A Very Different Take from George Conger on the Survey Report from Lambeth on Provincial Responses

Hopefully, the majority of the primates recognize the ACC for what it is, a fully owned subsidiary of TECusaCorp.

generalissimo snarko

So, Senor Snarkster, should we call them the BCC (Beerkat Consultative counsel)?

KTF!...mrb

  In characterizing the differences between Provinces that accepted and rejected the JSC’s conclusions, the report said “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.”

Sounds like the Primates who actually read what the HoB wrote saw through the lies, while the HoB supporters just gave high-fives to Schori, Bruno, et al and said, “Keep sending money.”

Lambeth Palace stated Dr. Williams would offer his views in his Advent letter to the primates.

I suspect that will be huge.

O rue the day they learned English and to watch the behavior of ECUSA/TEC instead of just accepting what was said on trust!  Of course, it was ECUSA/TEC who taught them they had to read closely and observe behavior to see if it corresponded.  And it was ECUSA/TEC who “larned ‘em” what was what.  I know they have called that “lack of trust” in the Windsor Report and beyond.

The JSC might have been bought like the ACC, but lackeys’ reports aren’t taken at face value anymore because of that trust thingie and prior behavior. 

And then there are the wonderfully progressive Dioceses and websites contending fo the new thang gospel and liberation at GC2009.

O rue the day!  The deceitfulness of ECUSA/TEC is coming home to roost.  Consequences, consequences, consequences.  It’s not punishment, merely consequences.  It’s natural.

Lambeth Palace stated Dr. Williams would offer his views in his Advent letter to the primates. (see the end of the article cited)

Did Lambeth Palace state which year’s Advent they were referring to? 
Hmmmm…..George Conger’s take is a whole lot different than 815’s take.  Although this might explain why 815 did not party down with the release of the information that 12 primates agreed with the JSC.

The report now tells the world that Archbishop Williams is firmly and inescapably caught between a rock and a hard place.  In essence he now has before him only one appropriate course of action, prompt discipline of TEC.  Anything short of that is failure to exercise his office.  Pray that he is given strength and wisdom so to do.

The very last line of Rev. Conger’s report is significant. It says that the ABC will “offer his views” in his Advent letter to the Primates. This is the first time that I have heard that the ABC will respond at all to what happened in New Orleans, let alone when he would get around to it.

The glacial pace of the ABC’s reaction is consistent with his previous delay. Perhaps the ABC’s Advent “views” will merely call for more reflection. Yet I wonder if the ABC’s delay is also being caused by the ABC’s realization that time is up, and that his next action will determine whether the Communion disintegrates.

The ABC opposed the DeS communique even before it’s creation, ridiculously allotting only four hours for discussion about the “American question” at DeS. He then opposed the Sept 30th deadline. He then seriously undermined it with the early invitations. He then denied the deadline was, in fact, a deadline.

We had Windsor with its nuanced language which the TEC scoffed at and manipulated the imprecise language. This then necessitated Dromantine to define “is” and other vagaries that the TEC took advantage of. Still not specific enough, the primates came up with the DeS communique.

The primates asked three and half things of the American church: Cessation of blessings of ordinations of practicing homosexuals as bishops as well as refrain from blessings of SSU’s and lastly the adoption of the very specific APO scheme. (The half in three and a half was the cessation of law suits.)

If one looks at the JSC report, it talks about how the TEC responded to Windsor report. The ABC then couched his questionnaire in terms of the JSC report. Can we say conspiracy to thwart the will of the primates? The deadline to respond to Windsor/Dromantine was 2006 which they failed. The Sept 30th deadline was for the DeS communiqe. Why not simply ask the following three and a half questions:
1) Did they agree to stop ordaining practicing homosexuals as bishop? The answer is they did. Of course, they couched it in B033 and thus the prohibition will be moot when B033, whose fate is sealed, is repealed in 2009.
2) Did they agree not to bless SSU’s? They did not.
3) Did they agree to the very specific APO scheme? A most emphatic no. The visitor scheme is a sad joke.
1/2) Have they stopped the lawsuits? Well, that’s pretty obvious.

The ABC killed the DeS communique and now is trying to make its memory vanish by returning to Windsor.

The issue is response to DeS. The issue is response to DeS. The issue is response to DeS.

I was struck by the differences in the numbers of provinces who disagreed, or who were further deliberating, between the body and the summary of the report.

At the least, the summary reflected up-to date responses while the body was prepared earlier.

However for such an important report, these differences smack of a really lackadaisical attitude in preparation by Lambeth.

RE: “I suspect that will be huge.”

Well . . . I think that people will avidly and eagerly read it.

But whether he will actually say anything significant other than “responses indicate mixed opinion . . . we must continue the Windsor Process, as well as the Listening Process and the Covenant Process” I cannot imagine.

But whether he will actually say anything significant other than “responses indicate mixed opinion . . . we must continue the Windsor Process, as well as the Listening Process and the Covenant Process” I cannot imagine.

For the Advent response, maybe we should send +++RDW back to that Muslim lifestyle magazine for another interview.  For some reason—maybe it’s a chemical imparted by the coffee maker—he is uncharacteristically blunt in his utterances there.

“I suspect that will be huge”

I have long ago stopped expecting anything huge out of the ABC. I expect a further attempt to buy time to paper over the differences and disagreements within the Anglican Communion.

Quite frankly, I’d be delighted to be disappointed in that regard.

I have a blog thingy

Response: ECUSA has failed to respond adequately. Much of this is due to the difficulties of communicating across our differing cultures (It’s that tower of babel thing). We will all show up at Lambeth, Fellowship and meet together as Christians, and review the covenant process. We really do want everyone to get together. Ohh, by the way , ECUSA has agreed to pick up the tabs for all bishops who have complied with the Windsor report (ie who have not intruded on ECUSA’s turf). We really do want everyone to get together.  How wonderful of them - cost will not keep anyone away. We really do want everyone to get together. Golly good show. Cheers.

Call me jaundiced and cynical, but I don’t know why anyone thinks in his Advent letter he will do anything at all.  We say he “has to” do something, but the truth is—he doesn’t.  Our perception is based on normal models of leadership, parenthood, and business: one corrects problems.  But he does not have such reflexes, and will probably let this continue on.  He probably does have to say something, of course, in his missive (since now it’s been promised).  But that will likely be words about disappointment, hurt, the need to listen, and why all of this is why Lambeth is so important and why everyone needs to be there, blah, blah, blah.  Chances are the best the orthodox can hope for is Chris Johnson’s laissez-faire theory, which is buttressed more and more each day by the lack of any negative reaction from Canterbury about Greg Venables’s actions—the squeaks of Canadian pips notwithstanding.  The price for such laissez-faire, however, is the utter abdication of his office, and the inability to exercise any control over the situation.  One could say in that respect he now can’t act because he’s missed the chance to do so in the last four years.

In thinking about the ABC’s dilemna, it’s worth looking back at what the CAPA Primates said after their recent meeting.  One of the many problems the ABC faces is that if he continues his course of further dithering and hand wringing, and if he refuses CAPA’s urging of a Primates meeting—Lambeth is very much at risk.  Will our good friends in the Global South show up?  Not likely.  So what does he do?  As someone wrote above, he really is between a very hard rock and and even harder place.  It could all come crashing down around him while he pontificates about American imperialism.

“Did Lambeth Palace state which year’s Advent they were referring to?”

Perhaps they were referring to the 2nd Advent of Christ???

There’s no way he’s going to lower the boom in his “Advent Letter.”  No way.  Not very Christmas-y.

??? “I suspect that will be huge”
This horse ain’t dead yet - let’s hit it again… Remember we need to reach into those ‘deep places’ and learn to ‘hold our truth’s lightly’ so we can ‘live into’ +++ABC’s analysis of the responses (if indeed us mortals can decipher and parse his ‘high’ & stoic language).

Seriously, and I’ve quickly come to this thought, “Why would we want - or anybody want, including TEC, to be in Communion with Lambeth?” Can someone help? Real stuff not just appearance stuff’ please.

Is Gonger reading the same report as the rest of us? Approximately speaking, a third of the primates approved, a third disapproved and a third didn’t respond. He has to count the no responses as rejections to justify his headline. That more than a little disingenuous.

Instead of simply asking did the HoB respond adequately to the three questions asked of them at DeS, the ABC sent out a muddle questionnaire that couched it in terms of the ridiculous JSC report. A full third of the primates and two thirds of ACC did not reply. I can’t imagine a stronger condemnation of the polling method.

Do I think think the ABC intentionally muddled the questionnaire so as to get an indeterminate response? Well, my friends, that would be an uncertain yes. For his subversion of DeS, the ABC should be condemned by all.

Ruidh,

Executive summary time:

Of the 38 primates, including the Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, Lambeth Palace reported it had received 26 responses, and no reply from 12. Of the 26, 12 stated they could accept the JSC’s findings, 12 stated they rejected the JSC’s findings, while three offered a mixed verdict, and one said it was continuing to review the matter.

26 responses out of 38. Conger looks at where the remaining twelve are located.

Also, 12 said ‘ok’, 12 said ‘no way’, 3 said ‘kinda, maybe’ and 1 said ‘still pondering’. 12+12+3+1=28.
Conger’s points are that Canterbury apparently isn’t very good at sums and the primates that didn’t reply are likely not buying the ECUSA=‘okies fine’ line. Whether or not you agree with Conger’s conclusion about how the remaining primates will decide, I think it is very clear that Cantuar is somewhat shaky on the whole maths thing. He’s probably been distracted by all that US Imperialism or something.

I have a blog thingy

It will be huge - - as in Panel-of-Reference-huge?

Rowan’s Advent letter will be exactly what we all know it will be. A gaseous emission wafting sourly throughout the Anglosphere. To wit:

1. Opinion is divided.  Oops, can’t imply there is a “division” while ECUSA sues everybody.  Instead, how about: there is a wonderful variety of opinion reflecting the Creator’s marvelous inclusive surprising radical diversity reflected in the responses to date.
2. The Lambeth Jamboree will provide us a discerningly prayerful setting to further explore and live into the profound depths of feeling evident within the several contexts of our listening process.
3. Americans are the absolute worst thing that has ever been inflicted upon our lovely galaxy and the U.S. Marines need to get out of Bangladesh.
4. At this blessed season, yada yada yada…

Something like that.

Of the 38 primates, including the Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, Lambeth Palace reported it had received 26 responses, and no reply from 12. Of the 26, 12 stated they could accept the JSC’s findings, 12 stated they rejected the JSC’s findings, while three offered a mixed verdict, and one said it was continuing to review the matter.

Ok here it is ruidh: 12 totally for   12 totally against
3 partially against   1 still thinking about it   12 no response.
At least so far, that is a rejection, totally or partially, by a majority.

herr schnarchmeister

Chazaq - that’s so possible it’s scary!  Do you think the illuminati will ever realize they’ve descended into self-parody every time they issue a statement?

Lambeth Palace stated Dr. Williams would offer his views in his Advent letter to the primates.

It is to be issued as soon as rw concludes his celebration of Ramadan.

Intercessor

Chazaq, will you accept an amendment on Item #3?

3. Americans (with the exceptions of course of the delightful Mother Schori, Via Media, and our intrepid fellow travelers at Integrity) are the absolute worst thing that has ever been inflicted upon our lovely galaxy and the U.S. Marines need to…...

KTF!....mrb

I wonder where Conger is getting his numbers?
The report states them like this:
12 - Agree
10 - Disagree
3 - Mixed Response
1 - Will Respond Later
12 - No Response
That accounts for the “28” responses instead of “26”...Conger added two to the “disagree” category.  The actual numbers make his opening statement false.
Don’t believe me, though.  See for yourself:
http://www.aco.org/communion/primates/resources/downloads/ABC_Primates_Responses.pdf

Michael Bertaut, duly accepted with one minor emendation. Here in Virginia, she is now officially known as Sheriff Schori.

Jake, a (revisionist) reader at Titus had the same objection then offered this retraction:

Actually, Conger’s piece more or less answers my question above (#4):
<blockquote>Of those who had not responded, three were from Africa, three from the Indian subcontinent, two from Central and South America, and four from other areas. However, based on past statements from the African and South Asian provinces, the majority reporting a mixed or negative response will be increased to roughly a two third’s margin once their views are communicated to London.

Fair enough. </blockquote>

Aside to Chazaq only, others do not read: If Schori is the sheriff of Nottingham, who is Robin Hood (Venables, Akinola, Orombi, Duncan, or Iker)? As one of the merry men, do I have to wear those darn tights? They always give me a wedgie.

In regards to what the ABC may say, this was given to my parish from +Howe in a recent meeting.  He stated that +++Rowan was waiting on 14 Primates, mostly all GS Primates before he would fully respond.  +Howe has been communicating a lot with the ABC of late, and word that was coming out of Lambeth Palace, from Rowan’s staff, was that the ABC was going to side with the 2/3rds of the Primates that have seen the HOB’s response for what it really is.  There was also an indication that what he would do would be released as well, quite possibly be the end of this week.  Perhaps he has seen the light, repented, and is now coming back to a full walk in Christ.  I hope that is the case and not just him trying to save himself and the reputation of the See of Canterbury.

George Conger begins with these lines:

The Primates have returned a vote of no confidence in the Episcopal Church. Lambeth Palace reports that a majority of primates have rejected the conclusions of the ACC/Primates Joint Standing Committtee…

That is simply not true, looking a the numbers.  12 agree, 10 disagree…how is that a majority?

The idea that responses will be accepted after the deadline seems a bit much.  Canterbury has not suggested any such thing.  They had 30 days, after all.  No, the numbers are the numbers.  A majority agreed with the findings of the JSC.  End of story.

With the way all this is presented, and without knowing who said what, it is not clear of what real use this document is.

Is a Canterbury deadline a deadline?

Is a Canterbury deadline a deadline?

Guess we’ll finally(?) know an answer to that by the release of +Cantuar’s Advent letter to the primates.

” They had 30 days after all…....”

So what? The Archbishop of Canterbury has had over four YEARS to respond to the heresy and chaos that TEC has inflicted on the Worldwide Anglican Communion…........and hasn’t done so yet.

FrJake concludes, “A majority agreed with the findings of the JSC.  End of story.”

Well, umm, I rather thought that we were all for lay participation and whatnot.  Don’t we bring that up whenever the Global South issues some strong statement against The Cause?  What percentage of the global Anglican laity do the 10 who disagree represent, and what percentage the 12 who agree?

And anyway, Conger conger counts “mixed” as “disagree”, giving 15 to 12.  Moreover, it seems to me likely that even some of the sympathetic liberal provinces are starting to lose patience over TEC’s disingenuous patter.  If anything I think Conger is overoptimistic about TEC’s acceptance.

So…you think a response from a province made after the requested time frame will not count, FrJake?  That is the epitome of wishful thinking.  Too funny!!!!

That is simply not true, looking a the numbers.  12 agree, 10 disagree…how is that a majority?

We don’t know how many of the 12 were sent by Email thus being invalid.

Intercessor

FrJake,

Are you referring to the summary or the body of the report?  Did he agree with the report or just say he would take it to the Primates?  Just askin’

All the above discussion merely shows how we shouldn’t just COUNT provinces but WEIGH them.  We shouldn’t be counting provinces or even dioceses, but Anglicans, i.e. the number of actual individual believers they represent.  And by that standard, Conger is absolutely right.

BTW, this is one of the reasons why we need a drastic New Reformation.  The Old Anglicanism had international bodies that were merely designed for consultation: the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican CONSULTATIVE Council, and the Primates’ Meeting.  With such a modest purpose in mind, it makes sense for all the 38 or so provinces to participate as equals.  After all, they aren’t really deciding anything or creating policies that all must follow.  And so, since all they are doing is facilitating better understanding and renewing the “bonds of affection,” it doesn’t matter that tiny provinces like Korea, Japan, Myanmar, Scotland, or Wales are represented in the same strength as giant Nigeria, Uganda, and Kenya.  But if you want to really poll the Anglican Communion, you must follow a different approach.  After all, would George Gallop or Barna or any other reputable pollster merely poll the 38 primates and treat that as a representative sample of the whole AC??  No way.

David Handy+
Advocate of High Commitment, Post-Christendom Anglicanism
Passionate Proponent of the New Reformation

Fr Jake’s attempt to apply a strict timeline to the Primates’ responses is amusing and typical of the tactics of our reappraiser brethren. Here’s how it works: If a procedural rule works against conservatives, then it is strictly and vigorously enforced. So here, if a Primate’s response against TEC arrives on day 31, it does not count. Now if a procedural rule or even substantive decision works against liberals, then it is ignored. So here, if a Primate’s respsonse for TEC arrives on day 31, it does count.

The pattern is well established. Just one example: Bp. Lawrence’s consents are in the wrong form, so his election is invalid, while the Bp. Coadjutor of Virginia’s consents, in the same incorrect form, are excused, and his election is valid.

Fr Jake, can you see your inconsistency?

So ... you think a response from a province made after the requested time frame will not count, FrJake?

Well, maybe FrJake doesn’t remember too clearly the ABC’s <a >casual attitude towards deadlines</a>:

Despite what has been claimed there is no “ultimatum” involved. The Primates asked for a response by 30 September simply because we were aware that this was the meeting of the House likely to be formulating such a response. The ACC and Primates Joint Standing Committee will be reading and digesting what the Bishops have to say, and shall let me know their thoughts on it early next week. After this I shall be sharing what they say, along with my own assessments, with the Primates and others, inviting their advice in the next couple of weeks…

IMO, the red herring FrJake trailed across the path, is a non sequitur.

Does he really think that the GS, all the disaffected Anglicans of TEC & ACiC and the CofE, are going to be held as bound, by some silly, non enforceable deadline?

I’m sure that Publius above has correctly explained the revisionist thought process, but I have to ask again.  Why would any orthodox Anglican feel bound by that same unilateral revisionist creation of process?

I think that the revisionistas are now just whistling past the graveyard.

Well, it took me a minute, but I think you’re saying the above is the equivalent of all the contestants saying “World Peace,” (as in the film Miss Congeniality)?

Ooops, wrong thread!

The glacial pace of the ABC’s reaction…

Quiz: What’s the difference between a Glaciar and the current Archbishop of Canterbury?

Answer: If you drive a stake beside a Glaciar, you can detect movement.

...back in the Briar Patch,

I’m pointing out that George got his numbers wrong, so consequently the entire premise of his article is false.

10. Many Provinces make specific comments in regard to the Episcopal Church’s response to the question concerning the Public Rites of Blessing for same-sex unions.
...
e. “While we disagree with decisions of the Episcopal Church in the United States of America regarding … and the blessing of same-sex unions, in fidelity to the history and traditions of the Anglican Church and its synodical structure we cannot concern ourselves with the legitimate decisions pertaining to another diocese or province.”

I would love to know who’s response this is. So what are they saying…if TEC legitimately elected a donkey as Bishop that’s fine?

I would love to know who’s response this is. So what are they saying…if TEC legitimately elected a donkey as Bishop that’s fine?

They did…it is.
Intercessor

“Twelve provinces were stated to have rejected the report in the summary, while the body of the paper stated this number was 10.” —Conger

Here is the answer to Fr. Jake’s question.  Conger points out that two sets of figures were issued and that they do not correspond with each other.  The summary was prepared later than the body of the report, so that means it is the latest count: “[t]welve provinces were stated to have rejected the report in the summary.”

The summary also states that 12 agree and 10 disagree.

Here is another source for the summary:
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/acns/news.cfm/2007/11/22/ACNS4340

There is no place where it is stated that 12 agreed and 12 disagreed.  Conger made a mistake.

If ++KJS is the sheriff, is Integrity the posse?

What if (a) the standard was for TEC to make such a statement in NO so that a majority of all of the primates were willing to voice acceptance [within this non-primatially derived process] - i.e., a non-response means a no vice (b) the assumption that the standard is that non-response by the deadline is neutral to TEC’s cause?

I think it might be a bit safe to count prior, public statements by primates voicing lack of confidence in the JSC’s role, the reliability of the JSC report, and this process as a ‘no.’

Imagine a worldwide communion governed by the principle: oops! you snooze - you lose!

I think the confusion arises from the use of similar (virtually identical) colors on the pie chart.  As I read the chart, it says 10 disagree and 12 did not respond (the opposite of the way Conger reads it), but it is very difficult to read since the same color is used.

Not that any of this matters.  As Conger points out, the views of the non-responders are generally known and the significance of this is that the near unanimity of the JSC report is now a dim memory.  However one reads the pie chart, ECUSA’s position has not been accepted by the communion.

Reports from Lambeth - Hours of fun for all the Anglican family.

Prayers for our Archbishop.

Isn’t it true that a number of those reported as “not responding” had in fact signed a group statement from the Global South?  They SHOULD have been counted because their judgment was known.  This is how George Conger knows what their votes are.

Well, let’s look at the “real” numbers:
Number of primates who think TEC is complying with the recommendations of the Windsor report- 12 or less

Number of primates who think TEC is complying with the “spirit” of the Windsor report- 12

Number of primates who backed the DeS Pastoral “scheme” at DeS-38

Number of primates who qualified or denied their backing of the DeS Pastoral “scheme” after DeS- 2

Number of primates who have stated in sworn deposition that they did not say what they said in the post DeS press conference- 1

Number of primates who think TEC is complying with the DeS Pastoral “scheme”- 0

Number of primates who think that TEC’s proposed “episcopal visitors” is a starting point for finding an adequate oversight for orthodox Episcopalians (but not non-Episcopal Anglicans)- 12

Number of primates who believe that TEC’s lawsuits are within the scope of Christian behavior- 1

Now, divide each of those numbers by 38 to develop ratios.

As Conger points out, the views of the non-responders are generally known

Really? 12 did not respond. The Report states that:
1. 3 were CAPA - Central Africa, Sudan, and 1 other. Sudan has not signed the CAPA or Global South Primates statements, although is likely to be unsympathetic - but enough to break communion? The 1 other could well be Southern Africa.
2. 2 were Central / South American - It is unlikely Southern Cone did not respond, therefore it must be 2 of Brazil, Central America, and Mexico; all of whom are sympathetic to TEC.
3. 3 were United Churches - probably N. India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh; none of whom would be likely to break communion over this.
4. 4 Others - 1 has a Primate on the JSC, meaning either TEC, Wales, Australia, or Jerusalem; it is unlikely Jerusalem didn’t respond - all the others are sympathetic. The other 3 are probably drawn from Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Melanesia, Philippines, and Papua New Guinea - again all are sympathetic to TEC or wouldn’t break communion.

Counting on the ‘no responses’ as boosting the ‘hardcore’ 10 (yes, 10!) to a great degree is very optimistic.

Should add Myanmar to the list of possible 4 Others above - again couldn’t see it as a staunch ally.

Thank you for your clarity TJ. Forgot one though..
How many Primates are lobbying for a homosexual Bishop to attend Lambeth as fully recognized member-1

Intercessor

I don’t see the count of primate votes meaning much, beyond what is already known. There is substantial disagreement on what is sin, and that difference is strong enough that there is reason to support the faithful in the USA who are marginalized by the actions of TEC.

Not only is there reason for alternative primatial oversight, but those being pushed out by TEC will need to have churches and a polity they can trust. We all know that TEC is a PAC and its actions viewed as sinful to a significant portion of the faithful. It is ridiculous to allow TEC to take the assets of faithful Christians and suppress established Anglican tradition, etc., just to play politics.

At the same time, the option to be submissive and pay for the TEC agenda is absurd. If they take the buildings, they deserve to have angry Anglicans going into their remaining “churches” on Sunday mornings to demand clarity on all matter of finance and faith.

Intercessor, true enough, although I tried to stay within the specifics of the DeS communique. 

My cynical side says that +RW will announce that he has decided to discipline TEC by withdrawing Bennison’s invitation.

My hopeful side says that +RW will take some action, along the lines of withdrawing invitations from those bishops who have openly violated Windsor/Lambeth 1.10 by permitting SSBs.  This is also the side of me that believes that +Schofield will retain an invitation to Lambeth regardless of TEC action against him, and that VGR will remain uninvited, despite all the lobbying efforts.

My wildly optimistic side (the one where the AC stays together enough that the GS attends Lambeth) says that while +Martin Minns will remain uninvited (I am sometimes wildly optimistic, but have no delusions about justice in this absurdly political situation) CANA and other Common Cause partners will receive official recognition from +RW as being in Communion with Canterbury.  +Minns will be invited to future Lambeths, as his jurisdiction will be recognized at Lambeth 08.  Along, of course, with the recognition of the several North American dioceses of the Southern Cone.

I don’t at all agree with Mick’s reading of these figures.

CAPA Provinces (3) –  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).
THIS SAYS THAT TWO DID SIGN THE CAPA STATEMENT—THEY PROBABLY THOUGHT THEY HAD REPLIED BY THIS MEANS.

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

THIS PRIMATE ON THE JSC COULD VERY WELL BE JERUSALEM: SINCE HE HAD SENT AN EXTENSIVE REPORT, HE PROBABLY THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE COUNTED AS HIS RESPONSE.

Some of the these votes should have been counted.  The person who prepared the report wanted to make it look as though there were more Yeas than Nays, but it is obvious that this was not the case.  Even the “mixed” responses would likely have been Nays since we know they contained objections.

I don’t at all agree with Mick’s reading of these figures.

There’s only a couple of things you’ve disagreed on. I agree that Central Africa is most likely a ‘negative’. However, the Report is confusing - it says that ‘provincial representatives’  from the other two signed the CAPA statement. It then mentions Sudan, who did not sign the CAPA statement. And by ‘provincial representatives’ do they mean someone other than the Primate - which was Tanzania and Southern Africa?

Yes Jerusalem could well be the JSC other. But it could also be TEC, Australia and Wales who regarded the JSC response as their response.

In any case, the number of additional ‘hardliners’ is not going to swell dramatically.

The big news of this silliness is that one third of the primates and two thirds of the ACC-ers did not respond even though they had ample time. I take this as a major rejection of the polling process, itself. I wrote this at titus:

Instead of simply asking the primates about their impression of the HoB response to the DeS communique (not Windsor which is not the question at hand), we have this entirely ludicrous situation where we have the response of the ABC looking at the response of the primates and the ACC looking at the response of the JSC who looked at the response of the House of Bishops. Give me and the rest of the Anglican Communion a break!

Simply ask the primates the 3 1/2 questions above and publish the replies. Let their yes’s be yes’s and no’s be no’s, everything else is of the devil.

Well said TJ-
As you know…In Christ hope springs eternal. I applaud your Hope.
Intercessor

Jake seems extremely interested in the exact numbers and the deadlines, etc or so important to him. I can’t imagine why that matters, since the ABC’s invitations are all that matter, right?

Could the ABC have given us a glimpse of his Advent letter? Did he sign off on the joint memorandum on the sexual orientation hate crimes bill that the CoE signed with the RCs?

From the memorandum…
The Christian churches hold a set of beliefs about human sexuality, marriage and family which represents a strong consensus through time and space.  This tradition teaches that human sexuality is a gift of God which finds its proper expression in marriage, the exclusive, freely-accepted and permanent bond between a man and a woman, and that sexual relations outside marriage fall short of God’s purpose.  Moreover, while Christian tradition recognises the contribution of sexual relations to personal growth and well-being, it does not believe that an active sexual life is necessary for human fulfilment.  The single life of chastity is valid and fulfilling in its own way.  This tradition forms a coherent and important part of Christian teaching and informs Christian practice.  It would be impossible for Christianity to be practised and taught without these convictions being widely and freely discussed within the churches and in the wider society.

I seem to remember that when the ABC sent out his invitation to the Lambeth tea party, even after extending the dedline only about one third responded.  I wonder if the two thirds that didn’t bother to respond to his poll are the same ones that didn’t bother to RSVP.  He needs to come up with a method to get noticed.  Maybe take it off their grade if they don’t reply.

How many Primates are lobbying for a homosexual Bishop to attend Lambeth as fully recognized member-1

Intercessor, I think your count may be low.
I would count ++Mexico and ++Canada in this group at least, with a number of other possibilities, including ++Wales, ++Scotland, etc.

It may be that some of those who didn’t respond to the ABC have already left the AC and haven’t told him.

PM, you seem to me to be an Anglican (or Anglican’s) Anglican. 

(I often don’t know what many others are, so it is nice to have some small recognition when looking into the squall.)

The response from +++Rowan is now within days apparently. These parlor games of Primate Math are irrelevant. What still counts is that the most populous Provinces (2/3 of the world’s Anglicans) apparently still will not attend Lambeth absent significant seperation of TEC from the Anglican Communion. They may even organize a parallel Communion. That would signal the end of the Northern European domination of this now largely African and Indio-Hispanic Christian body, and the practical end of the UK based Anglican Communion. I still maintain is a price that +++ABC will not pay.

It seems to me all this confusion could have been avoided if the identities of the respondents had been revealed in the report.  Perhaps that is why the identities were not revealed - to maintain the “fog of war.”  I have said before that confusion is RWs ally in this matter.  The more uncertainty he creates, the more likely each side will feel it has a chance of achieving the upper hand. 

His goal is stasis, for he knows the problem is intractable.  If he disciplines TEC, the CoE leadership will desert him.  If he doesn’t discipline TEC, the CoE church breaks apart.  So don’t look for anything dramatic in the advent message.  It will be more fog.  Anything to get everyone to Lambeth - there to bury the problem in a morass of non-terminating process.

carl

(Although the above statements are made with certitude, they are certainly opinion. Lest anyone accuse me of lacking charity.  Again.)

It seems there is a bit of over analyzing going on here. Perhaps it is better to step back and look at the not so pretty big picture. Approximately 1/3+ are OK, 1/3- are not OK, 1/3 have not yet responded—so we know we have a divided communion. But this is not majority rules as to whether to pass this resolution or that. This is a communion breaking issue. There is no majority rules as if we are relying on the authority of canons as our reason for being.

In the end, will more than half of the primates side with TEC/Rowan and try to ‘force’ the rest to play along or play on their own? TEC/Rowan hope to play it this way. But that isn’t how a Communion works. What they don’t seem to understand is that this @third or more of the provinces (and most likely majority of Anglicans) will have nothing to do with it. Jake’s point (12 vs 10) is point-less. TEC doesn’t win, rather we have a broken communion. TEC has spread its ‘charism of dis-unity.’

The only true win for the Communion is a gathered will to discipline TEC then Canada. This is not happening. Rowan appears to want none of it so the Communion is now not a Communion but a fragmentation. TEC can go on its merry way, playing important, attending conferences in palaces that purposely do nothing and distributing funds while they last. Meanwhile the fiddler is playing. Thankfully there is a different game in town with a different kind of fire. It is called Realignment.

VaAnglican wrote:

Chances are the best the orthodox can hope for is Chris Johnson’s laissez-faire theory, which is buttressed more and more each day by the lack of any negative reaction from Canterbury about Greg Venables’s actions

VA, is this the article you meant? I read it the other day and I think it very possible that C.J. is right. The ABC is truly on the horns of a dilemma. Whatever he does, including doing nothing, I think there will be at least some negative fallout. I pray that he will make the right decision in spite of that.

One of the revisionists stated over at Titus the conclusion, “It appears to me that the whole thing is a wash.”

This is precisely the conclusion that the ABC wants us to draw. He purposefully phrased the questions in a ridiculous format instead of straight up, did the HoB comply with the requests made of them at DeS. Rather we have, “What is your response to the JSC response to the HoB response to Windsor and DeS?” Could any definitive statement come out of that mish-mash? Of course not. Is this precisely what the ABC wants? Yes. Will the orthodox let get away with this final subversion of DeS? I hope not.

“TEC has spread its ‘charism of dis-unity.’”
EpiscoAnglican - great summary.

The situation reminds me in some ways of Babel and how God confounds the prideful.  Although this time due to post-modernism we’re using the same language/words, but our meaning is still unintelligible to each other.  And it’s sad, because I’m sure TEC at some level does value unity, but it’s unity that comes from man’s efforts, at the expense of truth.  May God have mercy on us, prideful sinners all, in need of his grace.

I think what is truly telling is the number of non-responses. This is a defining moment for the Communion, and NOT responding says alot.  IMHO, it says the current communion structure (re: +++ABC, ACC, Lambeth) is invalid. And you know, now that I think about it, it’s very ECUSA like in a laity way - just ignored. Not sure if that is good or bad….

As a religious institution goes toward the latter stages of a major split, should we be surprised that communication flounders? In this instance, the ABC, who appears to be clearly in league with TEC, sends out a blurry questionnaire asking obscure questions about a report that itself is pretty clearly propaganda and gets responses from only about 2/3 of the primates, with many of the non-responders being those who find themselves with broken or impaired communion with TEC and who have seen the ABC repeatedly attempt to subvert their efforts to address the issue clearly. Does this surprise us?

This does not appear to be a time for reading delicate nuance from every whiff of information we see. This is chaos or near chaos in the communion. The communion seems to be coming fundamentally unglued - hmmm… its fabric torn at its deepest level.

>The communion seems to be coming fundamentally unglued - hmmm… its fabric torn at its deepest level.

Could those mixed metaphors actually indicate the problem:  historically, there’s not been a fabric but rather just a glueing together. Under contemporary pressure, on the one hand the glue is dissolving while on the other hand various groups are trying to weave a communion fabric that has not really existed before.  Having jumped onto the Catholic tarp, I’m skeptical of the possibility of latter-day weaving but best wishes nonetheless.

WE WILL MUDDLE THRU————IT IS THE ANGLICAN WAY—sad to say!!

George Conger has a new piece about the responses to New Orleans:

Writing to the members of the Anglican Consultative Council on Nov 22, Dr Williams said, “taking the responses of the ACC members and Primates together…a significant number concluded that the JSC assessment of The Episcopal Church’s declarations had been over-generous and that the statements did not meet the concerns of the Primates as expressed in Dar es Salaam.”

He added, “there is at the moment a small majority in favour of accepting the JSC assessment of the New Orleans statement. However, with a few exceptions, those who do not accept the assessment have interpreted the New Orleans statement as a quite radical rebuff to the rest of the Communion.”

http://www.religiousintelligence.com/news/?NewsID=1248

Note how Rowan Williams’ summary of the responses differs in tone from that released publicly by the ACO.

kyounge1956:  Here’s CJ’s article to which I made reference (without the courtesy of including the link—sorry!):

http://mcj.bloghorn.com/3496#Comments

Thanks, Mark McCall.

He (a GS leader) noted that by phrasing the question as a referendum on the work of the JSC, rather than upon the actions of The Episcopal Church, some provinces had demurred from offering a blunt critique

Who chose to couch the polling of the primates in terms of the JSC response (to the HoB response to the DeS requests) instead of merely asking if the HoB adequately responded to the the DeS? Were the DeS requests too complicated or too simple? Who brought Windsor back into the discussion? Who brought the ACC into the response evaluation process?

Answer: the same one that has fought DeS from its inception.