Total visitors right now: 90

Click here to check your private inbox.

Welcome to Stand Firm!

Breaking: Lambeth Publishes Summary of Communion/Primatial Responses to the TEC House of Bishops

Thursday, November 22, 2007 • 8:47 am

The ABC has compiled communion responses and records them below


ACC/Primates Consultation following the New Orleans meeting of the TEC House of Bishops">ACC/Primates Consultation following the New Orleans meeting of the TEC House of Bishops

...Broadly speaking, the replies can be broken down into three categories:

Provinces that agree with the conclusions of the JSC Report that the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has provided the necessary clarifications and assurances on the General Convention responses to issues raised in the Windsor Report (12 Provinces). 

Provinces that disagree with the conclusions of the JSC Report, in that the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has not responded unequivocally to the Primates’ requests as laid out in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué (10 Provinces).  All of the Provinces that have responded negatively to the conclusions of the JSC Report belong to the Global South alliance.  Many of these Primates have commented that apart from a change in the form of words used by the HoB, there does not seem to be any change in direction by the Episcopal Church.  There seems to be a distinction between (a) and (b) in that the former have looked for the spirit of the HoB’s communiqué (and the JSC’s analysis), whilst the latter have looked more closely at their language.

Provinces where the response to the JSC Report is mixed (2 Provinces):

* There is a wide range of views within the Province, with a marginal preponderance that endorse the conclusions of the JSC Report.
* The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops response is not wholly satisfactory in regard to issues concerning public rites of blessing for same-sex unions.  However, the Province has responded positively to the clarification given in regard to elections to the episcopate and to the Joint Staff Council’s conclusions concerning issues of pastoral care.

5. The Provinces where a response has not yet been received can be categorised as follows:

CAPA Provinces (3) – the Archbishop of Central Africa retired in September, and the primacy is vacant at present.  The (retired) Archbishop of Central Africa was a signatory of the recent CAPA communiqué, as were the Provincial representatives from the two remaining CAPA Provinces where a reply has not yet been received (the Archbishop of Sudan is currently in hospital, and is due to retire at the end of this year).

South and Central American Provinces (2)

United Churches (3)

Other Provinces (4) although the Primate of one of these is on the JSC.

6.  Many of the Primates have consulted widely, with their House of Bishops or at General Synod.  A number intend to do so at the next meeting of their House of Bishops.  A few have commented that in the time available, they were not able to consult as widely as they would have wished.

...more


98 Comments • Print-friendlyPrint-friendly w/commentsShare on Facebook
Comments:

I’m a bit surprised that there has been no reply at all from 12 provinces.

Otherwise the results are precisely what I expected.

[1] Posted by Sarah on 11-22-2007 at 10:25 AM • top

It is not clear to me why this statement was issued when so many provinces have not yet replied.

[2] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 11-22-2007 at 10:27 AM • top

Also note the discrepancy in the dates

General Overview

4.      To date (6 November 2007), the Archbishop has received 26 responses from Primates, with no reply from 12 Provinces (see Figure 1). 

30.    Anglican Covenant - It will be important for all member churches and Provinces to consider and refine the Covenant if at the end of the day it is to be life giving rather than a device used to measure who belongs to the Anglican Communion.

Lambeth Palace
20/11/07

For some reason this was not published until two weeks after the number crunching was done. So we could ask how many provinces replied in the intervening time.

[3] Posted by Boring Bloke on 11-22-2007 at 10:33 AM • top

It is not clear to me why this statement was issued when so many provinces have not yet replied.

Well, they were given until Oct 31st to reply - one whole month. What’s not clear is why 12 Primates have not replied at all (even to say a reply is coming), and 65% of ACC members have not either. Perhaps some are abstaining?

[4] Posted by Mick on 11-22-2007 at 10:33 AM • top

I agree with Jill.  I went to the link thinking “summary” was not what the article itself would say.  But, “summary” does it say!  Why not “Status of Provincial Responses” or something to that a effect?  Oh well, it comes from the ABC so I guess it has to be mysterious. 
I’m off to Thanksgivning dinner in Naw’lins….....bye for now!

[5] Posted by Capt. Father Warren on 11-22-2007 at 10:36 AM • top

This is not good. A majority of the respondants seem to be “okay” with the HOB response. Expect no primates meeting, expect no discipline.

[6] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-22-2007 at 10:46 AM • top

Matt—I could list for you the 12 that we already knew would be just fine.

Ireland
Wales
Canada
Australia
Brazil
etc. etc

And that’s just off the top of my head.

How is this surprising?

[7] Posted by Sarah on 11-22-2007 at 10:48 AM • top

It could be the lack of responses is a “vote of no-confidence” in the way Rowan has been handling this whole affair.

[8] Posted by Zoomdaddy on 11-22-2007 at 10:51 AM • top

Okay—I went to the list of provinces, and here’s my bet about the 12 who thought it all was great—which would be the same 12 as thought it all was great FOUR LONG YEARS AGO.  I even threw in a 13th just for kicks.

What’s really profound in all of this is that we still are in the same place that we were as a Communion back in August of 2003.

Except, of course, that the 10 [or whatever, seeing as how 12 didn’t think it was important enough to respond] who don’t think it’s all great are moving farther and farther away from Lambeth.

********************

The Anglican Church of Australia

Igreja Episcopal Anglicana do Brasil

The Anglican Church of Canada

The Church of England

The Church of Ireland

The Nippon Sei Ko Kai (The Anglican Communion in Japan)

La Iglesia Anglicana de Mexico

The Anglican Church of Papua New Guinea

The Episcopal Church in the Philippines

The Scottish Episcopal Church

Anglican Church of Southern Africa

The Episcopal Church in the USA

The Church in Wales

[9] Posted by Sarah on 11-22-2007 at 10:54 AM • top

What is more than frustrating is that the ABC, who opposed the DeS communique from its inception, has changed the topic to Windsor report. The September 30th deadline, which the ABC malevolently said was not a deadline, was for a response to DeS, NOT WINDSOR. The deadline for a response to Windsor was GC 2006 and the TEC response then was a big “screw you.”

The JSC report is subversion of the primates hard work at DeS. Full stop.

[10] Posted by robroy on 11-22-2007 at 10:55 AM • top

Tragically, this is the “slap on the wrist” verses real discipline view of the Dar Es Salaam that many predicted.

I’m with Sarah, the only the 12 that accepted it and 10 that completely rejected are no surprise at all. the 2 mixed and 12 silent are the only hope for a primates meeting, but I’d say the odds are not that much in favor. Though this does explain the tone of ++Akinola’s letter, which was softer then many others and seemed written to the ‘swing vote’ but I’d not place too much hope on there or it maybe disappointed.

[11] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-22-2007 at 10:57 AM • top

Sarah, Did I say I was suprised?

The tragedy is that we once had a coalition of 20+.

[12] Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-22-2007 at 11:01 AM • top

No intelligent person can think PGCCUSA complied with the Communion’s requests.  On the other hand, some provinces are probably tired of all of this and just want it to go away.  Add that to the list of consequences of dithering and avoiding decisions.

[13] Posted by Phil on 11-22-2007 at 11:06 AM • top

I don’t know. My feeling is that England (bearing in mind York, Durham etc.) and Australia (bearing in mind Sydney - they were asked to collect the views of the entire province) might be classified as mixed response.
“There is a wide range of views within the Province, with a marginal preponderance that endorse the conclusions of the JSC Report.” seems to summarize the Church of England. Still, I found this passage , describing the difference of positions, interesting. Neither good nor surprising, but still interesting.

There seems to be a distinction between (a) and (b) in that the former have looked for the spirit of the HoB’s communiqué (and the JSC’s analysis), whilst the latter have looked more closely at their language.

So now we have a few more weeks to wait for the ABC to respond himself. Any guesses as to what that would be? (Yes, that was meant to be rhetorical.)

[14] Posted by Boring Bloke on 11-22-2007 at 11:08 AM • top

From the Summary: “There seems to be a distinction between (a) and (b) in that the former have looked for the spirit of the HoB’s communiqué (and the JSC’s analysis), whilst the latter have looked more closely at their language.”
This one of those statements which seem to make sense until you think about them.  Is it possible that both JSC and the Bishops are so incompetent in English that their writings say one thing but have a spirit which points to something completely different?  This may be +ABC’s attempt to keep both sides at the table, but it comes at the expense of reason, sense, and any defensible hermeneutics.
Primates which can sense such a ‘spirit’ in these documents are to be distrusted as men who hope to base unity on keeping far away from any clear understanding of what TEC either says or does.  This is, at least, disingenuous and dishonourable.  When specific assurances are asked for, it is the language of those assurances which show their spirit.  I’m embarrassed by having to say this.

[15] Posted by J Knightley on 11-22-2007 at 11:08 AM • top

Read ‘which showS’, not ‘which show’.  Early morning + vexation = basic errors.

[16] Posted by J Knightley on 11-22-2007 at 11:11 AM • top

I think that “the coalition of 20+” is exactly where it always was, Matt.  A “coalition” that was not working in unison or publicly, with the 10-12 always out front and taking the lead.

Keep in mind that the 22 provinces in impaired communion did not actually all make statements that were written out for all to see.  There were a number of reasons for that.

Same here.

Problem is . . . that as with four years ago, that 22 provinces that was opposed to the actions of ECUSA didn’t know what to do.  And it’s still the same today.  And here we are, with a few of the 22 knowing precisely what to do and the rest hanging back.

And of course the other problem is that Canterbury simply does not care about the 10-12 that are taking the lead.  He’s okay with letting them drift away.

Just amazing that we are still where we were, with the exception of the 10 floating away from Canterbury which is certainly not at all surprising.

I get back to “shrieking pain.”  People don’t make changes—even Archbishops of Canterbury—unless there is shrieking pain.

And even then . . . sometimes people still don’t make the changes.

I just hope that the 10-12 will continue to keep taking steady sure calculated action.  Unlike some ComCons, the only hope for the Communion to ever ultimately stay together, as a disciplined body, is if the 10-12 continue to demonstrate that staying together is not actually their highest calling.

It’s an ironic paradox, there.

[17] Posted by Sarah on 11-22-2007 at 11:12 AM • top

This is not good. A majority of the respondents seem to be “okay” with the HOB response. Expect no primates meeting, expect no discipline.

The doctrinaire left brooks no opposition to its “no core doctrine” doctrine.  Do expect more of the leftist same from now on.  This is the way it’s going to be, folks. 

Archbishop Williams (himself a leftist) is merely telegraphing what we already suspected he would do—NOTHING.  Not one blessed, blasted thing.  At least he’s letting us know in his patented, oblique way.

Look to CCP, the Global South, and bishops such as Iker, Duncan, Minns et al. for solutions, NOT +++Cantuar.

FWIW, I washed my hands of +++Williams as any kind of leader long, long ago.

[18] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 11-22-2007 at 11:14 AM • top

Any count of actual Anglican (pew sitters) from the 10, the 12, the rest?

[19] Posted by Wilkie on 11-22-2007 at 11:16 AM • top

Okay, I’ve written some thoughts about the release of what I might call “Rowan Williams Check List.”  You can read here at BabyBlueOnline.  It’s called Pin the Tail on the Turkey.

bb

[20] Posted by BabyBlue on 11-22-2007 at 11:20 AM • top

I get back to “shrieking pain.” People don’t make changes—even Archbishops of Canterbury—unless there is shrieking pain.

I’ve found Newtonian law of inertia explains a lot in psychology and sociology as well.

[21] Posted by Hosea6:6 on 11-22-2007 at 11:22 AM • top

This report is the equivalent of electronic divide and conquer. People in non-Western cultures are not quick or savvy in responding to questionnaires. Communication, to be sure, has improved, but it does not surprise me that 12 Primates, mainly from the Global South, did not respond on time. Furthermore, they prefer to make decisions on a face-to-face and corporate basis. There are well more than 20 Primates who believe homosexuality is contrary to Scripture (Lambeth 1.10), and when they are in the same room with articulate leaders, they stand together. Send them cleverly worded statements and questionnaires and they will be more equivocal.

So Imperial HQ aka the AC Office (and probably the ABC) got revenge for the Dar Primates’ Meeting. The only catch is that many of those Provinces that rejected the HOB actions and the JSC Report know the game and have formed an “alliance” (as the Response itself admits) that will become over time an alternate communion, one with most of the world’s Anglicans and with the power of the Spirit.

[22] Posted by Stephen Noll on 11-22-2007 at 11:38 AM • top

Tell me truly, were there ever any of you that thought the ABC/AC would ever do anything about the rot other than muse on another date to think about meeting to consider to listen to pray and discern ......? I don’t know of any Christians in the rest of the Body of Christ that did.  Too bad.  So sad.  Wonder how long any of us shoud stand around and watch the grass grow.  It is all getting so tedious.

[23] Posted by PROPHET MICAIAH on 11-22-2007 at 11:42 AM • top

One of the Provinces which has NOT responded has its Primate on the JSC. Which means it’s either TEC, Australia, Wales or Jerusalem & ME which has NOT responded.

[24] Posted by Mick on 11-22-2007 at 11:47 AM • top

I agree that this particular passage on the part of (Kearon?) is quite interesting (italics added):

There seems to be a distinction between (a) and (b) in that the former have looked for the spirit of the HoB’s communiqué (and the JSC’s analysis), whilst the latter have looked more closely at their language.

Looking for the “spirit” of the spiritless HoB report is a matter for eisegesis, where one finds what one wants to find. Conversely, looking at the actual language is a matter of exegesis, examining what they actually said.

The writer (Kearon?) of this publication release is unfairly trying to imply that the Aye-sayers have the Spirit, while the Nay-sayers are quibbling over language. Alas, we should not have expected more than this.

...on leave from the Briar Patch,

[25] Posted by Br_er Rabbit on 11-22-2007 at 11:47 AM • top

Rather than a statistical process known as ‘regression to the mean’, this shows regression to the stupid and liberal.  This indicates that ++Cantuar is content to do nothing but ‘stir the stew’ and wait, knowing that by waiting, “All will be well” and the AC will be back on status quo, inertia bound to do absolutely nothing about the intransigence of TCGC.

Ah, well, I’m out of it anyway.

Kyrie eleison.

[26] Posted by Fr. Chip, SF on 11-22-2007 at 11:51 AM • top

I have visions of Pseudolus runing through my head as he looks at the contract brought to him by the servant.
 
Servant:  “Do you know what’s written here?”
Pseudolus:  “Of course I do.  Words! And I intend to stand by them.”

Now there’s a comedy casting that would really bring down the house: Rowan as Pseudolus.  Trying to make everyone happy through nefarious ways and means.  The sad part is that in the end the boy would run off with another boy instead of the girl.

[27] Posted by Saint Dumb Ox on 11-22-2007 at 11:51 AM • top

“So Imperial HQ aka the AC Office (and probably the ABC) got revenge for the Dar Primates’ Meeting”.

I have no reason whatsoever to doubt Dr. Noll’s word. 

Releasing this report before receiving assessments from 12 outstanding primates, seems, to me, biased and politically motivated. 

Not to mention, it undercuts the authority and effectiveness of the primates meeting(especially the face-to-face variety), but maybe that was the “leader’s” goal all along. 

A basic tenet of leadership is that if you engage in taking a poll to see which way the wind’s blowing prior to decision-making and action, then you have lost your authority, your own face, your effectiveness, and your organization. 

This isn’t leadership(or, for that matter, unbiased reporting).  It is sissy, frontrunning politics. 

And, while you’re all at it, follow the money…

NONE OF THIS has ANYTHING to do with the vision of God. 

Would that Rowan Williams could clean all the dead but manipulative weight out of the ACO

[28] Posted by Passing By on 11-22-2007 at 12:06 PM • top

Honestly, do we really think that TEC is/was ever going to be seriously disciplined? This is all an exercise in foppery. As is said perhaps ‘ad nauseam’, ‘queen’ TEC and her supporters really have no clothes! Fie on thee for telling them otherwise.

It’s clear that polity trumps everything, FORM has got in the way of SUBSTANCE. Our ecclesiology should be subservient to the Lordship of Jesus, and flow from that Lordship.

There has just been toooooo much talk, nobody’s position has changed. As Fr. Sam Edwards has been accused of saying way back in the Accokeek dispute (2001), the Episcopal Church is going to hell in a handbasket. The situation in the Anglican Communion is not a new thing, read church history. Read church history on how it should be handled.

The early church did not like diocesan crossings, but they liked heretical bishops even less. The polity of “one bishop in one diocese”, is premised on the disciplining/defrocking of heretical bishops. Declare those sees vacant, and you will see (no pun intended) the interventions halted. That really is a no-brainer!

The truth is, the orthodox who stay in TEC, (may our Lord give them strength), had better adjust to “singing the Lord’s song in a strange land”.

[29] Posted by Gone Back to Africa on 11-22-2007 at 12:19 PM • top

An emergency meeting of ALL the primates was essential to deal with an accurate, meaningful response.  No excuse why that didn’t happen when so much is at stake.  Instead we get an inconclusive, “do we trust it’ shambles of an answer from Lambeth that does little to inspire confidence, 
Oh, and canon Kearon and the ACO, ACC should have been forbidden on pain of death to attend.
Instead: ...... who is and who isn’t going to Lambeth…..?

More fudge ...instead an interesting but ‘untrustworthy report from Lambeth

[30] Posted by Bill C on 11-22-2007 at 12:30 PM • top

RE: “Releasing this report before receiving assessments from 12 outstanding primates, seems, to me, biased and politically motivated.”

Sorry but there is no excuse for taking more than a month to NOT respond.  None.

Of course it’s all “politically motivated.”  Tell us something we haven’t known for the past several decades.

But when you screw up such that you don’t respond to a simple question [actually two] then it’s pointless for you to complain about how “political” it all is to release the responses without your 12.

Embarrassing.  No excuses for it.  It’s like the story that the Amazing Grace movie tells of the five loyal allies one year that didn’t show up for the Wilberforce vote on slavery—which lost that year because of them—because they took the free tickets to a sporting event which the opposition gave out.  I’ve no idea if the story is true—but I immediately thought “wow—reminds me of the reasserting Episcopalians at a diocesan convention or a vestry meeting.”

Proclaiming how political it all is for the opposition to give away free tickets to a major sporting event during the time of the Wilberforce vote on slavery is rather similar.

Than of course . . . one should opt out of the political process—and thus the country—if one does not like politics.

Maybe that’s what the 22 will do???

[31] Posted by Sarah on 11-22-2007 at 12:32 PM • top

The important thing missing from this is the response of +KJS to the ABC’s request to clarify from each of her bishops whether the JSC had correctly understood them at New Orleans as expressed in their report - otherwise who may or may not agree with the JSC report is pointless.

[32] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-22-2007 at 01:04 PM • top

There are no surprises in terms of the breakdown of responses in this document.  But for the quotes, this could have been drafted at any time since New Orleans, perhaps even before.  What is revealed is that there is no consensus in the communion as to how to proceed.  Not news.

What surprised me was that the ABC will offer his own “reflections” in an Advent letter to the Primates.  That is hardly the forum for, or the normal characterization of, a major decision.  What will ++Williams do in the absence of a consensus?  Will he do nothing as everyone here thinks or will he discern a consensus in favor of “closure” around Windsor compliance (to use the JSC terminology), which is implicit in the responses but not expressed in the summary?  I don’t think this document gives any clues; it is still wait and see.  Rowan Williams has a lonely task ahead of him.

[33] Posted by wildfire on 11-22-2007 at 01:06 PM • top

Mark - that is what happens when a request by the Primates for a response to themselves is by-passed for some more delphic process.

[34] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-22-2007 at 01:10 PM • top

How trite, how unworthy of Rowan Williams!  Any third-rate bureaucrat or political appointee would have done as well or better with this situation.  This report manipulates the results cynically.  It is outrageously detached from the real situation, ignoring even the orthodox members of its own JSC.  Is ABC just goading most of the Communion to break with him?  He had the understanding and the vision to have done otherwise, and that just makes this all the worse.

[35] Posted by Paula on 11-22-2007 at 01:13 PM • top

I’m actually rather encouraged by this.  Although there were more positive responses to TEC’s evasions and the JSC whitewash thereof than I would have liked, the breakdown indicates that is a substantial block of provinces out there that can read the English language. 

I’m also not convinced that an emergency primates meeting is out of the question whether Wales and Scotland boycott it or not.  Dr. Williams has in front of his face that half the provinces in the Anglican Communion aren’t buying what TEC is selling and I hope His Grace realizes that he alienates those provinces at his and at the Communion’s peril.  If Dr. Williams allows TEC to skate, it seems clear that next year’s Lambeth Conference will be the funeral for the Anglican Communion as we have known it.

[36] Posted by Christopher Johnson on 11-22-2007 at 01:13 PM • top

“It’s like the story that the Amazing Grace movie tells of the five loyal allies one year that didn’t show up for the Wilberforce vote on slavery—which lost that year because of them—because they took the free tickets to a sporting event which the opposition gave out.  I’ve no idea if the story is true—but I immediately thought “wow—reminds me of the reasserting Episcopalians at a diocesan convention or a vestry meeting.” —Sarah

I’d like to extend this point to beg the Global South bishops to GO in great force to Lambeth and show their full strength instead of leaving the field to the apostates.  This is probably not in line with Sarah’s own point above (I don’t know her opinion on the Lambeth strategy), but the story applies to boycotting bishops, IMHO.

[37] Posted by Paula on 11-22-2007 at 01:25 PM • top

Next step: Rowan appoints a special commission to study the responses and issue a detailed report in November 2008, with a status report on their efforts to be provided at the Lambeth Conference.  Once their detailed report is issued, Rowan will send it out to the Primates and the ACC for comment, with responses due in time to be considered at the 2009 General Convention of the Episcopal Church.  See how this works?  Suckers!

[38] Posted by Chazaq on 11-22-2007 at 01:26 PM • top

Is it becoming clear to anyone else that ++Rowan Williams has about as much effectiveness and worthiness of deference as the typical professional wrestling referee?  Could anyone possibly be worse in a position of leadership?

[39] Posted by Jeffersonian on 11-22-2007 at 01:38 PM • top

I’m confused.  I thought ++Rowan said that diocesan bishops were the primary governing unit of the Communion, and that national church polity was subservient to them?  If you’re going to make decisions by majority, which apparently is the method preferred by the ACC, why not take a poll by diocesan?  Results would quite different of course.

[40] Posted by anglicanhopeful on 11-22-2007 at 02:06 PM • top

Will the actual responses be released, along with the list of who has not responded?  Why are we accepting a summary from +++ABC’s office with the assumption that the characterization of the responses is accurate?

[41] Posted by Steven in Falls Church on 11-22-2007 at 02:07 PM • top

BREAKING: Sorry don’t know how to get good news to Stand Firm.  Bishop Harding, Canada, has been taken under Venables in the Southern Cone an hour ago - Check the Essentials Weblog.  Also Anglican Mainstream has Ruth Gledhill’s commentary on what the Southern Cone is planning in North America.

[42] Posted by Canuck on 11-22-2007 at 02:20 PM • top

Good news, Canuck!  I predict the only way reasserters will get ++Rowan’s attention is to change the facts on the ground.  This is a good step in that direction.

[43] Posted by Jeffersonian on 11-22-2007 at 02:26 PM • top

Impression - A mirror of where TEC was 20-30 years ago.

One third says let’s go this new way (and praised for it), one third says no (and they and every effort against the new way are picked apart) and another third sits on its hands holding the fence post.  Where is the question:  What would please God?

The only references to God and/or Christ are pretty much where it quotes B033 (IMHO warped ones at that).  Jesus, Holy Spirit, Scripture….Nada. 

Part II, Section 13, Last part of G addressing the pastoral scheme sums the whole mess up:
“... it demonstrates an utter disregard for the needs and concerns of those orthodox parishes and dioceses we sought to help.”

Conclusion:  The Anglican Commnion itself is on its own path…not God’s.  How about getting back to God?

[44] Posted by The Lakeland Two on 11-22-2007 at 02:28 PM • top

Hey, that’s two Canadian bishops under ++Venables now!

[45] Posted by James Manley on 11-22-2007 at 02:32 PM • top

This is the telling part:

All of the Provinces that have responded negatively to the conclusions of the JSC Report belong to the Global South alliance.

It demonstrates that the objections are (s0 far) entirely limited to the GS Primates.  That makes it very easy to ‘write off’ the response as localized.  I suppose we’ll be splitting along the Equator wink

[46] Posted by Brian from T19 on 11-22-2007 at 02:44 PM • top

“Bishop Harding, Canada, has been taken under Venables in the Southern Cone an hour ago - Check the Essentials Weblog.”—Canuck

Hope we can have a separate thread, Greg!  I see there is a lot of information at Anglican Essentials.—Thanks, Canuck, for alerting us to the breaking events in Canada!

[47] Posted by Paula on 11-22-2007 at 02:50 PM • top

Which means it’s either TEC, Australia, Wales or Jerusalem & ME which has NOT responded.

Most likely Jerusalem & Middle East-he doesn’t seem to be able to reply in time for anything.  After the deed is done, he’ll complain that he only had a month…

Plus, the others have been vocal in their responses.  Although we haven’t heard much from Primate Australia-we usually hear from the orthodox there.

[48] Posted by Brian from T19 on 11-22-2007 at 02:52 PM • top

I think it is disingenuous for the report to claim there were not responses from primates who had signed the CAPA statement.  I believe three of these are said to have made no response whereas these leaders had made their opinion clear.  And how could Mouneer Anis’s opinion be in doubt?  Why isn’t it cited in the way of a “minority report” from the JSC?  I’ll bet that some of the missing answers have in fact been given, but the bureaucracy doesn’t want to know what’s going on—and acts blind, deaf, and dumb.

[49] Posted by Paula on 11-22-2007 at 03:16 PM • top

Brian from T19:

It demonstrates that the objections are (so far) entirely limited to the GS Primates.  That makes it very easy to ‘write off’ the response as localized.  I suppose we’ll be splitting along the Equator.

There is an alternate and I think more accurate way to describe this:

It demonstrates that the objections are (so far) entirely from the GS Primates. 

That makes it very difficult to ‘write off’ the response as irrelevant.  I suppose we’ll be splitting between those vibrant, rapidly growing provinces that hold to the unchanging faith once delivered, those provinces that even now are defending this faith and those provinces which are shrinking but “Gal 1:6 ... are following a different gospel — Gal 1:7 not that there really is another gospel, but there are some who are disturbing you and wanting to distort the gospel of Christ.”.

[50] Posted by Bill Cool on 11-22-2007 at 03:43 PM • top

It is highly likely that Australia’s position is reflected in this comment in today’s summary:

“It appears to be the view of a significant number of Synod members that the Joint Standing Committee’s assessment of the House of Bishops’ response as it relates to consecrations is more acceptable than the response as it relates to the blessing of same-sex unions.  The concerns about the latter appear to spring both from the language used by the House of Bishops and from reports that individual bishops may be prepared to authorise or to turn a blind eye to blessings of same-sex unions within their own dioceses.”

Australia had a Synod last month and its position has been known for some time:

“I am sure that the American response was well-intentioned,” [+Jensen] said. “But it has not yet healed the rift which opened as a result of their actions in 2003, because those actions arose from a way of looking at the world which most in the Communion believe to be unbiblical.”
During small group discussion, there was widespread concern expressed at the American response from across many Dioceses.
Afterwards, Archbishop Aspinall said the response ‘would need to reflect the differing views expressed at General Synod in order to accurately present the Australian position’ to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams.

http://your.sydneyanglicans.net/sydneystories/support_for_us_bishops_evaporates/

Therefore, Australia in all likelihood is the province that is divided but of the opinion that the statement was not satisfactory on blessings.  I’m sure David will correct me if I am wrong.

[51] Posted by wildfire on 11-22-2007 at 03:47 PM • top

See how this works?  Suckers!

Archbishop Williams, please take note.  No one is swallowing this utter sham of a summary.  No. One.  Lead or kindly resign your present office.

No suckers here.

[52] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 11-22-2007 at 03:53 PM • top

Apparently the cut off request for responses was Oct 31 and responses tabulated and summarized up to Nov 6.  This would not have included +Venables’ most recent incursions into Canada.  Primates who may have been somewhat less inclined to show concern for the US intrusions as they have been seen as responses to US initiatives, may now be more inclined to show concern about the un-anglican, unwelcome, activities of the GS and they may have a far clearer understanding of what a GS led communion is likely to look like.  The GS has been demanding a primates meeting.  Is this week’s summary an indicator of what that meeting might do re: addressing TEC concerns and +Venables, +Orombi, +Akinola’s etc. innovations if there should be one?

[53] Posted by EmilyH on 11-22-2007 at 04:16 PM • top

Very fanciful Emily H - hope you are managing to have an enjoyable Thanksgiving.
All the best.

[54] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-22-2007 at 04:29 PM • top

Canadian Reasserter Meeting happening today

While we south of the Canadian border are sleeping off our tryptophan or watching football, our reasserting Anglican brothers and sisters in Canada are involved today in the North American realignment, with more movement toward alliance the Southern Cone today, and another retired Canadian Anglican bishop has also joined the Southern Cone. 

See “The Age to Come” blog in the left sidebar (between Baby Blue and Apostolicity).

Almighty and everliving God, source of all wisdom and understanding, be present with those who take counsel for the renewal and mission of your Church. Teach us in all things to seek first your honor and glory. Guide us to perceive what is right, and grant us both the courage to pursue it and the grace to accomplish it; through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

[55] Posted by Connie Sandlin on 11-22-2007 at 04:37 PM • top

I will be very suprised if the Church of Aoteoroa New Zealand and Polynesia is not in the liberal column, so there’s an extra likely for Sarah’s list. + Patterson is in thick with the ACC, and is an exponent of dialogue-without-end. Likewise, I wonder about Papua New Guinea; unless they are expats, I would have expected them to be conservative.

[56] Posted by Andrewesman on 11-22-2007 at 04:46 PM • top

You know, I’m waiting for the Primates’ response to the bombshell we heard in Fairfax this week when the PB’s deposition in court told us her current thinking about DeS’s statement:

“Katharine Jeffert Schori’s testimony from her video deposition (she is out of the country and not able to come to Virginia we were told by the Episcopal Church’s counsel) ... said several things including finally admitting under oath that when asked if she agreed with the Primates Dar es Salaam Comminque (after repeatedly being asked and giving evasive answers) she finally said ‘No. Period.’ “

What do the others at table with her have to say about her new confession that when she said Yes she actually meant No?
How will this change things in the future, and if it doesn’t, how does it point to any sense of either accountability or integrity here?

[57] Posted by dovefromabove on 11-22-2007 at 05:06 PM • top

EmilyH wrote:

Is this week’s summary an indicator of what that meeting might do re: addressing TEC concerns and +Venables, +Orombi, +Akinola’s etc. innovations if there should be one?

Perhaps this was an unintentional transposition error on her part. This seems more plausible:

Is this week’s summary an indicator of what that meeting might do re: addressing TEC innovations and +Venables, +Orombi, +Akinola’s etc. concerns if there should be one?

[58] Posted by Bill Cool on 11-22-2007 at 05:06 PM • top

What ever happened to Rowan talking about a “two tiered” Communion membership?

Was that simply DOA because neither side could agree to it?

Noll’s two Communions (rather than two tiers of one Communion) sounds much simpler.

Simple Path

[59] Posted by Simple Path on 11-22-2007 at 05:18 PM • top

What do the others at table with her have to say about her new confession that when she said Yes she actually meant No?
How will this change things in the future, and if it doesn’t, how does it point to any sense of either accountability or integrity here?

Just like her predecessor, a practicing, out and out bold-faced liar - facts on the ground, folks.  As to integrity (the noun, not the organization) - where is the integrity of bearing, of speech, of caring, of responsibility, of reconciliation, of intellect, of inter-personal communication, of leadership?  Don’t go looking for integrity in the Presiding Bishop’s dealings and speech, because you will NOT find any, not a bit.  The office of presiding bishop has been permanently sullied by the likes of Griswold and Jefferts Schori.

Accountability?  OH there’ll be accountability…

[60] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 11-22-2007 at 05:23 PM • top

Paula observes,

Any third-rate bureaucrat or political appointee would have done as well or better with this situation.

I beg to differ slightly.  After all, it was the third-rate ACO bureaucrats and Kearon’s political appointees that prepared this report…

[61] Posted by Craig Goodrich on 11-22-2007 at 07:29 PM • top

I feel like writing a letter to Rowan Williams, just to give him a little personal insight into what it actually means, on a day to day basis, to be an orthodox Anglican in the midst of this heretical wasteland (which just so happens to conform to the geographical boundaries of TEC)... Where would I send such a letter? Why don’t ALL of the other of the orthodox faithful in North America send him letters explaining our position to him? What is the combined membership of CCP at this point? Would the receipt at Lambeth Palace of a deluge of letters from those of us who are DIRECTLY IMPACTED by the ABC’s indecisive waffling make any difference at all? Probably not. But some part of me thinks such a letter-writing campaign would not be without value, regardless of the end results… As Christians, what else do we have to offer the world—both the unsaved AND the Church—except our personal witness?

[62] Posted by bluenarrative on 11-22-2007 at 07:39 PM • top

What do the others at table with her have to say about her new confession that when she said Yes she actually meant No?

Well, in the parts of the Anglican church that are going down the tubes (i.e., England, Wales, Scotland, Canada, Ireland, ECUSA, etc.) they likely say something as follows: when she said Yes we understand her to say No which we understand to mean Yes.  This is called “holding the Truth lightly” and it really works great!

[63] Posted by Chazaq on 11-22-2007 at 07:55 PM • top

“Katharine Jeffert Schori’s testimony from her video deposition (she is out of the country and not able to come to Virginia we were told by the Episcopal Church’s counsel) ... said several things including finally admitting under oath that when asked if she agreed with the Primates Dar es Salaam Comminque (after repeatedly being asked and giving evasive answers) she finally said ‘No. Period.’ “

I remember Abp Drexel Gomez saying she said yes.  Is this perjury?

[64] Posted by Jill Woodliff on 11-22-2007 at 08:26 PM • top

I suspect this is an oblique reference to 2 Cor 3:6 that is intended as a slap at those who look closely at the language:

There seems to be a distinction between (a) and (b) in that the former have looked for the spirit of the HoB’s communiqué (and the JSC’s analysis), whilst the latter have looked more closely at their language.

However, I agree with J Knightley

Is it possible that both JSC and the Bishops are so incompetent in English that their writings say one thing but have a spirit which points to something completely different?  ….. When specific assurances are asked for, it is the language of those assurances which show their spirit.
  J Knightley

[65] Posted by Deja Vu on 11-22-2007 at 08:56 PM • top

EmilyH - all very interesting musings, but what do they have to do with anything?  The question was whether the provinces determined that TEC had responded adequately, not what +Venables or anybody else might be doing, in Canada or anywhere else for that matter.

[66] Posted by Connecticutian on 11-22-2007 at 09:14 PM • top

One thing we can be absolutely sure of is that ++Rowan did not send his report to +Minns to be rewritten.

[67] Posted by Bill C on 11-22-2007 at 10:47 PM • top

Do you think there is a snowball’s chance in h*ll that the ABC will release the actual responses of the primates?  I would love to read them myself to see how the responses that were positive understood the “spirit” of the HOB and the JSC.  Are we surprised that the Global South were the ones who paid more attention to the language?  What was there besides language to understand?  I think the ABC ought to state exactly how each province responded.  I don’t trust the Delphi technique that he seems to like so much.

[68] Posted by terrafirma on 11-22-2007 at 11:11 PM • top

“I just hope that the 10-12 will continue to keep taking steady sure calculated action.  Unlike some ComCons, the only hope for the Communion to ever ultimately stay together, as a disciplined body, is if the 10-12 continue to demonstrate that staying together is not actually their highest calling.

It’s an ironic paradox, there. “

I believe you definately get it.  Here, the interests of the ComCons and FedCons converge. The ComCons best hope (however, slim) of Communion-wide reform is for the ABC to understand that most of the GS is actually going to walk over this (with implications for England, as well as US and Canada). FedComs continue to hope for Communion-wide reform, while continuing to plan and move toward an alternative Communion centered on the GS

Williams has actually impressed me with his skill in all this.  He helped TEC form its response at the HOB meeting.  He understands the administrative dymanics of the Communion, and the written polling (with the perhaps predictable, but unexcusable delay in some GS responses) was the best way to attempt to deflect criticism of the Standing Committee endorsement of TEC’s response. 

So where from here? I disagree with Paula in urging the GS to attend Lambeth, notwithstanding the Road to Lambeth criteria. The ABC has too much influence on the upcoming Lambeth setting and agenda, this meeting is not a forum where the GS leaders can effectively rally a majority to take substantive action.  Instead, attendance at this stage, despite all that has happened and said, would validate the ABC’s “rope and dope” strategy.  The Global South leadership is standing up for the Truth, they cannot be effective if they are not shown to be people of their word, if their criteria for attending Lambeth is demonstrated to be a hollow bluff.

[69] Posted by Going Home on 11-23-2007 at 05:53 AM • top

Under the PRIMATES’ RESPONSES section of the summary:

C.  Provinces where the response to the JSC Report is mixed (2 Provinces):

      o There is a wide range of views within the Province, with a marginal preponderance that endorse the conclusions (emphasis mine) of the JSC Report.
      o The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops response is not wholly satisfactory in regard to issues concerning public rites of blessing for same-sex unions.  However, the Province has responded positively to the clarification given in regard to elections to the episcopate and to the Joint Staff Council’s conclusions concerning issues of pastoral care.


The above section of the report appears to be a form of dissimulation that has every appearance of an attempt to conceal the fact that the overall perspective of the Primates that have responded thus far is negative.  We see from Figure 1 that there were three mixed responses.  However, the comments section above shows only two responses, the first of which may indicate that only a minority of that province really endorsed the JSC report.  The second is clearly negative.  If the third response was in fact negative overall, we would actually have a final tally of 13 opposed, 12 approving. 

It is tragic that we are forced to try to decode the report in this way, but the whole thing looks like something sent by a political consultant to help his client do damage control.

[70] Posted by young joe from old oc on 11-23-2007 at 07:31 AM • top

Back from the deer camp. Life there is considerably more focused on reality. Now, what is this latest alarum all about?

I see that some Revisionista body or another has seen fit to spin the responses of the Archies to the Des/Windsor thingie. Shocking news. Totally unexpected. The very idea that Kearon (or a clone) would issue a Summary that leaves out most of the opposition comments. Whatever is this world coming to?

Here’s the deal mes enfants. Did +++Rowan issue this thingie. No. Has +++Rowan made a single statement about his plans for the Lambeth Jamboree invites? No. Have the GS primates capitulated? No. Will they attend the Jamboree with VGR and his sycophants? No. What then is this August Body Of Reasserters so steamed about? Don’t tell me you are surprised that ugly people do ugly things, spin the truth, pretend they are what they are not. Well, Duuuuh.

Wait for +++ABC. He may go right along with the Sacred Spinners, or not, but Spinny Summaries should be relegated to use in the smallest room of the house, in company with Charmin et al. Was it Voltaire who wrote “I have your letter before me. It will shortly be behind me…”

Note to my Yankee friends. Do you know what a Looziana Blue Runner is? A very large, (5 footers are common) purple snake, aggressive, can easily outrun (out slither?) a running kid. Scary. Yet, not venemous.  Attendez, mes petites. You have just seen a Blue Runner Summary. Go change yer shorts and get a cool drink.

[71] Posted by teddy mak on 11-23-2007 at 07:40 AM • top

Here in Canuckistan we had Thanksgiving quite some time ago, so it’s life as normal up here.  You might be interested in the Network
launch up N of the border, and the news of Bp Hardings reception into the diocese of the Southern cone.

[72] Posted by Peter on 11-23-2007 at 09:16 AM • top

Is it just me or is anyone else reminded of the movie Groundhog Day? Deja vu all over again…...

the snarkster

[73] Posted by the snarkster on 11-23-2007 at 09:50 AM • top

Mad Potter says

The “common cause partners” will not form a new province in the new Global South Communion…they can’t get along without opposition to TEC..nothing will change that.


We have a positive Gospel to proclaim to a world in need.  We are only “against” the progressives because they are proclaiming a false “gospel” in the name of the true one.  We will stick together.  We know we have a common core of doctrine, a common heritage of worship and governance, and the confidence that God has spoken through his Word.  We are, of course, a very diverse lot, but we know that our diversity is in secondary matters, not primary ones.  Secondary differences we can live with.  We seek a realignment because we do not wish to be in league with those who differ on essential matters of theology and practice.

[74] Posted by AnglicanXn on 11-23-2007 at 09:52 AM • top

Interesting circular argument Snarkster.

[75] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-23-2007 at 10:11 AM • top

I see that some Revisionista body or another has seen fit to spin the responses of the Archies to the Des/Windsor thingie. Shocking news. Totally unexpected. The very idea that Kearon (or a clone) would issue a Summary that leaves out most of the opposition comments. Whatever is this world coming to?

All,

Repeat after me:
“doctrinaire leftist status quo”
“doctrinaire leftist status quo”
“doctrinaire leftist status quo”

Are we orthdox going to stand at the plate and allow Archbishop Williams to throw a shut-out at us?

[76] Posted by Athanasius Returns on 11-23-2007 at 10:24 AM • top

In honor of America’s Thanksgiving Football Tradition Rowan Williams announces he will punt!

There is only one important line in this document:

He would include his own reflections in his (annual)  Advent Letter to the Primates in the coming weeks .

Reflections, not decisions or major announcements. Have you ever heard of a Christian leader dropping the bomb in an Advent message?
I will get him started.

‘Our Communion is deeply divided, in this most holy season I hope all take the time to reflect on Jesus’ message of love….’


I hear for the next edition of OED there are adding an additional meaning for vacillating. It will just be a picture of Rowan Williams, “Leader” of worldwide Anglicans.

[77] Posted by Rocks on 11-23-2007 at 10:48 AM • top

I agree completely with teddy mak’s take on this supposed summary, although I have not had the privilege of meeting a real Blue Runner.

This “summary” that that Kearon (or a clone) has issued is an example of obfuscation by analysis - crank out enough consolidated verbiage and pie charts and hope that this hides the real impact of what the various primates actually have concluded about TEC’s heretical beliefs and practices. This “summary” amounts to little more than hearsay evidence and unattributed quotations, with someone from the ACO, Kearon (or a clone), choosing how to weigh the responses to produce the pie charts.

How demeaning to have the conclusions of the primates in this Land of Oz filtered by some unknown person behind the curtain who apparently thinks he is pulling the levers. If this is allowed to stand as a method for the Primates to have impact on the AC, they will have no impact. All will be filtered.

[78] Posted by Bill Cool on 11-23-2007 at 11:09 AM • top

“RE: “Releasing this report before receiving assessments from 12 outstanding primates, seems, to me, biased and politically motivated.”

“Sorry but there is no excuse for taking more than a month to NOT respond.  None.

Of course it’s all “politically motivated.” Tell us something we haven’t known for the past several decades”.

Boy, this is petty. 

As for this part of it: 

“Sorry but there is no excuse for taking more than a month to NOT respond.  None”; Dr Noll has already explained this, and, as he lives in Uganda, he would know. 

“This report is the equivalent of electronic divide and conquer. People in non-Western cultures are not quick or savvy in responding to questionnaires. Communication, to be sure, has improved, but it does not surprise me that 12 Primates, mainly from the Global South, did not respond on time. Furthermore, they prefer to make decisions on a face-to-face and corporate basis”.

Perhaps some of these gentlemen don’t have the access to a lot of fancy computer equipment that we do.  Not to mention, they’re probably tired of “responding” and then feeling like their response was not heard or taken to heart anyway. 

Simple Path asks a very good question: 

“What ever happened to Rowan talking about a “two tiered” Communion membership”?

Yeah, he seems to have forgotten he ever wrote that “Challenge and Hope” paper.  It must be in the black hole with the DeS Communique. 

He’d better get with the program and find a solution to this.  Jordan Hylden was right—doing “nothing” is absolutely much worse than doing “something”.  Much more dithering will do nothing but send it all to hell in a handbasket. 

GiD

[79] Posted by Passing By on 11-23-2007 at 11:34 AM • top

It seems to me that Australia may be faced with the choice of losing Sydney or losing TEC. My bet is that the other dioceses would prefer to keep Sydney within the church and confined to its own boundaries.

[80] Posted by NotaBene on 11-23-2007 at 12:47 PM • top

This is not good. A majority of the respondants seem to be “okay” with the HOB response. Expect no primates meeting, expect no discipline.

Posted by Matt Kennedy on 11-22-2007 at 11:46 AM [link]

er, yeah.

[81] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 11-23-2007 at 12:50 PM • top

I always look for your comments, DR. NOLL, because your international experience and your time with the GS lay the present situation and highly probable forthcoming events on the line.  There is little margin for any other result, in my opinion.

I have become further hardened on that opinion after being present at the Anglican District of Virginia/Tec/Diocese of Virginia trial.
For those who are hopeful that there might be some positive change with the Episcopal Church’s powers-that-be or any of their financially supported fellow travelers, I am hoping that Ms. Schori’s video at the recent trial in Fairfax can be put on the Internet.  In her was represented the face of TEC and it was not a pretty face.  (We saw about 50 minutes; I understand there was about 4 hours of testimony from her.) This crowd is intransigent in their position, they do not view any of their actions as wrong, and their determination and directness towards a common goal appears to be absolute.  The future of those who have separated rests with the GS while we hope and pray that the CCP gets it together.

I will be curious to see how many Episcopal bishops opt to retire (or go to Rome) and get out of the mess, particularly as the departures of the parishes increase in number and the facts on the ground become even clearer.

[82] Posted by Petra on 11-23-2007 at 12:53 PM • top

The truth is, the orthodox who stay in TEC, (may our Lord give them strength), had better adjust to “singing the Lord’s song in a strange land”.

Posted by Gone Back to Africa on 11-22-2007 at 01:19 PM [link]

and they have. “I’m not reporting to some African” or “Just al long as it’s not in my beloved parish” or “As long as we have Fr. Orthodox all is well” or “I intend to be buried here, not at the strip mall”...and the list goes on…as long as we know what we mean

[83] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 11-23-2007 at 12:55 PM • top

When I said any third-rater could have done better with “this situation” than ++Rowan Williams has done, I didn’t just mean this report.  I have always been a strong supporter of him—taught his works for years and quoted them often; I know his subtlety and depth and ability to perceive—and I know he has seen through the duplicities of TEC—so I am especially disappointed and disillusioned at the way he has absented himself from obvious duties and has not lived up to his own possibilities or those that were clearly set before him.  Matt is right that he could have settled this whole mess within days of GC 2003; nobody would have questioned his authority then.  But of course everybody must question it now, in light of the the weaknesses that are exposed in his office, and in his use of it, during this long waiting game.  I have written him letters, over a period of years, to little final effect, it seems.  Of course, I hope he will surprise us yet, but why the long silence all summer?  We know the feeling of abandonment.

[84] Posted by Paula on 11-23-2007 at 01:00 PM • top

“He’d better get with the program and find a solution to this.”

Or what?

That’s always been the problem. His goal and my goal (and probably your goal) are much different. His goal seems to be to keep as much of the Communion together as possible, without sacrificing TEC, Canada or for that matter his leadership in the Church of England and its politically sensitive position in British culture. What Williams is doing is carefully calculated to do just that.  If a break has to occur, he will try to make sure it involves just a few Global South provinces,  not his natural allies in the US and Canada.  He is playing to those fence sitting Provinces that might vote with the Global South in a Primates meeting, but are unlikely to do anything else, certainly not if it involves a break with Canterbury.

Williams and TEC’s leadership (with help from others) have also done a pretty good job in thwarting large scale defections of church bodies in the US, ensuring that the orthodox instead continue to leave in dribbles to other denominations.  Although some of the largest and most dynamic Episcopal churches have left to join the GS, and three or four Dioceses are likely to follow, that is about it. 

For the new Global South supported churches to become the nucleus of a significant US denomination, an evangelical movement such as what was witnessed during Truro and Plano’s growth stages will need to occur.  I have no clue whether this will happen and often despair when I see the lack of the type of leadership needed for this to occur. All I know is that people respond best to a clear message, and the current situation presents a very confused one.  It is also a drag on time and resources. The sooner this is over with the better.

[85] Posted by Going Home on 11-23-2007 at 01:04 PM • top

Well, as a report, it tells us little other than (1) the communion is split, roughly evenly in terms of primates, and (2) the ABC will be issuing something further in Advent.

The representative quotes in the report, of course, are worthless since cherry-picked by the TEC-dominated ACC and Lambeth bureaucracy.  Only if the individual reports were released could there be any meaning attached to them, and I doubt that will happen.

The most annoying mendacity, one fixing the point of view of the drafters, and not to their benefit, is the remark that:

a. Provinces that agree with the conclusions of the JSC Report that the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has provided the necessary clarifications and assurances on the General Convention responses to issues raised in the Windsor Report (12 Provinces). 
b. Provinces that disagree with the conclusions of the JSC Report, in that the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops has not responded unequivocally to the Primates’ requests as laid out in the Dar es Salaam Communiqué (10 Provinces).
All of the Provinces that have responded negatively to the conclusions of the JSC Report belong to the Global South alliance.  Many of these Primates have commented that apart from a change in the form of words used by the HoB, there does not seem to be any change in direction by the Episcopal Church.  There seems to be a distinction between (a) and (b) in that the former have looked for the spirit of the HoB’s communiqué (and the JSC’s analysis), whilst the latter have looked more closely at their language. 

The spirit of the HoB response, of course, was to lie - to put in just enough weasel words to allow someone so inclined to say they had responded properly.  Numerous TEC bishops have already said so, in effect.  The HoB had no intention of responding positively to the DES communique.  So it is the primates in (a) and those at the JSC who are ignoring the spirit of the communique, while the primates in (b) are not only reading it carefully but noting its spirit.

That the author of this report could make the statement quoted above, which is not remotely truthful, tells one much.

Anyway, the author cannot conceal the split.  Without action by the ABC, an alternative province is already being set up for the US and Canada with the support of a significant number of primates.  Barring major developments, a large portion of the global south (representing a majority of the world’s Anglicans) may not be present for Lambeth.

And is that Benedict, formerly Ratzinger, writing another brotherly letter to the American orthodox?

[86] Posted by pendennis88 on 11-23-2007 at 01:06 PM • top

Apparently the cut off request for responses was Oct 31 and responses tabulated and summarized up to Nov 6.  This would not have included +Venables’ most recent incursions into Canada.  Primates who may have been somewhat less inclined to show concern for the US intrusions as they have been seen as responses to US initiatives, may now be more inclined to show concern about the un-anglican, unwelcome, activities of the GS and they may have a far clearer understanding of what a GS led communion is likely to look like.  The GS has been demanding a primates meeting.  Is this week’s summary an indicator of what that meeting might do re: addressing TEC concerns and +Venables, +Orombi, +Akinola’s etc. innovations if there should be one?

Posted by EmilyH on 11-22-2007 at 05:16 PM [link]

One thing is for sure: Business as usual.
IOW, no news is still no news.

This is all actually hardest for those among us who really are anglicans and not crypto-romans and not truly presbyterian types but want to be in a church (or perhaps as Rome would write, “a christian leaning community”)

I mean really, it is gonna be tough in the short run, and that is our life span folks, to be christians in a non-christian sect in a different kind of way than early church christians among those who proudly proclaimed being pagans. We have folks wearing the mantle of Christ sorta maintaining that Christ is not God. For all understandable purposes, we have bishops and priests who proclaim something on the order of “I do, so God bless it” instead of “Woe is me unworthy sinner, change me Lord”...we are in a time.

And it doesn’t on the surface appear to be the time of addressing the innovations of ECUSATECinc.

[87] Posted by southernvirginia1 on 11-23-2007 at 01:07 PM • top

OK, so what is the point of this exercise, besides telling us what we already knew?

[88] Posted by tjmcmahon on 11-23-2007 at 02:29 PM • top

RE: “Sorry but there is no excuse for taking more than a month to NOT respond.  None”

Right, Geek in Dallas—I should have said no *good* excuse.

After all, the five allies of Wilberforce who supposedly didn’t show up one year to vote because they were at the sporting event to which they had been given free tickets certainly had an excuse.

It just wasn’t a good one.

I’d be fine if 12 provinces simply announced they were no longer going to play the political game any more.  But to simply not respond after a month?

Wow.  Simply wow.

[89] Posted by Sarah on 11-23-2007 at 02:41 PM • top

Just seems to confirm what everyone already knows. This entire thing is being driven and pepetuated by the African Provinces (although not all), cheered on by a small number of American conservatives. Only Southern Cone (tiny) and perhaps SE Asia (small) can be said to be really behind them. 12 provinces are happy for TEC to remain, 3 are not unhappy, and 12 seem (in many cases) just fed up and are mainly composed of provinces who are not anti-TEC. Two-thirds of the Provinces are happy (or at least content) to remain in communion with Canterbury and TEC & ACC - neither calling for their expulsion nor threatening to leave themselves. The ABC is not going to break with either TEC or ACC, and Lambeth 2008 is going ahead - with already 500+ bishops officially registered to attend. Most Provinces are just tired of the single-issue obsession, shrill hectoring and calls for expulsion from the ‘reasserters’, who seem to be steadily losing global support. Time for the unhappy third to either accept that TEC and ACC are remaining in a diverse Anglican Communion, living in a time of theological reception on certain issues, and just live with it, or put their money where their mouth is and leave. Canterbury will not break with TEC or ACC; but nor will Canterbury break with the anti-TEC provinces - the ball is in their court to make that move. Let’s see how many choose that path.

[90] Posted by Mick on 11-23-2007 at 03:11 PM • top

Mick,
Are you trying to out-Fraser Giles in debunking the ‘Great Global Conservative Purito-Anglican Conspiracy’?

Paddy

[91] Posted by paddy on 11-23-2007 at 03:20 PM • top

Mick, before you break out the champaigne, you might want to ponder your ASA figures and consider the implications for the future.  TEC’s political success will be a pyrrhic victory.

[92] Posted by Going Home on 11-23-2007 at 03:30 PM • top

I have seen some tentative and vague attempts to analyse the information offered by ABC, but I wonder if anybody can provide me with a simple list of Provinces and where they, more or less, stand, as far as communion with TEC goes? Also, how do these Provinces add up in terms of total membership? Assuming that the Primates represent the character of their provinces, how many people—world-wide—can be placed in the revisionist category; placed in the reasserter category? How many authentically “mixed” Provinces are there? I also wonder how all of this breaks out in terms of Dioceses… Is there a fairl;y simple “score card” to be had?

[93] Posted by bluenarrative on 11-23-2007 at 03:59 PM • top

“It is not clear to me why this statement was issued when so many provinces have not yet replied”—-Jill Woodliffe

Perhaps the Delphi Oracle works best with incomplete results. The oracle can moderate them in advance.

[94] Posted by Irenaeus on 11-23-2007 at 07:52 PM • top

My recollection is the pronouncements of the Oracle at Delphi were were always ambiguous.

[95] Posted by Pageantmaster ن on 11-23-2007 at 08:13 PM • top

GOING HOME:
It is true that ABC W. is going to “try to make sure it involves just the Global South primates”, but he may not be totally successful…and any small shift to our side makes a difference.  Look at the recent movement in Canada.  Then, relative to TEC thwarting large scale defections of church bodies in the U.S., I wonder what will happen when the dioceses split.  Has is not been suggested that San Joachim’s borders will open to receive parishes from elsewhere?  If one performs in this manner, they all will.  Don’t despair that these incremental (sometimes small) movements will not combine to be effective.  I think they will be.

We also are not aware of the number of medium or small parishes making decisions to get out. The greater the increase of orthodox parishes in any location the more the opportunity for the orthodox to flock to it.  This could end up being a nightmare for TEC, and it is coming.  Already, CANA alone has 61 parishes and 100 clergy with an ASA of 70%, surely the envy of TEC. (12,000 members; 10,000 previous Episcopalians) and that is in 11 months.  It has been stated that many more are in the pipeline.  (And there are other orthodox out there building up their organizations).  So, although only 3 or 4 dioceses are primed to split, I wonder just how much unraveling is occurring within the other dioceses.  We really can only suspect.

You say you despair when you see the lack of leadership for evangelical movements to occur.  I agree.  When one considers that priests from orthodox seminaries are not hired by most bishops one understands the immensity of the problem.  The tipping point has well been reached and is far behind us. This is why I figure from here on out little change can be made in TEC and whatever happens for the orthodox has got to be laity led to include, among other things Sarah’s suggestion of the affirmation program. (Which, I believe was withholding or redirecting money.)  It would be interesting to see a blog open for suggestions of various methods of laity led opposition to TEC.

SOUTHERNVIRGINIA1 when you write “it is gonna be tough in the short run and that is our life span folks” including the rest of your paragraph makes me sad because you are right.  Except: things are moving so much quicker than I ever expected they would….and if, somehow, the laity could work to get out the difference would be immense.  I have said I am very sad for those entrapped and admiring of those who have the courage to stay to fight, but I think the battle has been lost with TEC.  That does not mean that the war can not be won.  It will be and Jesus is in our corner!

[96] Posted by Petra on 11-23-2007 at 08:17 PM • top

Any one?
Are some of our boffins positing that the non replies are intended to indicate contempt for the Summary process, that they are so put off by it and its promoters that they won’t reply, are going about business as usual? Said business being cross boundry incursions, preparing to absorb whole dioceses? That is genuine hard ball and welcome to me if so.  Someone assess this for me.

[97] Posted by teddy mak on 11-24-2007 at 04:51 PM • top

Registered members are welcome to leave comments. Log in here, or register here.


Comment Policy: We pride ourselves on having some of the most open, honest debate anywhere about the crisis in our church. However, we do have a few rules that we enforce strictly. They are: No over-the-top profanity, no racial or ethnic slurs, and no threats real or implied of physical violence. Please see this post for more. Although we rarely do so, we reserve the right to remove or edit comments, as well as suspend users' accounts, solely at the discretion of site administrators. Since we try to err on the side of open debate, you may sometimes see comments that you believe strain the boundaries of our rules. Comments are the opinions of visitors, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Stand Firm, its board of directors, or its site administrators.