BREAKING: A Letter to Bishop Howe from the Archbishop of Canterbury

What about those Bishops in those dioceses such as NH, California, Los Angeles, Conn., etc….What do you have to say to those priests and laypeople good sir?

I am thankful for this note, but await his withdrawal of Lambeth invitations…without which there is no unity and there is no communion

They don’t call my home state the Show-Me State because it looks good on our license plates.  When Dr. Williams backs up his words with actions, I will be impressed.  Not before.

it will be interesting to see how much of this +Howe actually implies and puts into use, especially with the clergy conference the next two days in DoCFl. I think these next two days will show truely where he stands and if he will back up what he has said with actions. He will have a very public and appropriate oppurtonity to minister to both sides, those wishing to stay and those wishing to leave. Many believe that +Howe will be retiring within the next 2-3yrs. We also believe that he wishes to go out with his reputation intact. If he fails to act as he has stated he will in the past, then not only will he lose any credibility, but no one will trust him, and his reputation will forever be tarnished not only here in Central Florida, but in the whole of the communion as well. I have a great admiration and respect for +Howe, however one can’t help but see that the time has come for him fish or cut bait in reference to where his true faith lies.

I wouldn’t put all my hopes into those invites being withdrawn…quite the contrary…I think +++Rowan will try and get those who have stated they will not attend to attend so as to get all of them in the same room for a throw down….(that’s ODC speak)
Lay all those cards on the table sort-of -speak but then again I don’t hink that is going to happen either. It seems to me this would be the crossroads and what we, the AC, really have here is a failure to communicate.

I appreciate this, too, but the elephant-in-the-room issue that needs to be addressed as well is WINDSOR parishes and clergy in NON-WINDSOR dioceses. 

The primates’ Pastoral Council set-up, I believe, sought to propose a solution to the above problem but that seems to be shelved or “on hold”. 

It’s my hope that the primates could execute their DES Communique and help the Archbishop deal with the Lambeth invitations as well, instead of allowing Katherine Schori’s machinations(I agree to it/now I don’t agree to it) to torpedo everything in the picture. 

IC,

The Geek

Many believe that +Howe will be retiring within the next 2-3yrs. We also believe that he wishes to go out with his reputation intact.

If this is truly the good Bishops intention then he is being disingeniuos. How he stands for God and His Word and how he has been as a faithful shepherd of the flock that he has been entrusted is what he should be more concerned with. If doing what is right by God and walking God’s path and not +++Rowan’s path along with 815 then blessings be upon him and he will surely go into retirement as a godly man who will be forever remembered as one who stood firm for the faith and for God and his Word and people. That would be the reputation to strive for and maintain. Anything less and one is just fluff from a dandilion blowing off in the wind.
I pray that Bishop Howe is he man of God that many see him as and that he will not let a good reputation to all parties be his focus so much.

This is an excellent letter from ++Rowan. It should give the self-professed orthodox (such as most of us) encouragement. This letter says that the ABC takes all of this very seriously and that he knows that it is the orthodox and traditional parishes and dioceses that remian within the Anglican fold. This letter almost telegraphs us the message: the Primates will be with you. Let us practice Christian patience and take his counsel. Peace to you all.

The ABC writes ; “The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such. Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology and in a sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing - which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor. Action that fragments their Dioceses will not help the consolidation of that all-important critical mass of ordinary faithful Anglicans in The Episcopal Church for whose nurture I am so much concerned. Breaking this up in favour of taking refuge in foreign jurisdictions complicates and embitters the future for this vision.” One wonders where +++Rowan has been for say, oh, the last ten years. Its hard to know just where to begin with this statement. There is not O-N-E single mention for the reason for the breakup of TEC; his boss KJS and her integrity partners get a free pass. You see, boys and girls, the whole problem is to be found HERE: “Breaking this up in favour of taking refuge in foreign jurisdictions complicates and embitters the future for this vision.” Ah-HA! Its those pesky Africans who are responible for causing all the bitterness found in the current conflict!! Shame on them! Now, all sarcasm aside, we all know that it is the strong, compassionate, and even daring outreach of such men that have given real hope and a voice to those Anglicans who with to stay true to the Gospel of God. Face it-there has been nary a whisper concerning the out-and-out apostacy engaged in by TEC coming from the ABC, but rather, repeated attempts at facilitation of the same by undercutting the efforts of those who would call TEC to task for her actions. His Grace further states that “Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are, I think, weakening that basic conviction of Catholic theology”....I see; but those who ...“turn the grace of our God into lasciviousnessand denying our only Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4), once again, have NEVER been mentioned as being the ones who have truly murdered the “basic conviction[s] of Catholic theology” where it counts-in the theology! Nope. Not even worthy of mention. To get back to the specific topic; the reason that the departing churches are having to do anything at all with the dying corpse of 815 is its litigitous nature in grasping for buildings and assets which it claims, holds in trust-even though TEC feels free to break their trust with the Christian faith, and by extension, the people who “trusted” it to keep and defend the same. It kinda strikes me as sheep, who have been utterly neglected by shepherds who have refused to do their job, leaving for the care of a true shepherd, only to be told that they must submit to one last fleecing before they go.  Finally, this: “I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘national church’.”  The-“abstract reality” of the ‘national church’????  Wow. Not too ‘abstract’ when its trying to suck the lifeblood out of departing parishes. Nor is it abstract when attempting to cow-if not altogether drive out-the orthodox in their midst, and fleecing them as they go. Excuse me-I need to go outside and get a breath of fresh air. Sorry for rambling so. God help us all.

Bob, the ABC’s remarks don’t refer to orthodox parishes in apostate dioceses; they refer specifically to orthodox parishes in orthodox (Windsor) dioceses.  I’m not sure what your point is.

My interpretation of the letter in my comment <a >here</a> seems to be vindicated…

If the ABC thinks the solution is up to the Primates, why is he not calling a meeting of said Primates?  Hmm?

Honestly, I do not think that TEC and the ABC believed there was a real problem until more and more parishes and people started leaving.  Then, as noted above, they found it OBVIOUS that the problem lay with the people leaving.  No reason is good enough, evidently.  They figured we waited 4 years we would wait a few more.  They did not count on the people who have been waiting since WO, since priests and bishops started denying the virgin birth, since priests and bishops started denying the resurrection.  My husband and I left ECUSA, as it was called then, in 1984.  NOW we are Anglicans.

I repeat my comment from T19

I sympathise with the tone of the letter and with much of the substance.  However, the difficulty with +++Rowan’s letter, a difficulty that stems from his very appeal to catholic principles, is that, even when the focus of unity is the bishop, even when that bishop believes that SSB’s, etc., are wrong, said bishop is, by the act of being in the “national church”, in communion with declared heretics.

Thus it is not necessarily the case that a parish that wants out is fixated on the “national church.” Such a parish may, in fact, be fixated on the very focus of unity, the bishop, that +++Rowan commends, and it is the bishop who is the problem, even if that bishop is, by some estimation, ‘orthodox’.

+John Howe’s good intentions, in other words, are not enough.  It is long past time when such good intentions could be enough.

One by one, these “ecclesiastical more important structures” that is to say the dioceses have been lost to the “lesser important structure,” the national church. San Diego is a good example. The failure to receive consents in South Carolina is another. We had network, then Windsor, then Camp Allen. What are we talking about? The handful that are left? Do we include the dioceses that pay lip service to Windsor? Rowan Williams hasn’t given an ounce of support to the “Windsor dioceses” before. Now, he throws out this statement to try to avert the ineluctible?

Churches, if they do not have their exit strategies in place now and indeed moving forward, will be isolated and vunerable when Pittsburgh, etc., jump ship.

And I ask you who put their trust in the irresolute ABC, what got the ABC to make this “hopeful” statement? It was the resoluteness of the seven churches in Central Florida. The ABC does nothing unless his hand is forced.

I have recently heard that Queen Elizabeth has told +++Rowan to keep the Anglican Communion together, no matter what.  (She did a great job with her own family, didn’t she?)  Do you suppose it’s possible that RW is waiting for TEC to leave the AC?  A move which I believe will never occur because TEC wants all its apostasy legitimized.  Approximately two years ago, up at Dartmouth College, VGR told a group of students that he knew “it is the move of the Holy Spirit that the Communion should split”.  Wish all of TEC would listen to VGR’s holy spirit.

It rather seems to me, on the other hand, that

a) the ABC was never in TEC’s pocket, as many commenters here seem—against all evidence—to believe;

b) the ACO has always been in TEC’s pocket, and +++Rowan has been well aware of this;

c) the ABC needed, for the sake of peace in the CoE, to give TEC every possible opportunity to avoid being ejected from the Communion, so he has given the ACO its head over the last nine months or so; and

d) the ABC now believes that TEC has blown their absolutely last last chance and there is at this point no way to avoid their expulsion.

It also appears that +Howe is substantially relieved, believing that 815’s terrorist threats against Windsor bishops (and indeed the entire HoB) will soon be neutralized.  Those interested in actually analyzing the situation rather than just venting years of frustration (which we all feel) should keep alert for statements and actions by other Windsor bishops that might confirm this hypothesis.  Also watch for non-Windsor nebbishops to start inching towards Windsor.

Well the ABC also wrote to the PB asking TEC’s bishops to clarify exactly what they agreed in NO and what they led the JSC to believe.

Do you suppose this letter could have been written for more than one audience?

I do think that it is interesting that +Howe wrote to the ABC, going over the head of 815 as it were.  He knew what happened to +Lee in VA and maybe he thinks that at least he might be able to continue the process of negotiation without being forced to start litigation if the ABC is on his side.  Will this work?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

I hope that you are right, Craig G., in your optimism.  Time will tell.

Since TEC has the authority to confirm or not confirm every diocesan bishop in the US, it is not merely “the abstract reality of the ‘national church’”, as Rowan Williams would like us to believe.

Since TEC can and does sue individual parishes, it is not abstract (whatever that means in his context). If such an “abstract reality” can file suits in a state court, it seems to fail any definition of “abstract reality”.

Since TEC establishes or contorts what the public thinks an Episcopalian is and what an Episcopalian believes, TEC has more than an abstract impact on a parish’s ability to reach anyone with the actual Gospel. TEC cannot simply be ignored as some powerless, essentially irrelevant “abstract reality”. TEC’s public message is no longer that all have sinned and fallen short, that all need the saving grace made available through the cross and the resurrection, and that all who receive that grace are called toward holy living as Scripture defines holiness, not as we might like to distort or reinvent it. The message of those in power in TEC is in opposition to the Gospel. Such opposition to the Gospel has never been merely abstract. It has always had the potential of leading souls toward eternal jeopardy, and it does now. That result is not abstract, nor is it the fruit of some “abstract reality”.

I most certainly would not even try to speculate on this one. It is so muddled.  First of all, ++Rowan has been told ALL about our “POLITY’, and surely understands that the HoB has NO power sans GC.

So what the heck is he talking about? 

The more things change, the more they stay the same, muddled, confused, insecure, etc. etc. 

Grannie Gloria

Craig, I think you are directly on point.  The ABC is telling the Windsor compliant to hang on, don’t start the property war now.  Wait until the TEC is out and you are still in.

IRNS, I replied to your T19 comment over there on T19.

on leave from the Briar Patch,

“I am thankful for this note, but await his withdrawal of Lambeth invitations…without which there is no unity and there is no communion”

But why should you be thankful for this note Fr when you have clearly thrown your weight behind those “who are rushing into separatist solutions”.

I am thankful because at least superficially, the ABC seems to recognize the need to distinction between heretic bishops and faithful ones…though he would not put it that way…and, moreover, there is reason for hope that he may recognise the need to withdraw invitations…but, as I said, such a withdrawal is the only thing, at this point, that will serve to maintain communion unity.

My reflections:
1. Bishop and Diocese are more important than the national church.

2. Those bishops who wish to remain Windsor compliant should lend each other mutual support.

3. The “Windsor” Bishops/Camp Allen Bishops, which include those Bishops whose diocese are poised to separate from TEC, need to support each other.

4. Those diocese that are poised to leave TEC are within their rights to do so.

5. Those parishes that are within non-Windsor diocese are within their rights to seek shelter from whatever entity will affort it to them.

6. For those who have eyes to see, the Primates’ vision of Pastoral Oversight is firmly in place:  there ARE 5 Primates providing oversight and there IS a Primatal Vicar.  Never mind that the TEC PB did not participate in selecting the Primates and Primatal Vicar, and so far as we know, neither did ABC Williams, they are firmly in place.

7. I recall a pastoral letter from ABC Williams some four years ago in which he acknowledged the plight of the orthodox people caught in non-orthodox diocese and he pledged his prayers for us.  I believe he has kept his promise and I believe God has heard his prayers.

My post at T19:

This letter from ++Rowan might have been helpful a few years ago, but so much water has passed under the bridge in that time - including moves that ++Rowan himself has made to undercut the orthodox - that I don’t see it having any practical effect now.  Indeed he has, by his own actions, given clear signal to Windsor parishes and diocese that their trust and faithfulness would be repaid by perfidy and abandonment.

Again, we see the poor leadership and fecklessness that, lamentably, have been the trademark of this ABoC.

Frances Scott:

I don’t see where your point #5 is supported in ++Rowan’s letter.  Indeed, he says The second is that your Rectors need to recognize that this process is currently in train and that a separatist decision from them at this point would be irresponsible and potentially confusing. 

I suppose it’s the scope of ++Rowan’s “your” that is at issue.  Does it mean those under +Howe, or TEC as a whole?  If it means those parishes under Windsor bishops, I’d agree; TEC as a whole, not so much.  Nowhere do I see a green light given to orthodox parishes languishing in revisionist diocese.

If +++Rowan’s advice that he freely gave to +Howe was meant for TEC as a whole I suspect he would have sent these same words to all Bishops, since it was an exchange between +++Williams & +Howe then my feeling is it is for +Howe and +Howe alone.

Apparently, Williams gave some real assurances to those pledged to the Windsor process that he would not abandon them. While this letter remains tantalizingly opaque, it does appear to reference that assurance.

For the parishes in non-Windsor dioceses, PV was supposed to solve it. Without PV, it’s all out of whack again, and Williams does not appear to know what to do about it.

A primates meeting is out of the question, because that council has no rules of procdure except for consensus. There is no consensus, so a meeting would quite possibly destroy the Communion in one fell swoop. He is probably on solid ground to retain them as an advisory body but not foist anything additional on the group.

In the end, it comes down to actions, not words.

R & R,
Like I have said many times before actions speak louder than words and +++Williams word mean zip to me and his actions thus far have had no voice.

<a >Jeffersonian</a>—“Your” here means “your”—+Howe’s, and by extension other Windsor/Camp Allen bishops.

<a >Reason</a> :  An excellent point about consensus.  The question, though, is that without a Primates’ meeting, can (or perhaps more importantly, will) +++Rowan go ahead and select a Primatial Vicar and invite the Windsor bishops to select a council, thus implementing Dar basically on his own?  Without some concrete ecclesial action to remove 815 from the canonical chain of command, how can the Windsor bishops be freed from 815’s threats?

It’s clear, though, that ++Wales, ++Canada, and ++Ireland at the very least would resist ejecting TEC, even if Mrs. Schori were to recuse herself, so consensus could not be achieved.  On the other hand, none of these would leave the Communion under any circumstances, while the Global South certainly would.

Craig, as far as my comments went, it was not so much about who the communique was specifically addressed to, as much as it was the comments made against the backdrop of previous actions/inactions, and previous stances ostensibly taken and then seemingly undercut. I do admit again that it was somewhat of a ramble, and other posters here have made a stab at deciphering what the immediate context and meaning of the letter was.

Jeffersonian:

+++Rowan William’s letter to +Howe is in reply to +Howe’s letter to him regarding the meeting he had with the 7 parishes & 2 plants that are in negotiation with him to leave TEC and Central Florida.  The “your” refers to those 9 who are in +Howe’s Windsor diocese.  Presumably other parishes in other Windsor compliant diocese would get the same advice.  In non-Windsor compliant diocese different rules would apply.  I sincerely doubt this same letter would have been addressed to the bishop of the diocese in which I reside.

Craig and Frances, thank you for your replies.  I suspected that was the case.  It’s tragic that this advice comes at such a late juncture, though admittedly the number of parishes departing Windsor-compliant diocese is small.

It still doesn’t address the elephant in the elephant-and-hamster stew: What about the orthodox parishes under revisionist supervision?  One can make the argument that ++Rowan’s subtext was a green light had he not pilloried parish realignment under foreign bishops previously.  Unfortunately, he has, and one can find no relief for reasserters in hostile territory here.

Actions speak louder than words and and although I have a respect for the traditional role of the Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, this one has supported 815 too much in actions and words. Honestly, I don’t trust him. The future ABC may recognize the realignment unless there is another liberal one. But honestly, I just don’t believe this one anymore, Initially, I did, but I don’t anymore. I am just a lay person and he doesn’t seem to care about us. He is supposed to be the spiritual head of the communion so where is his theological papers and letters about Jesus Christ, about Holy Scripture, about the creeds, and about God? I want to know what he believes. Less fudge and more theology. More shepherding and less tea parties.

Howe is faced with a major revolt. He seeks to convince no more than the seven to leave.  He gets the ABC to write a letter that says he is getting advice from the Primates before determining TEC’s compliance (but note, no Primates meeting), but whatever the result of that outcome if you are in a Windsor compliant diocese you will always be in the Anglican Communion. 

Sounds nice. But this is the same ABC that said that TEC is already substantially compliant with Windsor, and whose minions worked with the TEC hierarchy to come up with the resolutions at the last HOB meeting.

If remaining in a Canterbury centered communion is a requirement for you in this process, this letter helps.  If that is not an absolute requirement, it is meaningless. This fundamental difference in perspective is what destroyed any effectiveness of the Camp Allen group.

I hope the nine parishes in Central Florida to pull Howes+ prior correspondence and see what he has said over the last year about the legal and moral importance of remaining part of what is called in this letter the “national” church, or what he discribed as the wonderful leadership qualities of its Presiding Bishop.

ISTM that just about everyone agrees that there will be a great schism, but everyone is reluctant to take the step.  In Episcopal time it may take years for the orthodox to get it in gear unless they are kicked out.  Now tell me what would be wrong with this:  The GS primates have declared certain areas of AC as “impaired communion” or “broken communion” and refuse to sit in communion with the apostates.  So here in the US don’t the orthodox diosceses and parishes do the same thing with the diosces and parishes of TEC that are apostate?  They could stay in but still take a stand and maybe at least cause embarressment. If one of them showed up then “fence the table.”  This would go hand in glove with the withdrawel of sending money to TEC and/or apostate diosces.  Or would all this just take too much stamina which has been slowly drained from the orthodox?  Fish or cut bait. IMHO

But prophet, when the Network Bishops and specifically Bishop Iker doesn’t show up at a HOB or one of the numerous “listening meetings” due to being in impaired or broken communion, many “conservatives”, including some posters on this site and T19, have a hizzy fit. It is already being done and has been since 2003.

I agree Matt, At this point there is nothing that can be said or written.  It is only about actions now.

sense treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if it were the most important thing

So much from +++Williams to parse, so little time.

The provincial structure of TEC is what is currently what promotes and allows the direct causes of the orthodox diaspora.  It may not be the most important thing, but is surely is a big thing.  I care that that TEC’s structure is oppressive, don’t you, Archbishop Williams?

From a legal standing, the ABC has planted the roots of the legal argument against the TEC in Windsor Compliant diosceses.

From a legal standing, the ABC has planted the roots of the legal argument against the TEC in Windsor Compliant diosceses.

However, as the JSC report indicates (likely that ABC will accept the main thrust, if not the details) - everyone is Windsor compliant.  A legal argument so based would be easy to state, or could be stated at all?  I don’t know.  Am not an attorney.

I see this as a positive letter for the orthodox.

However I think many may be reading something into this that is not there.

++Williams wrote, “I’ve said several times before - that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church.”

Note clearly that he said “compliant with Windsor”.  He did not necessarily refer to the CA bishops or “Windsor bishops”, but to ANY diocese compliant with Windsor”, thus, being the devil’s advocate, (sorry) one could conclude that moderate dioceses which are not part of the CA crowd would be “included” and any separatist dioceses such as those orthodox seeking APO and renegade parishes under GS oversight would be “excluded”. 

I am not saying that this is the case.  However, this could easily be interpreted as keeping the moderates in, and excluding both federal liberals and federal conservatives.  I only want to point out that we might be better to wait and see the invitation list before getting too gleeful over this statement.  So I remain cautiously optimistic.

I am an attorney Fla/CO.  Good point.  IF everyone is Windsor compliant the argument goes away.  If there is a distinguishment, then…and I hesitate to put it all out there for pubic consumption at this point…if TEC is not part of the Communion, and Windsor compliant diosceses are accepted as continuing in the Communion, then the trust holding may be to the Communion, not TEC.  It is not a foregone conclusion; just a viable argument in play at this point.  Anyone with authoity contra?

Over on T19, the ACI has chimed in
http://www.kendallharmon.net/t19/index.php/t19/article/7045/

My comment on T19
SO, what’s important to the ACI?  ++Rowan?  Seems only process, and the illusion of “unity”..  Sorry Guys, no sale.

I don’t care who your bishop is, or even what he says about Windsor (which sure hasn’t been much in some cases of those who “claim Winsory”).

Does ANYONE in authority (except for a few exceptional bishops such as +Iker, +Duncan, and the other bishops who continue to stand on the scripture) care that souls are at stake here?  Do they even think about the children who can see much more than when we were young?

Do they have to do as I do, “well yes I was Episcopalian, now I’m an Anglican regardless of where I go to church”.

As long as a diocese sends one dime to ECUSA, that diocese is still ECUSA, as long as anyone uses material from 815, or participates in any program, or recognizes the PB, that diocese is ECUSA, and the people are still bound to ECUSA.  Recognition by ++Rowan, and/or the Anglican Communion of a diocese will make no difference, as the ACI says, the folks are still INSIDE ECUSA, and that will not change.
ECUSA (note I will not call them TEC), has an agenda, they will not back down AC or not.
as long as a diocese has to appeal to ECUSA (bishops and standing committees) for approval of their bishop, we are ECUSA.

So we will still be in bondage to ECUSA, an organization that no longer a church and any diocese is only an election away(or maybe a disposition away) from a reappraising bishop. .

Sorry for the rant, but the truth needs telling.

Gloria

1.  Old lady:  good point.

2.  I do understand what ABC means by saying the province is not the main thing, but at some level it nevertheless is, because provinces have Primates—and he is consulting the Primates.  That’s not criticism, just observation.

I saw that, Gloria, and applauded your clear thinking.  I’m becoming increasingly disillusioned with the ACI as of late.  It’s almost as if they have Stockholm Syndrome or something.

It may be too late now but it seems that it would help if Bishops who really wish to be Windsor compliant would demonstrate it by supporting the American Anglican Council, the Network Bishops and now, the Common Cause Partnership in order to strengthen “the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor”.

Up above someone made the comment that John Howe went right past 815 and straight to Lambeth Palace with his letter to Rowan, learning something perhaps from what Peter Lee did not do.  Peter Lee was well on the way of finding a way for us to take the next steps together (his goal was that we would remain in as closest communion possible and this was realized in his protocol).  That his efforts were subverted by David Booth Beers and 815 is tragic.  I wonder how Peter Lee reads Rowan Williams’ letter.  How would things have been different if he had received such a letter?  Would he have tried harder to go forward with his Property Committee (I saw some of the early negotiations and they were quite promising, actually - these were deals that were mutually being worked on and looking back I could see how 815 would panic - it would mean that 815 is IRRELEVANT - which is just what Rowan Williams is saying in this letter).  They were Bishop Lee’s negotiations (just as John Howe is taking the lead on negotiating with his rectors) and it was Bishop Lee that cancelled the whole thing - even after the representatives were elected but before the first meeting - and sued and inhibited everyone.  How would Peter Lee have done things differently if he had written to Rowan instead of filing lawsuits???

But Rowan is now saying that what matters is the diocese, not the province (which is what I learned in my own Confirmation Class by the way).  Therefore, division has all ready occurred in the Episcopal Church (we are just waiting to hear the specifics after Rowan consults with the Primates).  Rowan appears to be trying to hold on to the American dioceses having given up on the whole Province.  A very interesting development indeed.

bb

BabyBlue - I’m reading ++Rowan’s lips, but I’m watching his feet, too.

I’d be careful about reading too much into ++Rowan’s letter.  While he ‘disses’ TEC, and promises safe harbor to Windsor Compliant dioceses—both pieces of good news—there is little in his track record to date to show that he will act, even on behalf of the primates, to distance himself and the organs of the Communion from TEC.

More here.

I don’t know Babyblue. It is interesting that this letter to Gishop Howe just happened to come out before the diocesan conventions to start the leave process. And if Spencer is the least bit right, then he is trying to hold on to the moderates to stay in communion and telling the orthodox if you leave, you are not in communion with Canterbury even if you join a AC province…he will not recognize them. Could he be trying to split the orthodox into those who want to leave TEC but remain in the AC and those who want to just leave and reform and then be recognized? Does he hope to split the diocesan conventions by hinting that even if they realign with other provinces…they are not in communion with the AC.

Father Matt, would love to hear your ideas. Yours too Sarah.

But what does ++Rowan mean to do?  that is the key question that has not been answered. Words are very nice, but actions do speak louder. So far, Dr. Williams has not served any of the orthodox who are still within ECUSA/TEC by his actions.

Quite frankly, his words mena nothing unless they are backed up by some concrete action which will discipline the recalcitrant province which is TEC. It is time for the Archbishop to put up or shut up. So far, I haven’t seen anything which would encourage me to listen to any more of his words.

That’s Bishop Howe…sorry. It’s late.

Again, in the chaotic swirl of fog, we think we might be smelling a lump of real cheese. We wander closer to its source, hearing the various opinions of our fellow mice in the maze. As we get closer, we discover that what we hoped might be real cheese, is once more mere words about cheese, and not even a very clear set of words.

Many have said over a very long period of time that Rowan is a man of ideas more than a man of action. I would turn that around a bit. He is a man of NO action. What action has he ever actually taken to protect the orthodox Anglicans who are under attack in the US? He has, so far as I am aware, never even called a meeting of the primates concerning this great problem, except under the extreme pressure of other primates. And if he does appear to take some action, such as the recent visit to the TEC HoB meeting, it seems his purpose is merely to stir the muddy obfuscation-filled words of others and pronounce that everything is almost satisfactory.

We eagerly read the tea leaves of his obscure statements, hoping to find a promise of action, but such hope always seems to be overly optimistic or premature. The man has not been a Christian leader upon whom we can depend for action - at all - during this extended crisis. We can hope and pray for a change in direction of his behavior (might we even say repentance from his previous and present failure to lead), but is it prudent to depend upon his various obscure statements that have not the slightest hint of action in even their inmost recesses. I think not.

If nothing changes, nothing’s changed. Thank you Alanon for wisdom in disfunctional systems.

Right on the money, Bill Cool, could not have said it better. Thank you.

houseownedbythedog (great name!), you bring up a good point and this is where the rubber meets the road.  You see, Anglican Christianity is not all about bishops - the bishops could frolic all together all day until the sun goes down and who would care?  What matters is that they are called by God to serve the People.  If the People, the laity, are in trouble do they just throw them over into the sea?  In America no one is compelled to go to church - we do it voluntarily.  Katharine Jefferts Schori seems to have no problem throwing the laity overboard - not one problem at all.  Just don’t take the Sunday School children’s crayons with you or Esquire Beers will be at the Court House.  For her, it’s the Property not the People and if John Howe isn’t careful, he’ll end up in the same predicament. 

When Archbishop Orombi recently visited Truro he was asked about how we hold our bishops accountable.  He said we should be diligent in holding them accountable and if they go astray, stop following them.

That’s our job as the laity - we hold our bishops accountable and if they stop upholding the teachings of Scripture, then we stop following them, we close up our purse and we go somewhere else. 

If Rowan Williams really wants throw overboard thousands and thousands of Anglican Christians in America - well, he might want to start looking into new teaching jobs in Wales.  Because it won’t just be American Anglicans he’s throwing overboard because it happens that our Anglican bishops are not the one sitting in the TEC diocesan offices, it will be thousands and thousands of British Anglicans and millions and millions of African Anglicans.

He knows that.  I pray that he doesn’t forget it and does the right thing.  If it isn’t provinces that he’s recognizing, then why can’t we have more than one in the United States and Canada????

bb

If ABC’s goal is to keep everyone together for as long as possible in the hope we will all get along, eventually—this is the letter he would write. Offer hope, sometime in the future. Overlook a few obvious things. Momentarily pretend 815 is an abstraction.

I find myself questioning those on this thread who see this letter as a sign of weak and irresolute leadership by the Archbishop of Canterbury or as some new resolution on his part. It strikes me that in its own way it is quite clever and strong.

1.  It asserts the primacy of the ABC over the Primates. RW sets himself as the arbiter of the response to the DES Communique. He will consult, but he alone will make the final determination of who is Windsor-compliant and who will get invitations to Lambeth. And after Lambeth, the pressure will be off.

2.  He makes it clear that being Anglican in the fullest sense means being in communion with Canterbury, which is no doubt what he considers an essential of “Catholic” ecclesiology (cf. the recent comments by Roger Beckwith and Alister McGrath).

3.  It asserts that the basis of his determination will be process over substance. He makes no mention of Lambeth 1.10, which is relevant only as part of the larger “Windsor” process. E.g, are dioceses that openly ordain practicing homosexuals as priests to be declared “Windsor-compliant”? Are bishops who openly declare homosexual activity to be godly and consistent with Scripture to be invited to Lambeth? I have no reason to think that they will not be.

4.  It gives moral and legal support to bishops like John Howe who are facing revolts from their own clergy and congregations.

5.  It widens the split between the “Fed-Cons” and “Com-Cons,” both within North America and the Global South (see immediate response by ACI).

6.  It warns the Common Cause dioceses of TEC that they may be acting precipitously if they take the first steps toward separation since the ABC may be ready to do something on their behalf. Having already whittled the number of genuine Network dioceses to 3 or 4, he will try to detach a few more like Quincy. Finally, it writes off all those non-TEC bodies that have protested the drift of TEC over many years.

7.  It warns the most radical revisionists not to cross a line by being too overt in snubbing the wider Communion and endangering Lambeth by inflammatory acts, such as the election of a lesbian bishop or authorization of official SSB rites. In other words, the Bishops of California and Canada will be wise to delay implementing the recent Resolutions of their conventions.

8.  By citing a “Catholic” ecclesiology while ignoring the actual culture and polity of The Episcopal Church, it offers no real hope for the future for conservative parishes and clergy.

9.  It isolates those Global South Primates who have taken on congregations in all but the hypothetically non-compliant dioceses, and even in those cases, he may be suggesting that some hypothetical Visitor scheme is the appropriate instrument for alternative oversight.

I suppose the most positive reading of this letter is that Rowan Williams sees, with regret, that the mainstream leadership of The Episcopal Church is prepared to separate itself from the wider Anglican Communion at some time in the future, but he wants to make sure that that decision is deliberate and unequivocal. However, given his own agreement with the gay-rights agenda, it seems more likely that he wants to buy time for the Communion to change over to his views of The Anglican Way.

Well, Dr. Noll, I am now depressed.

Dr. Noll, that was my take three hours ago when this letter hit… Use chaos to keep more at the table for as long as possible. Give Dr. Well’s the greetings of her friends in the DRG.

But deep down, Robroy, you knew this to be the case, just as Charlie Brown knew in his heart that Lucy would yank the football away at the last moment.  Trusting ++Rowan at this point is like Dr. Johnson’s quip about second marriages: The triumph of hope over experience.

Oops! Point #10. Lambeth must and will go on, with the agenda so carefully prepared by Ian Douglas, the ACO et al. The proposal from CAPA to delay Lambeth is a non-starter. (P.S. would the “national church” in New York kindly send funds?)

Craig Goodrich,

In response to your reflections posted here, you have stated something which I have suspected for more than a month. Time will certainly tell if this analysis is correct, but I have had a sense for a considerable period of time that +Rowan will suprise the skeptics in the final analysis.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Reluctant as I am to disagree with Dr. Noll, I can only say, “wait and see”—as if most of us had any choice but to do so—and reiterate that I think it would definitely be in the best interests of parishes in Windsor dioceses planning to secede for them to put off taking concrete steps in that direction for several months.  They have, after all, survived through two generations of growing apostasy; at this point—long after the two-minute warning has sounded—it would be rather a shame to leave the game.

The actions of the 7+2 parishes in Central Florida were first steps. They have not “left the game.” But they were very helpful, in that they caused Howe to write the ABC and the ABC to respond. It did move the ABC towards withdrawing invitations, but I hold no hope in that. The ABC is hoping for some Comm-con/institutional liberal alliance (as patterned by Howe and Bruno at New Orleans whose cooperation led to the visitor plan) to negate the Fed-Cons and forestall discipline into the next millennium.

As I said over at T19: Comm-con-ers like Howe are abetting the ABC from disciplining the TEC and then is rewarded with this letter for his patronage.

The only hope for withdrawal of invitations is for more churches to begin efforts to realign, yes, even in dioceses with comm-con bishops.

Remember how hopeful the announcement of the Panel of Reference sounded.

Sorry to be such a pessimist but if dio’s of FL, VA, LA, SD and the two parishes from Plano and Overland Park aren’t enough to get ++RW’s attention, what do you think a few more parishes in Central FL or a few dioceses west of the Catskills is going to make him do?  No Lambeth invitations have been withdrawn.  If +Gene and the revisionist bishops attend Lambeth, and it still seems as if they will, it really doesn’t matter what ABC Williams says - ten more years of orthodox repression, lawsuits and theological drift await.

The point is that these are parishes from a diocese with comm-con bishop, and those are the bishops with whom the ABC wants to make a deal. In some sense, one should do exactly the opposite of what the ABC asks (who’d have thunk) and parishes in comm-con dioceses need to start packing their bags.

Robroy—“... the ABC is hoping for some Comm-con/institutional liberal alliance (as patterned by Howe and Bruno at New Orleans whose cooperation led to the visitor plan) ... “

Is there any evidence that Howe participated in formulating the visitor plan, or that he regards it as a legitimate substitute for the Dar scheme?  Links?

Jesus’ earthly ministry was 3 years. In 3 days his death and resurrection restored us to a relationship with the Father. 50 days later the Holy Spirit came mightily on the disciples and brought thousands on that one day into the the Kingdom. The world was truly turned upside down.
Here it is over 3 years since TEc consecrated a notorious sinner - and RDW and the purple nerples are still farting around. Face it, TEc is demon-infested and the shepherds have no guts to take their staffs and strike the wolves in their midst.
I’m a layperson and I’ve fought this crud for 20+ years - with precious little help from clergy who among other things told me my people (I’m a completed Jew baptized in water and the Spirit) didn’t need Jesus because they “had a valid covenant and didn’t need him”. Gag! Jesus is Lord of all or he isn’t Lord at all.
My wife and I left for good a year ago - and went to a church where the Word is preached, the Lord is upheld, and lives are transformed. There is an Apostolic Succession - but it’s found in grasping the faith as passed down and passing it on in the power of the Spirit.
I love all of you orthodox (I’m one myself), but I’m finally signing off and knocking the dust off my feet. God bless you as you all find a home in the Church. I’m sorry you will have to leave the Canterbury-centric Communion - and I’m sorry for all the pain the remnant of believers will endure in the upcoming persecution, but be of good cheer. Jesus has won a mighty victory! (You’re just caught in the crossfire or a mopping up action.)
I’ll be with you when the enemy comes for us - it won’t be yellow stars this time, but be certain the enemy will try to tag and bag us in some fashion. He’s still pissed that any of us slipped his snares.
Do what you can to hold up the Name of Jesus, show His love, and show the Big Lie for what it is. TEc is lost, but the Church isn’t - and by Grace the West/North can be pulled back from the brink.
Peace to you in the name of our Lord Jesus!

The first is that I have committed myself very clearly to awaiting the views of the Primates before making any statement purporting to settle the question of The Episcopal Church’s status, and I can’t easily short-circuit that procedure.

But he already has by turning the September 30th deadline into a nice fuzzy starting point and by stacking the JSC.

‘the purple nerples are still farting around.

Comments such as this are why I love blogs.

Well, Dougie, God bless ya’, brother, in your’ strivings for the Lord. As a fellow Jewish believer, I know that you and I could probably swap a lot of storys and concerns which uniquely face us. Rejected by the majority of our own people (You’re not Jewish anymore!!) and often misunderstood by the church (“You’re a Christian-you’re not Jewish anymore”; oh yeah, I’ve been told that!), hearing the kind of nonsense that you were told, i.e. ...“told me my people (I’m a completed Jew baptized in water and the Spirit) didn’t need Jesus because they “had a valid covenant and didn’t need him””. What gets me is that often the Church, in a misguided effort to curry favor with the Jewish Community at large, find us to be an embarrassment and are ready to sell us down the river the first chance they get because they will simply be cowed into agreeing that “we promise not to target Jews for evangelism” (Romans 1:16 notwithstanding, I guess) all for the sake of a false peace. Of course, if you promise to withhold the Gospel from Jews, its like saying that you approve of Jews dying in their sins. A bad spiritual policy, I would say, not to mention rank disobedience to the great commission. Whether the battle takes place in TEC or in any other sphere in the church, rest assured that God is not asleep, and will reward those who fear and esteem Him (Malachi 3:16-18).

Dr. Noll is correct.

I have had to work all weekend and have not had a chance to read SFIF thoroughly, but I have a question:
-Has there been any mention of what happens to orthodox parishes in non-Windsor compliant dioceses with “whatever” scheme is implied here or are they just crushed beneath the heel of an oppressive heretic leading their diocese?
-How can anyone believe that this is anything but a clever stunt to delay and parry in order to attempt to save the neck of +++RW at the last minute.  I said “attempt” because I do not think the orthodox are going to be swayed…........not after all these years of equivocation, prevarication and downright foolishness.  The communion is already shot full of holes.  +++RW should have begun his remedial efforts years ago…....but, then, has he not primarily been on their side?  Disgusting!

A series of questions and one comment:

1)  As someone said above, the ABC has been playing the roll of Lucy to the Orthodox Charlie Brown, pulling the football out from under him at each critical juncture.  Why should we trust him again?

2)  How is the ABC going to determine Windsor Bishops and Windsor Diocese?  Since the “Windsor Bishops” played the roll of Lucy at the HOB meeting, how will the ABC know whos who?  More importantly why should we trust the Windsor Bishops anymore?

3)  Speaking of Lucys, it was Howe’s great idea to invite the ABC to NO (thus making a compromise with DAR have the semblence of credibilitiy), and then go mute during the final vote.  Why would folks in his diocese trust him?

4)  Next, if the ABC is going to recognize the autonomy of each diocese, doesn’t this undercut the authority of each individual Primate, and consequently the Primates meeting?  If each diocese is sovereign then it would seem that a Primate can’t speak for his/her people with any authority.  Is this projecting the polity of TEC onto the global scene or was Rowan speaking only to TEC?

5)  If you’re an orthodox lay person, deacon, or priest in a revisionist diocese (as am I), didn’t Rowan just hang us out to dry (again)?

It’s all just so dysfunctional.

I am curious about this exchange.  I find no reference to it on the sites of the Diocese of Central Florida or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I find it hard to believe that ++Rowan would say “The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.” after having said ” I have committed myself very clearly to awaiting the views of the Primates before making any statement purporting to settle the question of The Episcopal Church’s status”.  Are not the Primates the heads of the Provinces rather than diocesan bishops themselves?

Of course, there’s also the question of why when asked by +John “to clearly differentiate between those Bishops and Dioceses that are Windsor-compliant and those that are not”, ++Rowan does nothing of the sort in this email alleged to be from him.

K B Conant

Comm-con-ers like Howe are abetting the ABC from disciplining the TEC and then is rewarded with this letter for his patronage.

robroy, seems like you hit the mark here.  Ends up being all sound and fury, signifying nothing.

+++ Williams and ++Howe, we orthodox are not buying whatever it may be that you are trying to sell.  Clarity and directness are absolutely, positively mandatory in this climate.  Are you each even capable of same?  Please learn how to deliver clarity and directness ASAP and get back to us with a thoroughly understandable statement and action that backs it up.  Thank you!

It baffles me why anyone would see hope in this statement:

“...any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others…”

RW has said as much with reference to the ACN; of course, this does not mean he will ever do anything of substance wrt non-Windsor dioceses or TEC as a whole. 

His past hurtful actions* belie any hopeful extrapolation of support from this letter.  Further, his weak reference to the “emotional level” belittles those who have left, implying ilicit (a la his statement at NO) behavior based simply on an excess of emotionalism. 

*e.g., Windsor appointments, the dishonest WG report, PoR appointments, undercut of DES in NO, JSC, ACO appointments, early invitiations, silence re: ACN, etc.

OK.  Not only am I in the Dio of Central FL, I am also a vestry member in one of `The Nine` churches who are IN NEGOTIATIONS with the diocese to come to some amicable agreement for separation.  Here are the major points that I feel the need to express:

1.  Not a single one of `The Nine` has left the diocese as of yet.

2.  Each church has a unique situation that will be negotiated with the diocese.

3.  The intent is to conduct this parting of the ways in a Christian manner and without litigation.

4.  The pastoral letter from Bp. Howe was read to each church yesterday (Sunday) during services (our rector did it during announcements - after the peace and before the eucharist).

5.  The pastoral letter did, in fact, quote from AB Williams`s communication with Bp. Howe.

6.  Since the quotes in the pastoral letter are verbatim from the later-released letter from AB Williams, I have no reason to believe that the letter is bogus as has been `wondered about` by some reappraisers on the HoBD listserv and elsewhere.

7.  Regardless of all of the questioning and pontificating, we are in prayerful hope that all parties will stay true to their word and an amicable separation can be achieved (in some cases months or even years from now).

All in all, this impatient layperson is grateful for godly leadership in my own parish, and I support the current effort 100% because I support my rector, associate rector and our other clergy 100%.  After all, as impatient as I am to just get on with it, it is all in God`s hands and His timing.  He is, after all, in control.

+++ Williams’ plan:
You hang around under your Windsor bishop who then retires. No new conservative bishops are approved so your little church faces the legal wrath of TEC and is now unable to negotiate a separation without losing all property and starting from scratch.

Or Plan B (common sense plan):
Leave now while the getting is good. If it ever changes that Windsor Dio’s are truly protected, your little church can always return – and would be welcomed.

Um – let me think, Plan A or Plan B?

I do not see why anyone thinks that John Howe can be succeeded by anyone remotely resembling him.  I wish you guys luck, but the half-life of Windsor dioceses is about fifteen years in my estimate.

Thank you, Dr. Noll. I’ve read these letters with interest and there does seem many odd political maneuvers from +Howe and ++Williams but I was perplexed and in a wait and see mode of general wisdom that would be put forth. I think your assessment is probably accurate.

JHG—“Leave now while the getting is good.”
Why do you think the getting is better now than it will be in, say, three months when the situation with respect to the Communion will be substantially clearer?
Ed—You’re quite right—or even optimistic—about the half-life of Windsor dioceses if 815/TEC retains its canonical authority in them.  But whether it will or not remains an open question, to which we should have an answer, or at least a strong indication, within a few months.  That’s my principal reason for counseling patience at this point.

2 things-

1.  +Rowan just said that the Diocese is the basic unit of catholic ecclesiology not the provincial Church, and that the provincial church is really unimportant theologically.  Therefore, all orthodox dioceses which wish to remove themselves from their provincial structure are well within their right to do so.  This lends aid to those, like Dio FW, claiming Diocesan autonomy.

2.  +Rowan still thinks that we all need him so badly, and need so desperately to be in communion with him, that he can say and do whatever he wants.  But faithfulness to the Gospel as we have recieved it, says nothing about anyone’s connection to the ABC.  And besides, a connection to one See to determine’s one catholicity is Roman ecclesiology, and if that becomes the Anglican ecclesiology, its nonsense, and Anglicanism ought to cease.  Remember that the Pope sent Augustine to Canterbury, and that in the ancient Church there was only one western patriarch.  But the point is that to be truly a catholic Christian, has nothing to do with TEC or for that matter the ABC.  If we think it does, we might as well all become Roman Catholics and go back to the one who sent Augustine.

Craig,
Leave now versus 3 months from now – no difference.  But time has a way of slipping through our fingers. Hope is always just 3 to 6 months around the corner, from Windsor to HOB.
Two essential questions:
1)  Can we return if things change? Of course. We would be welcomed back.
2)  Would our departure hasten change? Of course.

With all due respect, I wonder how long the call for patience went (goes) out during and after the presentments era; before, during and after the theological innovations related to BCP 1976/79; before during, and after 2003; before, during, and after Windsor and Dromantine; before, during, and after GC 2006; before, during, and after Dar es Salaam; before, during, and after the Nawlins HoB thingamabob; before, during, and after the JSC report;  before, during, and after responses to same due in to the ABC at the end of this month, ad nauseam?  Seems like a veritable ton of patience without a concommitant concerted action.  Just sayin’.

Craig Goodrich,

You asked RobRoy

Is there any evidence ….

acknowledging that I experience many of the same feelings of impatience, I would humbly suggest that many of those who are ready to “jump ship” are simply either not willing, or don’t believe themselves able, to be patient. It is, more or less, an attitude of “We don’t need no stinking evidence!” I believe that is truly unfortunate for us all.

I believe that allyHM has it exactly correct here, particularly in her concluding remark that

  … as impatient as I am to just get on with it, it is all in God`s hands and His timing.  He is, after all, in control.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Craig Goodrich
I am usually 98% of the time on the same page with your posts, your thoughts, interjections, etc… But this is where I am afraid I have to put the breaks on:
<blockqoute>...reiterate that I think it would definitely be in the best interests of parishes in Windsor dioceses planning to secede for them to put off taking concrete steps in that direction for several months. They have, after all, survived through two generations of growing apostasy; at this point—long after the two-minute warning has sounded—it would be rather a shame to leave the
game.</blockquote>

Deadline after deadline, meeting after meeting, and where are we now? I remember in September when all of us were spectulating about what would or wouldn’t happen come Oct. 1st and everyone kept yelling “It’s not the end of Sept. yet. The ABC gave the deadline so we must wait and be patient! We are now approaching the end of October and we have seen that deadline come and go and a HofB meeting that resulted in more white noise and confusion and still nothing. As along as we are gullable enouth to hang on and keep being fed dealine dates as an appetizer and meaningless meetings that leave us feeling like we just ate Chinese food and we’re hunger one day later, then yeah…status quo! I for one am am sick and tired of being lied to, being played for a fool, being strung along like some relunctant dog that the new owner keeps saying,“Come on Fluffy there’s water just ahead” only to find I need to walk another ten miles in hopes that there will be.

Thank you Athanasius Returns!

I’m all for hope when you’ve got nothing you still have hope. But none of us have been called to continue on hoping when the cards that are on the table aren’t showing anything and the cards that are constantly being withheld we’re hopless at ever seeing. There comes a time when we have to recognise that we have been playing cards with the…..well we all know his name and its time to say fold’em!

I would humbly suggest that many of those who are ready to “jump ship” are simply either not willing, or don’t believe themselves able, to be patient. It is, more or less, an attitude of “We don’t need no stinking evidence!” I believe that is truly unfortunate for us all.

Martial Artist,

I take great umbridge with your comment above….I for one have been very patient and I personally know many who have been patient since Pike & Spong, the changing of the BCP, women’s ordination, VGR’s consecration, SSB’s etc…etc…etc…TEc has been on the downward spiral for decades! Nothing has been done, nothing has gotten better, it has only gotten worse! How dare you say that those of us wishing to seperate from heresy, and an apostate church simply say thet we simply do not have the patience, or that we have an attitude of not needing evidence. The evidence has been ongoing and the lack of discipline has been evidence for the past 40+ decades. I think you have mis-spoken Sir.

The key question is ‘whom does the ABC have in mind when he says “Diocese[s] compliant with Windsor”?’ Most posters assume that he means the dioceses headed by the self-identified Windsor bishops.  Nothing we have heard from the ABC supports that notion.  (Remember that he is at least the putative author of the report which said TEC was compliant.)  +RW’s declared intention is to keep everyone around the table.  This is simply another move to fulfil that intention.  Reading more into it, especially on the hypothesis that ABC’s missives always must be parsed, is an exercise in hopeful minsterpretation.

Athanasius Returns, You forgot patience through the “Panel of Reference” unanswered requests for oversight.

Betty, I stand corrected.  Forgot that one.  Thank you!  Seems we have quite a litany of patience trials.  Could be that we’ve been too patient.

One Day Closer,

I apologize for not communicating more clearly, with the result that I have said something that you believe was directed toward you. It was not directed toward anything you wrote, nor was it my intention to question the patience of those who have prayerfully discerned that the Holy Spirit was leading them to leave the Episcopal Church, just as I have never suggested that anyone should leave. My comment was specifically directed toward the tone of RobRoy’s comments, and to those comments of a similar tone by others.

To be very specific, the sorts of comments to which I refer are, to use an example from RobRoy’s comment above, of the form

The ABC is hoping for some Comm-con/institutional liberal alliance (as patterned by Howe and Bruno at New Orleans whose cooperation led to the visitor plan) to negate the Fed-Cons and forestall discipline into the next millennium.

It may not be readily apparent to you what might be found objectionable about this statement. If it is not, consider the following:

First, the statment is an assertion that, as a demonstrable fact, its author <u>knows</u> the motives of another person with whom he is not personally acquainted, and does so with a high degree of certitude. The quoted statement is not even qualified by a prefatory remark that it is the poster’s opinion, and is, as such, quite clearly a gross overstatement of what is demonstrable. None of us has that kind of knowledge of someone with whom we are personally acquainted.

Second, the statement implies a knowledge of what another person is going to do in the future. This particular example does demonstrate this not as strongly as do others I have seen on various threads on SFIF, which is why I have specified that it is only implied. Some other examples I have read here are more direct and categorical in this regard. Again, none of us knows, with the sort of certainty implied by the comment, what another will do. Many of us are not even certain what we will do in future, even given hypothetical sequences of events. And also again, there is not so much as a prefatory remark to indicate that this is simply the poster’s opinion.

Third, when people who are generally civil and Christian towards others begin to make these sorts of categorical statements about others, it is often the case that they have either made up their minds about the subject of their comments (usually unfavorably) or simply run out of patience with either that person or the situation. Irrespective of which is the case, if it is either of these two reasons, it is usually unproductive, if not counterproductive, for such comments to be made because it signals to the other parties to the conversation that there is no longer any point in discussion. It basically forecloses discussion. If the person I am talking with actually believes that +Rowan has the agenda that RobRoy’s comment implies, which is very literally and exactly what RobRoy asserts, then there is no longer a basis for discussion. If I disagree, the topic has just changed, and if I agree the discussion degenerates into the two of us thoughtlessly reaffirming each others’ opinion.

Fourth, it sets a discouraging tone, tending to contribute to any feelings of helplessness or despair against which some or all of the participants may be struggling. This is not helpful to anyone, speaker or hearer, and is not how we as Christians are to proceed in adversity. Despair is a sin, what we need is hope. Not the hope of a pollyanna, but the hope that signals our trust in God to work His purposes out.

Finally, I would ask you to place yourself in the shoes of the person whose motives and (as yet unknown) future actions are being addressed. How would you react to being thus treated? I recognize that most of the things you say about TEC and about our own failures to raise the alarum and man the ramparts are true—we don’t significantly diasgree about that history. I also recognize that many who comment here have very good reason to have lost patience. Having said that, I feel very strongly that it is uncharitable and unchristian to make these sorts of categorical statements about another person who is not extremely well known to us, and most certainly not about one whom we have held to be a brother or sister in Christ. And I do not believe that being impatient and uncertain about exactly what the Lord wants each of us to do next, and when and how He wants us to do it, is justification for making such statements. I am discouraged to see my Christian brothers and sisters take so little care to express what I expect that they may actually be thinking, which I suspect would be more accurately conveyed in RobRoy’s example by his starting the first quoted sentence with the clause “I fear that …” or “I worry that …”. Unfortunately, that is not the sense that his words clearly convey.

Two factors led me to word my earlier comments as I did: (1) the extreme length of this post is about what I suspected would have been required to accurately communicate my objections to its tone; and, (2) I am neither the moderator nor the commenatrix of this site, nor do I hold any relationship with it other than as a simple reader and commenter hereon. However, I hope you will understand that it is not the lack of patience but the tone of the comments which I believe arises from impatience, which seems to be prompting more and more here to categorical assertions, that I find distressing, and toward which my comments were intended..

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Bob K,
Thank you for reminding us that:
“Whether the battle takes place in TEC or in any other sphere in the church, rest assured that God is not asleep, and will reward those who fear and esteem Him (Malachi 3:16-18).”

We can certainly learn much from Jewish Christians and your presence in the church is appreciated here.
I was respectful of fact that Christianity is based on Jesus’ Jewish religion and that He came to fulfill the Word, but before I read the book “Girl Meets God” by Lauren Winner (a Jewish Christian) I did not realize how closely the ceremonies in the Book of Common Prayer, tied in with the Jewish ceremonies that Jesus observed.  You as a Jewish Christian are in a unique position to remind Anglicans about the roots of our Christian faith as proclaimed in Scripture and I hope that we will grow in faith together.

The problem for genuinely traditional dioceses is that no new genuinely traditional bishops will be approved. To stay is to die. Those who will not become appostate over WO will not be allowed to exist.

<humor>“the past 40+ decades.”

400 years?  Well, then, why not try the original?  The Roman Catholic Church Welcomes You!
</humor>

Ed the Roman,
Humor taken however, the Roman Church would never allow me in as a communicant. I would be denied communion and my marriage would never be recognized in the Church since it is not my first. My first almost took my life so yes I divorced to save it. I prefer a Church that recognizes repentance in the same way Jesus Christ recognizes it and doesn’t put conditions on it. I could go on but won’t as not to take this thread off topic, but thank you for your humor.

The Lord bless you, Betty See, and thank you for those kind words. I am reminded of Pauls teaching in Ephesians 2, when he spoke at length of how Christ had broken down the “wall of partition” that existed between Jews and Gentiles, so that we could be one in Him. I hope as I have posted to this blog that I have imparted a sense of what so much of Jewish heritage really consists of in the economy of God: “What advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God.” (Romans 3:1,2) Though I had long been aware of this, I had this truth forcefully driven home to me when I visited the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit in Seattle last year. When I was getting near to the part of the exhibit that actually displayed some of the sacred manuscripts, I suddenly was deeply moved, to my core of my being; I could actually feel [hear?] something well up inside of me, saying “THIS is your heritage.” Just seconds later, the Christian friend that I had gone with, who operates in the prophetic, said to me, “Well Bob; this is your heritage-go to it!” I was in absolute awe viewing those 2,000 year old parchments, especially as I contemplated the one of Ezekiel. It had been laboriously copied by hand just over 500 years after the original had been penned, essentially unchanged-I cannot adequately describe in words how that made me feel, it just blew me away. The history of the transmission of God words from ancient days to the present time is testament to its matchless significance. After all, Psalm 138:2 declares that God has magnified His word and His name above all else. Should the church do anything less? I’m probably preaching to the chior here, but its such an unshakeable truth, that I’m sure you’ll all forgive me for “driving it home” just this one more time!  Peace, Bob.

JHGraves wrote:

Two essential questions:
1) Can we return if things change? Of course. We would be welcomed back.

I’m not too sure of that.  I know I would not be welcomed back, certainly not as a parisioner on equal terms with those who proudly “stayed the course”.  And perhaps that is fair.

Still, I agree with your conclusion!  To my mind, things will never be clearer than they are at this moment.  I waited until I was 100% sure I would never want to go back to TEC, and then left.  That was a week ago.

The ABC is just stalling. We’re always supposed to wait for one more conversation. When do we get to say that enough is enough?

I am coming to the conclusion that if the ABoC publicly excommunicates KJS and VGR and declares TEC anathema, some people here will not be satisfied.  Remember, please, that he is charged with the care of 75 million souls.  That he is trying to leave none behind is to his credit, not his detriment.  He is trying to provide that pastoral care for people like me stuck in dioceses that would just as soon burn the orthodox.  He is taking a whole heck of alot longer to get to the point than I would like, but I think he is getting there.  And maybe “there” is someplace I will not be able to follow him.  But, if nothing else, he has issued a public, pastoral letter to all of us out here in the middle of nowhere who would like to wake up Anglican tomorrow.  He is continuing to take a catholic approach, which should not be a big surprise to anyone. 

Now, if you, or I, charged with the souls of our families and loved ones, determine that God’s plan for us involves leaving this church and joining another- Anglican or otherwise, then so be it.  Let us continue to pray for one another.  But let us leave the judgment on Rowan Williams to the one Judge who will in the end judge us all.

Look at the enormity of what this says- that he intends to recognize bishops at a diocesan level- and he views the “national church” concept an “abstract reality.”  Will he be successful in holding the Communion together?  I, for one, certainly do not know.  But let us show the man enough charity to refrain from defamation. 

TJ

A note to Dr. Williams-
Dear Dr. Williams,
Thank you for your recent letter to Bishop Howe, which cleared up several points on your personal beliefs, and the position you are taking toward the crisis in the Communion.  I was most startled to read the following:

I would repeat what I’ve said several times before - that any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church.

  I would certainly not challenge your veracity in this statement.  Please be advised, however, that while you note that you have made this statement “several times” the bishops and officials of the Episcopal Church have never passed this on to any of us “in the pews.”  In fact, I believe that much of the current division among the orthodox in this country is due to the fact that until earlier today, other than perhaps a few bishops, we did not know you had made such a statement.  Indeed, the official organs of the Episcopal Church would have us believe precisely the opposite- which is to say that our Anglican affiliation, and our communion with the See of Canterbury, is only through the offices of the Episcopal Church.  Unfortunately for many of us, we are trapped in dioceses that continue to flaunt Windsor, and indeed have stated that they do not intend to honor B033 or the other commitments made to you in New Orleans.  I do hope that you are soon able to develop a way for those of us in these dioceses to remain in full communion with your See and the greater Anglican Communion.
Your servant in Christ,
TJ

Great note TJ! Can some of us here sign our names to that as well and you just send it along as kind of a petition note….sort-of-speak!
I could never write that well.

One Day Closer,

You can email me: girarde at alum.rpi.edu

TJ,
Really fine letter. I hope you let it rip with about 1,000 signatures attached.
As for the notion that several among us would not credit ABoC if he walked on water—be assured, I’ll be the first to thank him. Where I differ is his tactic of letting the river flow wherever it wants to go. Lesser imaginations could create additional alternatives (the Windsor covenant is one) which combined with carrots and sticks, could have encouraged more progress by now.  Of course there may be much more going on behind the scenes, but I doubt it.

What Martial Artist said, double. Maybe “this is a no-mindreading, no fortunetelling zone” should join “no whining, no freakout” on Stand Firm’s list of sitewide thou-shalt-nots.

tjmcmahon,

Two brief comments:

1. I believe that you intended to write “flout” (i.e., to show contempt for) rather than “flaunt” (i.e., to exhibit ostentatiously); and,

2. Subject only to the above change, I would be honored to be a signatory to this letter, should you decide to send it.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Martial Artist,

Yes, indeed, I meant “flout”.  As age creeps up on me, I find that I can sometimes type faster than I think (and given my typing speed- or slowness, this is a bad sign).  Perhaps I will send it.  Although I have not yet received an answer to my previous letter.  I will say, however, that the Archbishop’s public letter to Bp. Howe does address many of my concerns.
TJ