEC has to either state clearly “I’m going follow the Word of God as He has revealed it in the Scriptures” or “I don’t accept the authority of the Scriptures.” If it’s the latter, then the ABC needs to simply say “adios” and excommunicate them from the Communion.

Let’s all really study the book of Jude. He makes it so clear. Yes, we are to try to pull the evil doers out of the fire. But if they refuse to be pulled out, then we’re not to go in with them.

Let’s keep our focus on God’s Word! NOT on the world.

Mugsie

Thank you Bob K. We are both trying to say the same thing. This is about our Lord Jesus. Either we’re his flock, or we’re not. Is the ABC one of His flock right now? I’m asking myself that same question. Like yourself, I can’t answer that question just yet, but it’s definitely weighing heavily on my mind. I’m praying hard about that one.

Mugsie

But Prof. Radner, his immediate audience was American. Use of British diplomatic vocabulary and syntax did not convey the need for a clear, definite statement from the bishops as to where they stand now—at the point of the 9/30 “target-date.” He could have talked more about “ultimatum.” “It’s not an ultimatum with all the freight that word carries,” I can hear him say, “but things need to be clearly said now—at this point in time—for us to evaluate future possibilities.” Archbishop Anis did this when he suggested that they honestly and clearly set out their position now.

Geez.

Thank you, Mugsie, for taking my comment in the spirit in which it was put forward. As much as we all, I’m sure, respect Rowans high office, we must also respect Peters’ words when confronted by the chief religious officers of his day: “We must obey God rather than man.” (Acts 5:29), and Peter and John, when they said: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge..” (Acts 4:19).  I dont mean to be uncharitable, but there comes a time when the clear message is “Choose ye this day”-not “lets have an absolutely endless listening process”. The wheat and the tares WILL separate-it must be so. They cannot have intimate communion together in Christs body (1 Cor. 6:14-16); this is quite impossible. There are too many voices who seem more concerned about forcing light and darkness to have fellowship with each other than in “Hearing the word of God, and keeping it”, and separating from those who will not. Those who will do so often hear the ugly word “schism” thrown about. When Korah, Dathan, and Abiram thought that they were above that which Yahweh commanded, and wanted to institute a “new thing”-well, open up to the 16th chapter of Numbers and see what happened. That rebellion resuted in a real BIG “schism”-one of Gods’ making! Along those same lines, Mugsie, I appreciated your comment: “Let’s all really study the book of Jude. He makes it so clear. Yes, we are to try to pull the evil doers out of the fire. But if they refuse to be pulled out, then we’re not to go in with them.”

I for one am not all that disturbed by the ABC’s wording here.  I am not saying that he might yet drop the ball, but he hasn’t done so yet.  Abp. Annis made it quite clear that he wants TEC to make an honest decision.

So how best to achieve an honest decision?  By having the ABC declare “do this specifically or I will immediately withdraw the Lambeth invitations”?  I don’t think so.  You will get smoke and mirrors.  What the ABC might be doing (and none of us can claim to say anything more then “might”) is ratcheting down the ultimatum talk so that the HoB will do precisely what they want to do.

If they want to pass the Parsley resolution, fine.  That resolution is a lie, and an outright lie at that, but it would be an open lie.  It also makes a point of not answering the Dar request.  The HoB would clearly be deciding to disengage from the Communion.

If TEC wants - of their own volition - to recommit to the Communion, that is great.  But I think that one of the strategies here might be to eliminate the power politics in hopes that TEC will finally “fish or cut bait” and then, once that decision is known, the process of re-engagement or disengagement can begin.

I cannot say with much certainty what Abp. Williams “really” wants in the midst of this mess.  Perhaps he himself doesn’t really know.  But one thing I am certain of:  if the American bishops of all stripes—and their dioceses and clergy—could agree to some response to this situation that would get the larger Communion out from under this fight, he would think this the proper and acceptable course. EVEN IF IT MEANT THAT A LARGE PORTION OF TEC DISTANCED ITSELF FROM THE COMMUNION.  He would not be happy with this, but he would find it acceptable, because it would be a way of dealing with a conflict that engaged the mature agreement of responsible Christian leaders, however difficult and costly.  The current way of dealing with it—spreading it around the Communion like vomit with a rag—has proven not only costly, but scandalous.

My own hope, in light of this limited sense of the Archbishop’s desires, would be this:  that the “Windsor Bishops” resolution be voted upon, and that, following that vote, there be an agreement worked out by which those who cannot, in good conscience (and here Abp. Anis’ plea provides a concrete possibility of direciton), abide by the acknowledged teaching and discipline of the Communion, by which they will temporarily withdraw from the Communion’s formal councils for an undetermined time (5 to 10 years was the suggestion of Prof. Grieb at the last House of Bishops’ meeting, a suggestion greeted with much appreciation);  and during this time, those dioceses committed to the Communion’s teaching and discipline will move forward with the Communion’s life, and those congregations and clergy in dissenting TEC dioceses will be put under the oversight of Communion dioceses.  When this is done, a formal request will be made to the Primates that those providing extra-geogrphaical oversight give up that role, and fold their congregations back into the Communion-linked dioceses and oversight of American bishops.  TEC will not cease to exist (though, as with the Communion, not all will participate in its formal life);  it will, rather, exist in a state of partition.

This will not eliminate “diversity” from the Communion, or even dissenting voices from the councils of the Communion.  We are well aware that there are many, outside of TEC, who are sympathetic with elements of her general drift.  But these diverse voices will have agreed to abide by the common teaching and discipline of the Communion until such time as it is consensually altered (unlike many TEC bishops).  They may indeed have an influence on any future Covenant proposal, but it will be an influence exercised within the constraints of common Communion submission.  I would think that, once a Covenent is adopted—and I still believe it can and should be—and adopted in a form that is agreeable to those who are able, in good conscience, to live within this Communion as it now stands (and may yet stand), TEC, in its partitioned state, may be able to make a more final determination as to its desired role within the Communion. 

As I said, a way forward like this would, in fact, be congruent in certain significant ways with commitments of Canterbury,  Egypt (and probably other GS jurisdictions), and liberal TEC bishops (up to a point).  If there is indeed “room” in the present moment to “maneuver”, I cannot see that I can be anywhere but in this kind of arena of possibility.  To be sure, I believe such an arena is too constricting for many to accept.

He was most adamant that there are really no limits to the conversation and that September 30th has no significance with regard to the place of the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion.

Thank you, Matt, for quoting the ABC with words that I have been telling people for the past seven months.

And yet, and yet, Smuggs, there may be limits after all.

I didn’t say anything about there being no limits.  I’m all for setting limits as long as they’re done in the correct manner and neither the TEC nor the African primates are doing things in the correct manner.  But all this talk about September 30th being the do or die date was and is just ridiculous and the ABC affirmed that.  There may indeed come a time where TEC and AC split.  But 9/30/2007 has been proven to not be that date.

Dr. Radner, that’s a great post and might do well toward predicting the future. 

And there’s this: 

“The current way of dealing with it—spreading it around the Communion like vomit with a rag—has proven not only costly, but scandalous”.

is just about as eloquent as the “ordure of their arguments”. 

I’m not surprised that even the most erudite and academic amongst us are beginning to liken all this to the disposition of excrement.  I hope it all starts looking better soon. 

Blessings,

TS

Folks, I don’t want to read more into this than I should, but I do want to quote from the DES communique:
1) “The scheme proposed and the undertakings requested are intended to have force until the conclusion of the Covenant Process and a definitive statement of the position of The Episcopal Church with respect to the Covenant and its place within the life of the Communion, when some new provision may be required.”
2) “The Primates will establish a Pastoral Council…”
3) “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.”

Now, I am not a lawyer (praise be to God), but to say those few items are “ultimatums” or even requirements blows my mind.

Sorry - that should read “to say those few items are NOT “ultimatums” or NOT requirements blows my mind. :>)

Festivus:  My quibble with the term “ultimatum” comes from the very last bolded phrase “has consequences”.  These “consequences” are not spelled out.  I would see this more as a stated final contract offer.  If the terms are not accepted, it is not an “ultimatum”.  It is rather a decision for the parties to move apart and explore alternative alliances.

The key to success in <a >Dr+ Radner’s scenario</a> is a Primatial Vicar arrangement which totally removes the PB and the 815 bureaucracy from any legal or canonical disciplinary role with respect to ECUSA bishops.

In my extremely cynical view, the “moderate” bishops care infinitely more about getting out from under the unremitting pressure and threats from the Beers/Bruno regime than they do about either “full inclusion of gays” or “fidelity to the Faith once delivered,” just as secular politicians care infinitely more about reelection than about either “social justice” or “traditional American freedom.”* 

If the +Jenkins Resolution passes in any recognizable form, it will be largely due to blowback from the campaign of intimidation 815 began last December.  Paybacks are ... oh, sorry, we Episcopalians don’t talk about that any more, do we? ...
<hr width=50%>
* This is of course unfair; the 98% of self-interested, dishonest politicians give a bad name to the sincere 2%.

I sometimes disagree with Dr. Radner, but he is right here; it is entirely reasonable to avoid a word like “ultimatum” under these circumstances, if only because it has an emotive power which could backfire.

Let +Anis play bad cop and +Williams play good cop.  I’m sure that’s not what they’re thinking, but it could still have a positive effect, rather than a confusing one.  At least let’s hope so, although I have little optimism.

Reactions now seem so predictable. 

Some have staked a position that you should remain indefinitely in the Anglican Communion and TEC (as long as it remains in communion with Canterbury) regardless of success in returning TEC to orthodoxy.  Nothing Rowan+ said today was going to change their perspective. They have nowhere else to go.  It is consistent with their view of their noble struggle to always put the best positive light on these types of statements.

Others gave up a while back on the ABC as an instrument for change.  They are quietly nodding their heads (“I told you so”). But they are also giving a sigh of relief, because if the ABC had taken a strong position in favor of Dar compliance, and if TEC has capitulated, it would have presented a real dilemma given their plans.

The third group here have earnestly, desperately, continued to have hope for a Canterbury based solution that allows them to painlessly migrate in place to an orthodox wing of TEC that is recognized by the Communion and somehow separated from the main body.  To them, hearing the ABC say what he said at this critical time must be disheartening.  It does them no service to suggest that the ABC did not mean what he said, or that he has a different agenda behind the scenes. At some point, you must face reality and move on.

Going Home, I sympathize, but reality is changing all around us and it’s not clear yet what it is becoming.

+Matt, Prof. Radner, et y’all,

The scary part of all this is that on the one hand there is the “glorified diversity” camp whose follies we are witnessing.  On the other, though, is the confessional route we have seen for the last 400+ years of loaded rhetoric and fractious behavior (“You’re what kind of Baptist, again?”).  Both dismiss what they have called “Catholic” excesses to the point that the one has “it” all boiled down to “Love God (as you imagine “God” to be)and do what you will,” and the other wants to say, “Only believe (by whatever one means by ‘believe’) and you will be saved.”  Church, obedience, worship, communion, and fellowship are all options!  What will it take for theology to take a historic view of Church, and a broader view of Scripture (rather than, say, reducing “salvation” to ninety seconds down the “Romans Road”) at their worth?  Until we do, “evangelicalism” is going to prove a massive shell game- Where is that pea, any way?

By the way- does anybody have a copy of the Dar agreement?

Robert

oscewicee & Going Home…..
The only true reality is the God,  the Gospel & the Lord Jesus Christ. I would really like to hear someone stop and ask Him what He thinks of all of this? I believe that the majority here on SF already know His answer, the question is does the HoB & the ABofC?

For the past several months we have been told “for the final time” to wait until the next meeting.  As many moved away from TEC and fought off their bishops they were chided for not waiting.  OK. The meeting is here.  So what?  More of the same from all sides.  Same song, same refrain, uncounted verses.  I think it will all be settled when those who are able and willing finally leave and those who stay…may the Lord have mercy.  Enough!  End it and go home!  Let your actions be your words.

Thank God for +RDW seeing to it that +Mouneer spoke. You can be sure that this did not happen without his foreknowledge. It was a masterful address and one that no other member of the sub-group could have been remotely counted on the deliver. This allows TEC to see how extremely peripheral they now are. Good work.

Then (just out of curiosity) who was it who felt compelled (according to some reports) to “apologize” for +Anis’ remarks?  I’m betting on +Morgan of Wales.

That would be my guess as well…

Dr. Seitz, I do thank God. Surely that address brought home to some bishops how far we have gone and what damage we have done.

<a >Robert </a>—the Dar communique is available <a > here</a>, and probably also republished on many other blogs.

Thank you, Ephraim, for a mature proposal for the future.  I hope that the HOB would in some fashion similar to what you have crafted acknowledge the problem that they helped create and voluntarily (sp.?) withdraw for at least a season from the AC.

Festivus, that is a good reminder of the actual language of the Communique.  I think it is important not to decontextulaize Rowan Williams’ remarks from the actual meeting itself. One participant I spoke with made it clear that the international speakers who spoke very soon before the press conferencehit TEC quite hard, and at the end there was silence.  In part I believe Dr. Williams was responding to this pastoral situation.

The ABC has consistently
1) worked against the DeS communique even before it was drafted - initially alloting only 4 hours for the TEC question at DeS and then releaseing the subcommittee report at the beginning of the meeting in a brash attempt (one member of the subcommittee hadn’t even seen the document) to hijack the whole tenor of the meeting,
2) worked against it during the drafting - he opposed setting the September 30 deadline,
3) and worked against it after its release - the early invitations, his not submitting a candidate for the APV committee.

Now he continues working against the communique with his mitigation of the finality of the deadline and his quite apparent intent to not call an emergency session of the primates meeting to respond to the TEC’s very probable continued defiance.

Yet, there are still those who defend him? I do not understand the blind eye. What purpose does that serve?

But I do not put my hope in the ABC but in the faithful leaders who pushed through the communique despite the dealings of the ABC.

In response to Rob Roy:

This is not a question of “blind eye”, but of Christian realism. 

First, we all know that Canterbury has no real stomach for “kicking out” people from the Communion.  He has long said it himself, and he has made it clear in his actions.  I think you are wrong in your interpretation (and that is all it is, because you and I together have no idea about his actual motivations and deliberations) that he actively “worked against” Dar.  What he has, rather, tended to do is commit himself to a process of working with others that has permitted things like Windsor, Dromantine, the reconfigured ACC, the Covenant, and Dar to happen, and in themselves redefine matters as they go along.  He has done so largely (and this I DO know) because he believes that the discernment of the larger church, through its councils, is likely more faithful than his own personal predilections, and he is committed to submitting himself to them, however difficult that is. 

Second, within the church of Christ, we all are called to come into some kind of peace with those with whom live, so long as we can, in good conscience, maintain that peace.  Paul tells us this over and over (Rom. 12:18;  2 Cor. 13:11, etc. etc.).  This means enduring people’s weaknesses and often difficult character-traits (as long, again, as they are not outright destroying the Gospel), and helping, where possible, for them to grow in the Lord. 

Given the above, in the present situation it is both Christian and realistic for those of us seeking the welfare of the Church of Christ and our Communion within it to work with the people we have as both our leaders and colleagues in order to move forward faithfully.  I myself would have been happy if Williams had gotten up after Abp. Anis talk and said “Amen to that!  He has spoken my mind exactly!”.  But he didn’t, and we know that this is not either how he acts or even what he was probably thinking.  Still, as Dr. Seitz has pointed out, he brought Abp. Anis with him, he knows him well, he knows what he would say (they surely consulted), and he encouraged the saying of it through his encouragement of this entire visit.  I am not saying this is “good cop, bad cop” as some kind of strategy.  It is, rather, the encouragement of the process he himself has supported to work itself out.  Our calling in this is not to continually complain let alone accuse!—that Williams is not Anis.  He is not.  I am not you, nor you me.  Our calling is, knowing these differences, to seek a way, through prayer and faithful engagement, to move forward our church in the purposes of God.  How does one work with a Williams, an Anis, an Akinola, a Schori in this situation?  It is possible to conclude simply that one “cannot”, and leave.  But most of us have in fact not reached that conclusion, even if we fear it may come to that or are confused at how we might avoid it.  Rather, we seek a way forward that is faithful.  And in doing so, we take into account the Williamses and the Anises and the others, well aware that life would be easier if everyone were as we wished them to be (of course, that is a fallacy!), but also more aware that they simply will not be so, and these are the people God has bound us to.

Few of us on this blog are “blind” to the way Rowan Williams approaches matters.  We are grateful for his gifts, often frustrated by some of his habits and dispositions, and—my hope—willing to move on with what God has given us in one another within this difficult situation.

Dr. Radner - I do appreciate your posting and engaging in conversation here at SF. I was able to hear you speak at the Diocese of Florida back in 2003 was highly appreciative of your presentation. I have a question and hope you will respond. Do you think it was prudent of the Archbishop to extend invitations to Lambeth before the HOBs September response to DES? And, in concern for the entire church and communion, would it not have been better to extend them only after consulting the Primates regarding the response of the HOB? Thank you. Blessings.

Dr. Radner:
What you are proposing sounds again like the situation during the 1861-1865 period.  Then, I assume, both factions had a presiding bishop.  Would you think that a ‘Primatal Vicar’ under partial jurisdiction of Canterbury and the primates is necessary to protect the orthodox during this time?  Will the HoB go for it?

My fear is that if something is not done right now, the schism begins.  Do the people in the HoB understand what they are risking?  Do most have the political savvy to understand this?  Sometimes I wonder if their religious training did not prepare them for the role they now play.

Rob-Roy,
Your post above is spot on. I don’t get it either. It’s like watching a spoiled child, (TEC), continue to be arrogant and misbehave and all the while the parent, (AB of C), turns a blind eye and makes consessions for his disobedient kid to simply allow them the space to find themselves! It’s like a Dr. Spock syndrome and it is repulsive. The problem that everyone knows but for some reason wishes to sweep under the rug is that this way of dealing with very arrogant & disobedient behavior has proven to be ineffective. In fact the behavior seems to get worse and again I am more interested in what God has to say about all of this behavior on both sides of the table. In and through all of this these are the questions that all should be asking: Are we glorifying Christ? Are we walking a Christ-like life? Are we emanating the Word? OR Are we enabling unbiblical behavior? Are we allowing worldly views and styles to over take the Word of God? Are we lessening the importance of our God and His word? And most importantly as well…..Are we allowing ourselves to become hypocrites?

We need to get back to knowing and believing what we stand for, GOD & HIS WORD, so we do not fall for anything!

This means enduring people’s weaknesses
and often difficult character-traits (as long, again, as they are not
outright destroying the Gospel), and helping, where possible, for them to grow in the Lord.

Dr. Radner,
Have they, and we all know who they is, not disregarded the Gospel and the Word of God for the past 3-4 years by consecrating a gay bishop when told not to? Have not KJS and a few others been preaching that there are others ways to God besides Jesus Christ? Have they not allowed one who holds to two religions be ordained a priest? In any of these questions do you fel that they are not destroying the Word of God?
Now I respect you very much and I know that you are a scholar and I am not, but I represent millions of everyday Christians looking at you leaders and shaking my head asking God, “What in Your Name do these poeople think they are doing to Your Church? Where their white is black and their black is white.”  IMHO whatever color lipstick you put on the pig it is still a pig!

I would strenuously agree that the ABC acts not out of malice. But my now lengthened chronology of the ABC’s actions speak plainly, indeed showing active “working against” the DeS communique.

All on the orthodox side see the communique as moving forward after several years of continued drift which had been gaining momentum towards catastrophe. For this we are grateful for the hard work of the primates who pushed the communique through, despite the ABC.

I think that it is important to acknowledge the weaknesses of the ABC, as you put it, and that continued forward movement, in the manner of DeS, will require the same leadership as in Tanzania drawing ABC along unwillingly.

I see the consecrations of the African/American bishops as an integral part of this forward movement. Rather than being “unhelpful” or illicit to use the ABC’s words, they are an absolute necessity to marginalize the revisionist TEC. The consecrations boldly state that the likes of Chane, Bruno, Sisk, Shori, etc., will be increasingly irrelevant, and that we orthodox are moving forward, again in the spirit of DeS, to a place where the revisionists have been extirpated.

Festivus—No, I don’t think it was prudent.

As I posted on another thread, I got the chance this evening to ask Bp. Mouneer Anis whether he had sent an RSVP yet for the Lambeth Conference.  His answer:  “No”.  (He is the Primate of the Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East.)

Connie Sandlin,
Would that be “no he hasn’t sent it yet but plans to” or is it “no he hasn’t sent it yet and doesn’t plan to”? In just saying that he hasn’t sent it yet leaves a wide open door to either walk in or to walk away from….it really isn’t answer as I see it.

Dr. Radner+ (also Dr. Seitz+)—I want to echo Festivus’ gratitude for your participation in a medium. We’re not always friendly and not always courteous to your point of view. So thanks for sticking it out, and regardless if we agree, for your witness of Jesus, our Lord & Savior.

One Day Closer,
His “No” indicated something along the lines of what the Abp of Sidney and his bishops said: no use replying when the situation with ECUSA hasn’t been settled.

So much of the ABC’s dealings with the HOB were behind closed doors.  I wonder if he criticized them privately but spoke soft words during the press conference so that, if TEC put forth a real resolution, it would look like they did it out of the goodness of their own hearts, not because they were ‘bullied’ by the AC.

This would let TEC save face a little. As if such face saving is important to Christians….

Forever the optimist….