CCP and Gafcon: What does it all mean?

It may not sail. But it can.

What will cause it to sail and will this happen before or after Lambeth?  (I should add that I was one who ws surprised by the subtlety.

Mark,

I think that question is unanswerable at the moment, I do not know, but I would think (and hope) that any failure to discipline TEC as signaled by TEC’s presence and participation at Lambeth would be at least one trigger.

I also think that the unanswered question itself is part of the power of these statements

I also think that the unanswered question itself is part of the power of these statements

Thank you Fr. Matt for this eloquence. Your message drives us to rely on faith and prayer that God’s will shall prevail and his glory shall come from it.

Intercessor

I also think that the unanswered question itself is part of the power of these statements

I agree, but that implies that they intend to use this uncertainty to influence events between now and Lambeth.  This and the continued silence on the Advent letter make me think much is going on behind the scenes.

No doubt much is going on behind the scenes.  But I do not think it necessary to read bad motives into this. It can and hopefully will serve to warn Canterbury that time is not limitless.

The Advent letter was so utterly inadequate, by the way, that I do not think it merits a unified response. It was the final betrayal of the Windsor process; a betrayal that began in Tanzania with the subgroup report, continued with the use of the JSC to condition the primates consideration of the HOB response and finally, the advent letter which seeks to establish yet another select panel and yet another heavily handled process that will end, inevitably, with all hands present at Lambeth.

For those still trying to differentiate themselves from TEC, as we wait for discipline that is out of our hands, what is left to do besides rely on faith and prayer?  We have joined organizations, issued vestry resolutions, tried to organize resistance within the diocese, gone to conferences, withheld money from the national church, and even changed the name on our church signs from Episcopal to Episcopal/Anglican, yet we are still part of TEC…and it is still apostate.  We have waited faithfully if not patiently, through Windsor, Dromantine, Dar es Salaam and two HOB meetings…we have waited for the ABC to issue his Advent message and now we are waiting still.  Are there other actions we could still take to differentiate ourselves further?  Are there preparations we need to make to be prepared to enter the boat if/when it sails?  What deadlines are we looking to now?  Jerusalem, Lambeth, the end of a covenant process that will likely take a decade to play out?  What advice would the regulars at Stand Firm give to those who wish to discern God’s will as we enter 2008?

I like the metaphor of a sinking island. In the present state of this on this sinking island, should “Canterbury” be seen as a part of the island? Is the Archbishop of Canterbury one who is inexorably linked to the “progressive” leadership of this island—and, if so, is he enthusiastically committed to the leadership of this island? Or is he somebody outside of the leadership—somebody with a measure of moral stature—who has, thus far, failed to use his stature to rebuke the leadership of this island? Does he, perhaps, represent a destination that this boat might possibly sail towards—in other words, a stable island, not in danger of sinking? Or does he, perhaps, represent yet another island in a chain of islands—his particular island is ALSO sinking, but at a much slower rate than the one Father Kennedy writes about? Once could have a lot of fun playing around with this particular metaphorical image. Personally, I think Canterbury is also sinking—though at a much slower rate than TEC. I think that I would like to see all of the inhabitants of these unstable islands sail to Africa—which looks to me to be, spiritually speaking, a VERY stable place these days.

JohnP, I can’t tell you what to do.  But if you choose to stay in ECUSA for now, the thing I would work on is your diocese.  There is plenty, plenty, plenty to do . . .

Sarah, the facts on the ground in each diocese are different of course, but the question is what other aspects of differentiation should we seek beyond those listed.  I know that focusing on elections of orthodox into key positions is a goal, and I know that for some diocese selecting an orthodox bishop to replace the current bishop will eventually come into play, but what else?

Johnp, is your parish struggling to differentiate itself from 1) the deanery or convocation, 2) other parishes in the diocese, 3) the diocese, or 4) ECUSA?

Good analogy Matt!  While the island is slowly sinking it is also shrinking.  When the island is totally submerged it will continue to imperil the folks on the boat as it will be a navigation hazard.

Sarah, I am not thinking so much about my parish specifically at the moment, but about any parish that wishes to differentiate itself from ECUSA.  One of the disadvantages in an urban area with multiple Episcopal Churches nearby is that if you differentiate more than the surrounding churches you tend to see membership shifts that cause you to become more or less orthodox depending on the position of those around you.  For those who take too soft a stand orthodox members leave and a harder stand becomes more difficult to take.  For those who take a stronger stand, the pressure to continue to ratchet up the differentiation puts more pressure and developing new ways to differentiate.  I was simply looking for other ways that a church might differentiate beyond those commonly listed.  I also was asking about the larger question raised by Matt in his headline: What does it all mean?  I was wondering what, if anything it might signify about timing…I value both the strategy of staying (under proper conditions for a time - undefined) and the strategy of setting sail from the island (when the time is right, but not before)...so how are you currently viewing the timing?  Or is that like asking the President about troop withdrawal timetables?

“It may not sail.  But it can.”

Not so sure about that last sentence.  Whether or not the boat is seaworthy has yet to be demonstrated, and there are significant unresolved issues that could easily scuttle it even before it leaves the dock.  That said, I say “God bless her and all who sail in her.”

RE: “Sarah, I am not thinking so much about my parish specifically at the moment, but about any parish that wishes to differentiate itself from ECUSA.”

Hmmm.  As you said earlier, the facts on the ground are different in each diocese, so I’d have to work with some more specificity.  After all, it’d be fairly easy to “differentiate” oneself in the Diocese of Newark, I should think!  ; > )

Recall that Kendall’s definition was “not that, but this.”  So each parish and each diocese—if they are indeed staying—should be asking themselves if all the world can see that they are “not that, but this.”  Some parishes or dioceses may strongly answer in the affirmative, and most, I suspect, cannot.

Use Christ Church Plano as an example…it is orthodox, the diocese was orthodox, and yet, over time, it became insufficient to merely be orthodox…more differentiation became necessary.  On my list posted above, have I left out ANY methods of differentiation that could be available that I haven’t thought of?  No amount of differentiation will prevent children from getting grilled by other kids from other denominations short of not being Episcopalian.  It is hard to convince parents to remain once their kids experience those things.  Inviting people from outside our church to attend or consider joining will automatically raise the question of what does it mean to be Episcopalian…and even though we can tell them what it means at an orthodox church they will still rightly question why we remain in such a non-Christian denomination if we feel that way.  The more orthodox we become the more demands to find additional ways to continue to differentiate…I am out of ideas for new ways to do that…

Matt has created a wonderful image.

One important point to understand is that the subtle warnings in the CCP and GAFCON statements are aimed at the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Primates, not TEC. Even the ABC has acknowledged that TEC has given its final answer: in Matt’s analogy, TEC has chained itself to the island and thrown away the key to the lock.

TEC’s action does not mean that all TEC parishes or dioceses, or other Provinces,  or even the ABC, cannot still board the boat. The two statements offer those parties another chance to escape the sinking island. This offering of another chance to escape is a beautiful thing and echoes our Lord’s willingness to forgive seventy times seven times.

Hi JohnP, it appears, then, that your question about ways of differentiation was rhetorical, since you have answered above that it’s not further possible.

I wish I had known that earlier in the thread, so I would not have had to take the trouble to try to comprehend what you were asking.  If Christ Church Plano did not believe that it had sufficiently communicated “not that, but this” then of course it needed to leave, which it did.

But now . . . you’ve just left it up to the individual.  Some individuals and some parishes and some dioceses are going to say “yep, we’ve sufficiently communicated ‘not that, but this’” and others will say otherwise.

In commenting on the article, I also like Matt’s metaphor.  And I’m very appreciative of the understatement.  The caterwauls of various revisionists about “unanswered questions” makes me even more happy, as I think it’s a sure sign that the statement said ‘just enough’ and did not need to say more. 

I think the boat metaphor anchored off the island is also a good one.  I’d add a bit to it.  First, there are a number of boats, not just the CCP one, anchored to the island.  And second, for some still on the island, the more the CCP boat takes shape, the more they say “okay, that’s not the boat for me, I’ll examine the other boats now” or “okay, that’s not the boat for me, I’ll continue building my oil platform that will allow me to stand above the plunging island” or “yep, that’s the boat for me.”

The clarity being provided is not only from the island but from the boat builders.  And with each further step of clarity, decision-making ability improves.

Sarah, I agree that the individual is likely to say that it is insufficient sooner or later…from time to time I have thought our actions were insufficient myself, but each time, you, or my rector, or somebody has given me another deadline, or another task, or another way to differientiate that has persuaded me to stay a little longer…I wouldn’t want to make a decision to leave only to discover that I had missed another step that I should have or could have gone through…so it wasn’t entirely rhetorical…I was rather hoping that I had missed something and there was something else I could/should be doing.  You do an excellent job of defending the need for some to stay and fight…which makes you the perfect candidate to ask in times like these…didn’t mean to take the long road in our conversation…

But… there should be just one Boat. The Love Boat. Come aboard. The Love Boat Welcomes You.

RE: “Sarah, I agree that the individual is likely to say that it is insufficient sooner or later . . . “

Hi JohnP, I did not say that. Many will think the actions are sufficient, many will think that the same actions are insufficient.

RE: “You do an excellent job of defending the need for some to stay and fight…which makes you the perfect candidate to ask in times like these . . . “

Well, we are back to my needing further details then.

And back to general principles in the lack of those further details.

The general principles are have I gathered as many of the orthodox as I can to make the decision together?  Have I created a community in my parish?  If in my parish, have I created a community in my convocation or deanery?  If there, have I created a community in my diocese?  What do all of those communities say?

And finally, have I done all that I can to allow the largest number of people to make decisions as a unit, and together?

In the case of CC, Plano, for instance, which you mentioned above, it seems to me that they had done all they could to distinguish themselves from ECUSA. So then the next step might have been—[had they been interested]—to say “have we done all we can to unify our diocese and make decisions together?”

But . . . understandably . . . CCP did not wish to make those decisions “together” as a diocese.  They wished to make those decisions “together” as a parish.  I understand.

But here, we get back to values and goals and priorities.  Individuals and parishes and dioceses—however orthodox—have very different priorities, values, goals, etc, etc.

Had I been at CCP I would have advocated for turning our hearts to the diocese, and sinking ourselves further into the renewal and growth and reformation of the diocese, and strengthening it for the hard decisions to come when folks were ready to make such decisions.  And . . . waiting on the inevitable retirement of the bishop so that we could then move the diocese a step further along the path, in the acquisition of a new bishop, one even stronger then Bishop Stanton, who was great in himself!  CCP would have been a strong influence for whatever bishop the diocese chose.

But . . . different values, different goals, different priorities.  Those things were not the values, goals, and priorities of CCP.  I understand that.

“so that we could then move the diocese a step further along the path, in the acquisition of a new bishop, one even stronger then Bishop Stanton”

Sarah,
Christmas tidings to ye!  But, me thinks you’ve had a wee bit too much eggnog this joyous season.  I agree in general with your post, but I think time is not our ally in this fight.  As time passes, both parishes and dioceses will inevitably become more and more revisionist.  The hopes of a new bishop more orthodox than one has now, is unthinkable in the current climate.  Perhaps in a hundred years, but not anytime soon.

From where I sit, it seems that the island represents all Anglicanism and the boat, the one and only boat, is still a loosely bound gathering of orthodox lumber.  I tend to agree with Matt that the vagueness of CCP and GAF is as it should be. 

The lumber that is not strapped into this new boat will likely drift away and not be part of any boat.  Or even worse, if such lumber remains bound to the island, it will not merely float away, but will instead likely be submerged where all manner of sea creatures will quickly devour its fibers.

Yikes, Spencer . . . there is story after story after story of both dioceses and parishes [not to mention seminaries] who have become more conservative, not less over the past four years. 

RE: “As time passes, both parishes and dioceses will inevitably become more and more revisionist.  The hopes of a new bishop more orthodox than one has now, is unthinkable in the current climate.”

It certainly can be done—but folks have to want to do it.  And, you know . . . some folks don’t want that.  They’d rather leave and spend their time creating something new.

Different strokes for different folks!  ; > )

I agree with you Sarah that it can be done if people want it bad enough…what do you think the prospects are for that trend to continue after GenCon2009?

I sort of think the CCP is a compartment within the boat that those organizing the Gafcon have constructed…

And, yes, the Island, if this is true, is the Canterbury centered communion.

I suppose, though, that it can be taken in a number of ways

“it can be done if people want it bad enough…what do you think the prospects are for that trend to continue after GenCon2009?”

I’m not Sarah, but I’ll take a crack at an answer.

I have taken much time to monitor as much of the “revisionist” communications as I can find.  As +John David Schofield says, “AFTER 2009”, it will be too late”. 

And, if you’ve been watching, you know he speaks truth.  After 2009, there will be no “leaving” with anything but one’s coat.  The Title IV rules on behavior of the laity (being re-written as I type) and will apply, and one can be CERTAIN the rules on property will be tightened or “else”.

As many have said, +elect Lawrence will undoubtedly be the last “orthodox” bishop consecrated in TEC.  Rumor has it that the ABC is sending an “observer” to the consecration, because the liberals are still raising cane about his attachment to San Joaquin, altho he was elected the first time, long before any movement by that diocese.

You can only imagine what mischief is being planned for GC 2009. It will be a bigger event than any trip to Disneyland, and the KJS/Beers team will triumph.  Why?  because no matter how hard “we” work, we will NOT have the numbers.

No, I haven’t given up yet.  Because I’m too old. And, there is no alternative except for the orthodox within a reasonable driving distance, and the ability to be able to participate in congregational activites. For now,  I attend a very small historical church, in the Diocese of SC.  Our vicar is a wonderful Anglo-catholic grad of Nashotah.  The Gospel he preaches is real.

And altho, it is also my privilege to sort of “monitor” the national and international activities, my heart belongs in that small church, and doing everything I can to build up this tiny part of the body of Christ.

Blessing to you all no matter what you do, you remain in my prayers.

Grannie Gloria

But… there should be just one Boat. The Love Boat. Come aboard. The Love Boat Welcomes You. 

of course! and we have “love, exciting and new!!!”, not just any old love.

“Come aboard, we’re expecting you (to arrive any time now, since we’re now trendy and contemporary and welcome everyone)”

Seriously, I like Matt’s illustration. I’d add only one thing. There comes a point when the ship must cut the line and sail, lest they get sucked down with the island.

Sarah,  This is meant as a serious question—please do not think that I am trying to be at all belligerent—but what, exactly, were you referring to when you said that there were dioceses and parishes and seminaries becoming “more conservative” over the past four years?

Nashotah House, more or less, cleaned up its act years ago—long before anybody had heard of VGR and long before he was consecrated at GC2003. I know that for some people, WO is THE defining issue to determine orthodoxy, but, setting that issue aside for the moment, I do not think that TESM is any more or less conservative now than it was when it was first founded. Is there some other seminary out there which I am unaware of that is now moving towards a more conservative posture? To me, it appears that just the opposite is true.

Also, I cannot think of a single diocese that is today “more conservative” than it was four years ago. I know some have toned down their revisionist rhetoric and are maintaining a low-key profile, so as not to scare off too many of the laity. But this is different than “becoming mo9re conservative.”

If there is such a diocese as you describe, I would love to hear about it. Maybe I am just not looking too carefully at the overall landscape of TEC. Maybe I am too much of a pessimist.

Yes, I know of a few parishes that have turned things around on a local level. And I know of a few priests who have seemingly come to their senses in the past four years and are now leading their parishes in a more conservative direction. But I know of no seminary and no diocese that has shifted away from the policies and doctrines of 815 in the last four years. Please, let me know what particular dioceses and seminaries you were referring to.

Grandmother, I am, at heart, more of a congregationalist although I have tried to embrace the catholic teachings of my Anglo-Catholic parish…my main concern is what happens to my parish.  Don’t get me wrong, I would love to play loyal underling to a leader like Sarah, battling at the diocesan level…if only my diocese had one.  A couple of years ago I tried to recruit one…or become one myself, but both of those strategies failed…rather spectacularly, leaving me a little gun shy.  I would have volunteered to do battle for my bishop if I could have found a role, but battle doesn’t seem to be the plan for laity there…BB would be mad.  Your sense that 2009 is the absolute last possible moment to leave is one that I share, but there are forces that make me think that we have less time…probably only until sometime this summer.

bluenarrative, I can’t speak to the second half of your question, but the seminary of the southwest in Austin, Diocese of Texas is more conservative today than it was two years ago…it would be hard for it to be more liberal than it was two years ago.  I am not saying that it is conservative, but Bishop Wimberly was able to move it back to something less of a lightening rod for orthodox criticism than it was then.  The actual outcome of those changes is something that I would suspect the jury is still out on….

RE: “what do you think the prospects are for that trend to continue after GenCon2009? . . .”

I think that trend will continue not only after GC 2009 but after 2012 and 2015.  In short, the trend will continue as long as there are pockets of reasserting Episcopalians who believe that they have no good place to go, in one location who are connected, informed, and active together. 

. . . Of course, it is possible also that there will be pockets of reasserting Episcopalians who believe that they have no good place to go, in one location, who never connect, never inform others, and take no action—we have a long tradition of that—and who just sit around and complain.  ; > )

Blue Narrative, as I read the tea leaves, Western Louisiana is definitely more staunchly orthodox now than four years ago, in large part because they are supremely more informed about the mess in ECUSA and in large part because folks like Drell have connected with so many and stepped up and taken leadership.  Same for Louisiana [only in a far quieter way].  I could go on, but you would not want me too . . . and I can assure you that revisionist leaders in ECUSA are well aware of what diocesan bishop elections did not “go their way” in the past four years.  They keep careful track of that sort of thing.

Of course, I narrowed the window a good good deal too.  The Diocese of TN, for instance, 15 years ago was proudly, rabidly revisionist.  The same for the Diocese of SW Florida, of Bishop Rogers Harris fame [or infamy].  Thanks to connected, highly informed, active laity those trends were reversed and a new trend begun.

I use those latter two examples because, of course, that’s what it takes—years and years of concerted calculated effort.

In the arena of seminaries, JohnP is correct.  The interim dean was fantastic—weeded out a bunch of stuff that shouldn’t have been there.  And the new dean is a “moderate” rather than the three generations of foaming-at-the-mouth revisionism that preceded him.  Further, Sewanee in the last four years called a new and soundly reasserting dean.  As with JohnPs example, it remains to be seen as to whether those two places turn into a real, faithful trend.  But then . . . Nashotah House started its reform with the same small steps as well.  Gotta start somewhere and see where God takes it and whether He blesses it.

Four years ago, there was a parish in a revisionist diocese that had a revisionist priest.  After GC 03 the laity carefully planned to methodically elect good people to their vestry, and year after year, they did so.  Last year, they triumphed—and the rector huffily resigned.  This year, they called a new orthodox rector.

Hundreds who are silently reading this blog are saying “hey, that’s my parish!” . . . and it will represent many more than one parish.  I should know—I know some of these!  ; > ) And for every one that I know of, there are scores that I don’t know of.

That’s one of the little-reported aspects of the past four years.  And I think it’s a trend that will continue.  I think you underestimate what good things have been happening “on the ground” in ECUSA—perhaps because your eye is not on that trend, being out of ECUSA.  And perhaps, even when you were in ECUSA, you yourself were not as connected as you might have been, through no fault of your own.

I won’t say more—I owe any other examples that I have some duty of confidentiality and discretion.

None of my traditions as an Anglican are long…but I suppose you are right that there will always be some who stay…and complain.

And though she might not admit it (but then again she might!), much credit goes to the “spidery” Sarah Hey for showing the orthodox that 1) politics cannot/should not be avoided, 2) how to engage in politics once one decides to.

I would put the conservative victories in the too little/too late category, in some sense a distraction. GC09 will be yooo-gly (that’s how a Texan says ugly). Repeal of B033, closure of Dennis Canon loop holes, anti-secession resolutions, etc.

Fr. Matt writes: ” It can and hopefully will serve to warn Canterbury that time is not limitless. ” So far, the ABC has not been able to decipher the handwriting on the wall; I cant really figure out WHAT the man might be thinking. When everybody and their uncle tried to warn him this past September that things were seriously reaching critical mass in the communion and he had to make a definitive statement/move-and soon-all he could do was say ” I’ll try to keep both sides at the table, talking to each other” and something about KJS answering two secret questions prior to the NOHOB meetings [perhaps I missed it; does anyone know what those two questions were?] As to your’ analogy-after I read it, that old Imperials song, “Sail On”, started playing in my head-remember that one? ” Sail on, when the water gets high, sail on; when the wind starts to die, sail on; its just a matter of minutes ‘fore His ship comes to get us, and we’ll all get in it…”

Yikes indeed!  I did not intend to strike a nerve.  Sorry.

I stand by my belief however that no orthodox bishop will ever again receive consent in TEC unless it is done surreptitiously.  And in that I do not desire to have any part.

It seems so long ago that I was spending my time blogging on a college sports blog where the most critical thing we had to complain about were coaching decisions and recruiting failures…false idols to be sure…it was easy to be the peacemaker or the optimist…

Sarah,  Thank you for filling me in on the good news! I undoubtedly have NOT been paying much attention to events on the ground in TEC for some time now. I spent years and years on the front lines of this battle in the Diocese of New York. And I suppose my vision is more than a little skewed from my time in Manhattan. I have always considered myself to be a low-church evangelical Anglican. And I confess that for years I thought that the only people who were seriously standing up to the wild apostasy and sub-Christian antics going on inside of TEC were other low-church evangelicals.

In the 1980’s, for instance, it looked to me as if the high-church wing of the church was going to be completely taken over by a huge and sudden influx of homosexual priests. I was genuinely amazed when Nashotah House—after years and years of ignoring the problem—finally put their house in order. For whatever reason, I had been unable to see the positive trends going on within the high-church for decades. Similarly, I thought it would be absolutely impossible for orthodoxy to ever take root within the ranks of the broad-church wing of TEC. But Father Tom Pike’s somewhat recent “conversion” and his work at Calvary/St.George in New York since GC2003 showed me to be wrong about this, as well.

Maybe I am wrong when I write-off TEC as a thoroughly decayed and useless sub-Christian entity. Maybe there are people who can breathe some life back into this institution, which I now view as a corpse. Certainly, I sincerely HOPE that I am wrong about TEC—not for the sake of the institution itself, per se. But for the sake of all of those good and unpretentious people who—for a variety of complex reasons—still occupy the pews of TEC churches on any given Sunday.

Actually, I take that back.  (at least partially)  I do believe it possible for an orthodox bishop to receive consents, if and only if TEC is demoted to observer status in the Anglican Communion.  Then, moderates would see their error and shift toward an orthodox leaning.  However, baring such serious discipline, I stand by my above comment…

We can always hope Spencer…

Well, I would hasten to pour cold water on your exuberance, bluenarrative!  ; > )  [That’s clearly my role at SF.]

I stand by my now long-stated belief that as a national entity, ECUSA is shot to **** in the veritable handbasket.  But there will, I think, be pockets of real reform and renewal in regions.

That cold water goes with her dolphin like nature ;>)

Back to johnp’s initial request for additional ideas for ways to further differentiate his parish from the other side, i.e., #7, 16 etc.

I’m a little surprised no one came up with any other ideas for him to consider.  So let me try my hand at proposing a few creative ideas that johnp and anyone else in his position might check out.

1.  How about forming a link with a Global South diocese or bishop?  That would be a highly visible move that would set you apart.

2.  How about sponsoring an event in your area?  For example, you might host a Saturday seminar by the local Exodus International chapter (if you have one nearby) that might feature a testimony by an ex-gay person.

3.  How about placing a prominent ad in the local newspaper, or having people write letters to the editor?  Anything like that could be useful if it raises your parish visibility in the community as one that bravely flies its flag from the flagpole as an orthodox parish.

4.  How about building alliances with similar orthodox churches in other “ex-mainline” denominations?  Are there Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist congregations in your area that are also looking to differentiate themselves too?

That’s just a few ideas off the top of my head.  I think there are probably others worth considering too.  God is infinitely creative, and we just need to tap into that wonderful imagination that he has given us (all right, some of us more than others).

I’ll risk getting a little more personal here.  As a priest, I found myself led to take some quiet actions to differentiate myself from an apostate bishop I once served under.  I’ll go ahead and name names.  I was the interim for a small struggling charismatic church in the Diocese of Southern VA, when the diocese was cursed to have +Carol Gallagher as the Suffragan Bishop.  On two occasions I was at clergy gatherings where she was the celebrant at a eucharist, and I walked out on both occasions at the passing of the peace.  I absolutely refused to take communion from that heretic, nor would I share the peace with heretical clergy I knew.  Now I didn’t publicly announce what I was doing.  I didn’t make a public stink about it.  I just quietly walked out and drove away.

Now to be fair, other orthodox clergy stayed and participated in those events, and I don’t judge or blame them in any way.  But I just couldn’t do it.  We each have to follow our own consciences in such matters.

BTW, that is not intended as a personal attack.  There are many other revisionist bishops or clergy that would have prompted the same firm reaction from me.

David Handy+

Thank you +David…that was indeed more of what I was looking for…we have certainly hosted events and placed ads/editorials in the newspapers, but we haven’t tried the link with a Global South diocese…although we do donate to several.  It isn’t that I think such actions would change any minds, but there are things we could still be doing in the meantime…

#39, bluenarrative, and others above,

It’s always easy to fall into the old Elijah trap and convince ourselves that we are the only faithful ones left, when there may still be 7,000 around who haven’t yet bowed the knee to Baal (literally, in this case, since Baal was a fertility god).  Even in the Sanhedrin itself, there was Joseph of Arimathea and maybe Nicodemus who were secretly on Jesus’ side.  For various complicated personal reasons, there will probably always be a faithful remnant left in many places who feel they just can’t leave, or simply choose to stay to the bitter end and go down with the ship (or island).

But there remains the big strategic issue that Sarah keeps reminding us of time and again.  The way I like to phrase it goes like this.  Do you feel CALLED to stay and fight for the renewal and preservation of orthodoxy within the current structures of TEC (and the larger AC, with the current four Instruments of Unity and its focal point of unity in Canterbury etc.)?  Or would you rather invest your time and energy in trying to create a whole new kind of Anglicanism suitable for the new era we are in?  In other words, are you willing to work within the old wineskins of Anglicanism AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT?  Or would you rather venture into the unknown and engage in the risky but exciting enterprise of building a whole new sort of Anglicanism from scratch (as the CCP and by implication GAFCON are positioning themselves to do)?

Perhaps by framing the question that way, I am already betraying my own bias.  As anyone who has read my posts knows by now, I am an unashamed advocate of the “outside” strategy and a strong supporter of the CCP.  It reminds me of a famous saying that Peter Wagner, the church growth expert at Fuller Seminary, used to utter repeatedly whenever the topic of church planting came up (one of his favorite subjects too I might add).  Wagner would wryly note:

“It’s a lot easier to have babies than to raise the dead, and a lot more fun!”  To which I add a hearty “Amen.”

David Handy+
More convinced than ever of the need for a New Reformation

#45, johnp,

You’re welcome.  I hope I’ve just primed the pump and others will now add some further options to consider.

But BTW, a fine point of clergy nomenclature, when addressing a priest, the cross goes AFTER the name.  By putting it BEFORE the name, you elevate me to being a bishop, and unless you did indeed have someone else in mind (like +John DAVID Schofield) I must say that while I appreciate the compliment seemingly implied, I have no desire whatsoever to wear purple and accept the burdens of that weighty office in these troubled times.

David Handy+

Grannie Gloria, thank you for that (27).  As a displaced North and South Carolinian, I identify with you in so many ways.  Except one: that “Because I’m too old” stuff.
My Rotary club reduces its average age every time we bring a new member under 50.  We are growing, not declining as many civic clubs are; we are growing, both in membership and the scope of community projects we do.  Why is that not so in TEC parishes?  It ain’t the average age!
I am “going on” 78, probably several years your senior, and very much still involved in the fray, not just in Anglicanism but in business, community and politics.  If we were still in North or South Carolina, perhaps my wife of 51 years and I could be comfortable in some of the small parishes which meant so much to us there.  But we are thousands of miles away and have joined an Anglican Parish under +Orombi.
Bless you, and get over that “too old” bit.

What can we do if we are inside TEC?

Johnp asks the question, and NRA has been helpful.

But what can we do if we are outside? Or more to the point, what should we do? It is far too easy to think, “Ok, we’ve made a leap for the lifeboat, we’ve done our thing!” Or else, “Wow, I’m glad my church made the leap oh so long ago, now I don’t have to concern myself with any of these tough things!

For those of us on the outside, we have a chance to build an Anglicanism that is much more than it was before. The old saw in TEC was, “It doesn’t matter what your theology is, as long as you can say the Creed.” We don’t have to build a new Anglicanism with that kind of fudge any more, on the one hand, and we don’t have to splinter into separate islands (or grab onto planks from the shattered boat, to use Matt’s analogy) on the other hand.

If you are outside, Support your church. Support your diocese (if you still have one). Encourage them to participate fully in Common Cause. If your church is not in a group that is a Common Cause member, encourage them to join. You will find a willing ear at CCP headquarters, with a person ready to guide your group through the process of joining up.

Perhaps the plank that you contribute will be the one that will make the boat fit to sail safely into the dangerous waters ahead. Be of good cheer. Christ will defend His Bride.

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

oops…I didn’t mean to elevate you David+...the higher office seems to come with a much higher burden these days…

I have no desire whatsoever to wear purple and accept the burdens of that weighty office in these troubled times.

If only we had the wisdom to insist on bishops who were humble enough to recognize that great responsibilty goes with the fancy chair in the big cathedral.  Half the bishops nowadays, it seems, were in the 1970s or 80s attorneys who were members of the Roman church and left because it was too restrictive- or maybe because the RC made it too difficult to be a priest when you were a 40 year old married lawyer. 
    I am not sure if Matt’s analogy really goes far enough.  TEC’s island has already sunk so far that 50% of the inhabitants have either been flooded out or left of their own accord since 1970.  25% of the current population is in a lifeboat of some description, ready to sail.  Some, such as the Network parishes in revisionist diocese, have people (from the diocese) throwing things at them in an effort to put holes in their boat, or sink it altogether.
    Personally, in the worst case scenario (that Rowan’s capitulation to the US HoB goes uncorrected) I suspect that I will take the outstretched hands of any of several RC friends.  My first preference, however, is to sail with the last of the Anglo Catholic ships to leave the harbor, assuming that the Communion survives the next 12 months, and the Anglo Catholic ships have somewhere other than Rome to sail to.

TEC’s island has already sunk so far that 50% of the inhabitants have either been flooded out or left of their own accord since 1970.

Alas, I fear that some of them have drowned in the pool of those who reject the trappings of organized religion completely.

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

“I stand by my now long-stated belief that as a national entity, ECUSA is shot to **** in the veritable handbasket.  But there will, I think, be pockets of real reform and renewal in regions.”

Sarah,
I must be missing something here.  I don’t mean to belabor the point here or to argue over staying vs. leaving.  But if you feel this way then, I do honestly want to know, what’s the point?  Are you simply trying to be faithful to God in a world of sin knowing that as long as we live in the world that we are wholly dependant on God’s grace.  “Er by the grace of God go I”?  I believe that this is the stance Dr. Radner takes and if this is the stand you take then I respect that.  However if so, then I don’t understand all the energy put forth in strategizing and politicking.  If one takes such a stance then ought the energy be directed internally and upwardly, that is, living almost a monastic lifestyle with devotion to a live of purity and prayer?  (A biblical example might be Daniel in the lion’s den.)

I guess what I am trying to say is that I can accept the “stay” mindset as long as activism is not a part of it, but I am having difficulty in understanding why someone would willingly put themselves in a situation they don’t like and then not only complain about it and but also fight against it knowing full well their efforts are futile.  Yes there may be pockets of air trapped in that sinking ship and it may be worthwhile gathering supplies and people into those pockets, but that is hardly much comfort when the entire ship is sinking.

Time for orthodox relativism.

The island is not sinking. It is raining and the water is rising. Who is going to get on the ark and why?

RE: “Do you feel CALLED to stay and fight for the renewal and preservation of orthodoxy within the current structures of TEC (and the larger AC, with the current four Instruments of Unity and its focal point of unity in Canterbury etc.)?  Or would you rather invest your time and energy in trying to create a whole new kind of Anglicanism suitable for the new era we are in?”

Ugh.  This reveals, I am sure, the differences in priorities, values, and goals [as well as personality] that I’ve harped on so much over the past two years.  By far, I would rather do the former.

After all, I’d much rather tend the sick then make babies with the wrong person.

RE “I must be missing something here.” 

I’m afraid that you have given away that you have not read my articles.  ; > (

RE: “I believe that this is the stance Dr. Radner takes and if this is the stand you take then I respect that.  However if so, then I don’t understand all the energy put forth in strategizing and politicking.  If one takes such a stance then ought the energy be directed internally and upwardly, that is, living almost a monastic lifestyle with devotion to a live of purity and prayer?”

Yikes—Dr. Radner works constantly for the reform and renewal and identity of the Anglican Communion.  So I don’t think he would take that pietistic stance at all.  In fact, I hope that nobody stays in ECUSA at all if they are just going to sit around and complain and do nothing.  I’d rather they leave, if they are going to do that, and head over to the CCP where they can do the same thing.

RE: “I can accept the “stay” mindset as long as activism is not a part of it . . . “

Quite the opposite for me.

RE: ” . . . but I am having difficulty in understanding why someone would willingly put themselves in a situation they don’t like and then not only complain about it . . . “

I hope that you have not heard me complaining about anything.  I have stated fairly and simply what I believe about the national church.  But that’s not a complaint, nor do I feel as if I don’t like the situation I have chosen.  I am honored and proud to do the work that I am called to do.  And I’m a happy woman.  ; > )

Other ways to differentiate your parish?

Regardless of whether or not your parish might ever consider disaffiliation with TEC, you could form a community foundation for the advancement of traditional anglican christianity.  Such a non-profit corporation may: (a) be able to do things a TEC church cannot, at least within the canons, (b) enable members to tithe outside of TEC, if conscience requires, and (c) any property of the foundation would be free of the Dennis Canon. 

For example, if your diocese were to impose a mandatory assessment, it may be possible to freeze the church budget, but grow the foundation budget.  Perhaps a portion of the staff or operations could be off the church budget.

Friends,
I think some may have misunderstood the analogy completely.

The boat is not the CCP, it is whatever emerges from GAFCON. CCP is at best a room on the boat. The sinking Island is not TEC. TEC has, I believe, already sunk. The sinking island is Canterbury based Anglicanism.
Of course, you can make of the imagery anything you want, but the above is what I intended.

Sarah,
I’ve read your essays. I bought your book and read it too.  Perhaps I am just too dense to comprehend.  I guess that’s why I will be leaving and you will be staying.  ‘nuf said…

Matt,
I understood your analogy completely!  It’s Sarah that I can’t understand. 

Dr. N,
More subjective reality…
But if the water rises on the island and nobody heard the rain fall, did it really rain?  If a tree falls in the forest any nobody sees it then not only did it not make a sound, but we cannot really prove that it actually fell.  As far as we know the tree still stands.  Therefore I suggest we all close our ears and eyes and then everything will be OK. 

I like the analogy of the sinking island and a boat that is available.

Why is the island sinking?  Because it has no Rock for stability.

I had gotten into a small boat and left the sinking island some time ago, but I realized the boat was not salvation, but only a means to arrive at a Rock as big as the the Southern Cone, or the Global South, or a Rock bigger than all the land masses of the world.

Next time I will not be fooled by an island of sand, no matter how beautiful the houses of worship, how high and rich the treasures are piled on the island of sand, how technically competent the mesmerizing music, how wonderfully rich the flowing symbolic garb of the priests and ritual, or how deceptively inticing their words of “love” are.

  Of course, you can make of the imagery anything you want, but the above is what I intended.

Thanks for that, Matt.  As many people do with the parables of Jesus, it’s always dangerous or at least confusing to take someone’s story or analogy and turn it into something new and different.  We don’t have Jesus around to straighten us out, but at least Matt can try.

Let’s suppose a small but populated pacific island is slowly sinking into the sea.

  On an episode of Gilligan’s Island the Professor discovers that the depth markers in the lagoon indicate that the island is slowly sinking.  He informs the other castaways that they are all doomed unless they can get off of the island.

Actually, I’m surprised that it took so long for someone to invoke the analogy with the Flood and Noah’s Ark, as Dr. N finally did (#54).  And since I’m a Luther lover and fond of invoking parallels to the original Reformation, let me remind the seminary-educated and teach the rest the marvelous and typically earthy saying of Martin Luther with regard to the traditional comparison of the Church with the Ark.  Luther said something like this.  Yes, it’s true, the Church is like Noah’s Ark all right.  As St. Cyprian taught, outside the Church there is no salvation.  “And sometimes the only reason you can stand the stench on the inside is because of the storm on the outside!”

Right on, Herr Pastor!  So true.

David Handy+

#55, Sarah,

Your “Ugh!” comment and your instinctive recoiling from my flippant remark about it being easier and more fun to have babies than to raise the dead illustrates how right you are that there are indeed crucial differences in values, priorities and yes, personalities at stake here.  But I will add another significant difference. 

As a priest, the stakes are higher for me (or Matt+ etc.).  Not that you care less about the welfare of the Church, but your professional livelihood doesn’t depend on it like mine does.  And it does become more ackward and difficult to “differentiate” yourself when you are in clerical orders and more directly under the authority of heretical bishops and in collegial relationships with fellow clergy.  The painful awkwardness of walking out at the exchange of the peace at clergy gatherings and refusing to take communion from a heretical bishop is an unavoidable conflict for someone like me, but not so for you, or at least not to the same degree.  It makes adopting the “inside strategy” much harder and more problematic for orthodox clergy in hostile dioceses (like So. VA or Central NY).  And that’s one reason why I’m so happy that you and Greg and other lay leaders are doing such a heroic job at throwing yourselves into the fight and enlisiting other lay people and training them in how to do the same.  The battle must be fought on multiple fronts simultaneously.  There are plenty of Little Stone Bridges that need defending.

But may I make a rather flippant and perhaps tactless comment?  Wait until you get married.  Then tell me if it isn’t more fun as well as easier to have babies than to raise the dead.

David Handy+
Given to occasional snide remarks, as well as hyperbole

You are mistaken—or simply not telling the truth about my comment, NRA.

RE: “Your “Ugh!” comment and your instinctive recoiling from my flippant remark about it being easier and more fun to have babies than to raise the dead illustrates how right you are that there are indeed crucial differences in values, priorities and yes, personalities at stake here.”

My “ugh” comment—as was quite clear above—was in response to this statement which I helpfully quoted: “Do you feel CALLED to stay and fight for the renewal and preservation of orthodoxy within the current structures of TEC (and the larger AC, with the current four Instruments of Unity and its focal point of unity in Canterbury etc.)?  Or would you rather invest your time and energy in trying to create a whole new kind of Anglicanism suitable for the new era we are in?”

I can think of nothing more “ughable” than “trying to create a whole new kind of Anglicanism suitable for the new era”—reminds me of something that Stalin said in his “New Russia” speeches.

And of course, as you have proven, your remark about “making babies” was not at all flippant since you have repeated it—which was why I responded that having babies with the wrong guy would not be at all “a lot more fun.” 

So I’ll respond with mine, which applies quite aptly to the whole idea of “trying to create a whole new kind of Anglicanism suitable for the new era.”  You think it equivalent to two spouses having babies, and I think it equivalent to having babies with the wrong guys. 

I think you got what I was saying . . . and just didn’t like it very much, which is why you responded with your repeated assertion. 

I can assure you that when or if I am married and when or if I am fortunate enough to have children, none of that activity will have the slightest thing to do with “trying to create a whole new kind of Anglicanism suitable for the new era”—thank God.

Tired . . . a great idea above in your comment #57.

Matt . . . I had thought that the palm trees represented the Old South.  And the lagoon was probably a metaphor for the Old Country.

And what color is the boat?

Is ABC invited to Gafcon?  If he is do you think he would go?

#67, Sarah,

All right, let’s try a different tack.  If I’m hearing you correctly, you are apparently recoiling from the company of characters you’d end up working with in the outside strategy, hence the repulsion from making babies with “the wrong person.”  Now granted, there are some strange bedfellows in the CCP to be sure, but such is life in the real world.

My focus is on the desperate need for a whole new KIND of Anglicanism.  And what I primarily have in mind is not a matter of polity changes (though they will inevitably be involved; it’s unavoidable since the current four Instruments are totally inadequate).  Instead, what I keep calling attention to is the overwhelming need for re-inventing Anglicanism so as to come to terms with our “Post-Christendom” social setting.  That is, I want to help create a New Anglicanism that will abandon our old state church ways and bravely morph into a HIGH COMMITMENT form of religion.  As I like to joke, the only thing worse than a state church is an ex-state church that still pretends to be a state church!  Or an ex-state church that simply can’t imagine any other way to think or act.  Now granted, our Constantianian habits are deeply rooted, and reinforced by over a thousand years of practice.  But we simply MUST break those old state church habits, to which we’ve been addicted for so long.

Secondly, we simply MUST become a MUCH STRICTER and MUCH, MUCH MORE DOGMATIC CHURCH.  That again is part of re-inventing Anglicanism, so as to overcome the laxity, vagueness, and leniency of our old state church ways.  Among other things, that means that we simply can no longer go without the theological equivalent of an Anglican Supreme Court that can declare the actions of (SEMI)autonomous provinces “unconstitutional” when they are contrary to the clear and consistent teaching of the Bible, which is the true Constitution of any Christian church worthy of the name.  That is, I do earnestly contend that we need a FEDERAL style Anglicanism with a much strengthened central authority that can clip the wings of wayward provinces (like TEC).  That need not equate with papal type authority.  The patristic era church had effective councils that defined and enforced doctrinal limits on an international basis.  That is, Nicea and Chalcedon etc. were NOT just for consultation.  They issued binding canon laws etc.  And that’s what I want to see Anglicanism do as well.  International councils with binding dogmatic and canonical authority that can overrule the national provincial churches.

Maybe as the Protestant at heart that you are, Sarah, that reeks of far too much of a Catholic stench.  But as an Anglo-Catholic from the Diocese of Albany (as well as a proud Wheaton evangelical), I find the patristic model to be my inspiration, not the Portestant Reformers of the 16th century, at least in this particular regard.

I hope that clarifies matters.  We may still have to agree to disagree.  But at least the basis of the disagreement will be clearer.

David Handy+
Longing for a more Federal/Patristic style Anglicanism
as well as a High Commitment, Post-Christendom one

Matt [58]. I’m not convinced TEC has already sunk. There are many parishes that are providing needed ministry to their communities, and although troubled by the innovations, they try to believe “that will not happen here.” Certainly, ASAs are going down, but there still are good people within TEC.

There are times when it is futile to fight, and many have found it necessary to leave TEC for this reason. I am one of those people. However, I and clearly starting to find lots of people want a return to traditional beliefs of the Church. What is good about GAFCON is that the orthodox are taking a systematic approach to either use their numbers to restore the Anglican Communion with TEC, or to make an option for the orthodox in North America.

Working together has potential to stop the progressive hijacking of the Church. I am beginning to realize that it is not the ABC who can reform the Anglican Communion; its laity, clergy, bishops, ... working together, must do it. Allowing liberal political activism to take over the Church is at the center of this. The only way to oust the secular socialists is by organization and counter actions.

The Church is not sinking or sunk; the orthodox are finally going to act. If done well, there will be a deep, cold, wet sink-hole filling up with the recent innovations of TEC.

TEC formally sunk as an organization when she legislatively adopted C051 legitimizing same sex blessings within her body and elevating a man living in a non-celibate homosexual relationship to the office of bishop. Both corporate and officiall actions violated Apostolic teaching and the clear dictate of the 1st Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. TEC has now departed from the Church.

You are correct, the Church cannot “sink” but TEC is not part of the Church.

There are, it is true, congregations and groupings that have floated to the surface, but TEC itself, as a body, is a heretic organism and no longer part of the body of Christ.

#67 David Handy+ wrote:

The patristic era church had effective councils that defined and enforced doctrinal limits on an international basis.  That is, Nicea and Chalcedon etc. were NOT just for consultation.  They issued binding canon laws etc.  And that’s what I want to see Anglicanism do as well.  International councils with binding dogmatic and canonical authority that can overrule the national provincial churches.

Frankly, this shows a stunning ignorance of history.

The reason Chalcedon and Nicea managed, in the end, to be binding was precisely because of the state enforcement (in this case, the empire) that David Handy decries elsewhere.  Without it, there would have been no such “effective councils.”  Either that, or you believe that they required papal approval, something David Handy+ rejects.

Moreover, even with such state enforcement, said councils were not universally or uniformly accepted.  Councils with imperial support attempted to override Nicea—it virtually required decades of struggle and finally civil war, with the victory of Theodosius I, to finalize Nicea’s victory.  Chalcedon was (and still is) rejected by entire national churches (Egypt, Armenia), despite centuries of efforts by later councils and emperors to enforce it.

Appeals to an Anglican “supreme court” are similarly absurd.  What does that mean other than an Anglcan curia?  And what would prevent it from being similarly taken over and rendered weak and ineffective by the very forces that have produced the current crisis?

Don’t misunderstand me.  I’m all for councils and some form of international accountability.  But let’s be clear-eyed about it, shall we?  And while we’re at it, let’s ask ourselves what a truly patristic Anglicanism would look like—-because it would include (or exclude) several things currently widely accepted in the Anglican Communion, including a few that his previous comments suggest would make David Handy+ quite unhappy.

David+ and Sarah. This has been a most instructive exchange between you two.  I would like to add a couple of comments.

1)  As a lay person there are many to blame for the mess called the Anglican Communion and its run away province, ECUSA. 

2) I mostly blame bishops based upon my observations since 2003.  Lots of the blame goes to one in New Hampshire but many orthodox bishops have failed to lead. 

3) I have lost the desire to be involved in a hierarchy because of bishops and sincerely wonder just how godly this hierarchy really is.

4) David+ with great respect (I know you are the choir) I have this comment for clergy at all levels.  If you can’t make the switch you are called to make GET A NEW JOB!  The rest of the world does this every day.  Clergy in ECUSA will be judged at a different level than lay people and if I really believed that the church was heretical I would be fighting (and I mean radically) either from an inside or outside strategy.  Your vocation has very little to do with your orders. 

I guess you can tell that I have little interest in following clergy within ECUSA any longer.

“...TEC itself, as a body, is a heretic organism and no longer part of the body of Christ.”

Thanks, Fr. Matt, and Amen.

#73, IRNS,

Well, I may be guilty of many things, but usually not of sheer ignorance of the patristic period, which is my second love, after study of the NT.  I admit that you have plenty of good company in asserting that it was only the way the imperial forces of the state enforced the councils we now deem orthodox that made their decisions stick.  But usually that argument is made by either theological liberals (who claim that history is written by the winners and that therefore might makes right; i.e., they deny there was anything inherently superior about the “orthodox” doctrines), or on the other hand, that argument tends to be made by radical free church type Protestants, who have a deep distrust of state involvement in religion.

I simply don’t agree.  That common view distorts the historical record and oversimplifies it in a very misleading way.  That is, I would argue that the orthodox doctrines and canons became binding precisely because they were most compatible with the consensus or the mind of the faithful as a whole (the famous consensus fidelium).  In other words, the Trinitarian and Christologial doctrines of Nicea (AD 325) (along with Constantinople, AD 381) and Chalcedon (AD 451) became the accepted teaching of the Church because the whole Church rightly recognized in those conciliar statements the fundamental doctrines that were “believed everywhere, always, and by all.”  I regard it as needlessly cynical to think that they only triumphed because of the capricious backing of the imperial authorities.  The view you’ve expressed, IRNS, seems to discount too much the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Church into all truth, as Jesus promised.  There were many attempts by Arian emperors in the 4th century to impose by force Arian doctrines, but in the end they failed.  And ultimately, the reason they failed is not just because orthodox emperors won more military battles and got the last laugh, but because the doctrines of Nicea and Chalcedon are actually TRUE, and the Church as a whole accepted them as such.  I hope you would agree with that reading of church history.

But may I be so bold as to say that when you accuse me of sheer ignorance of church history, as you did above, that sounds rather imsulting to me.  We don’t know each other, although we’ve clashed once before at SF (over WO), so I’m not sure on what basis you have judged me so ignorant or confused.  But I don’t want to continue to get off on the wrong foot, so to speak.  So I’ll try to interact respectfully with you, as I trust that you’ll try to do with me.  But I stand by what I wrote earlier.  Perhaps you could clarify what you mean in claiming that my appeal to a “federal” or patristic style approach to church councils shows me to be inconsistent or confused since it would inevitably undermine or contradict some of my publicly stated desires for the kind of Anglicanism I’ve set forth as desirable in numerous previous posts describing the New Reformation I favor so strongly.  Such clarification might help.

David Handy

Matt, I have to relate to your excellent analogy on a very local level.  For me, the (very, very small) island is St. Andrew’s, Cripple Creek and the boat is whatever stands off shore that might transport whoever wakes up in time to get aboard before the water rises so high and becomes so turbulant that neither swiming, floating, nor treading water
remains an option.  In the meantime we stay here because it is here that we are authorized to preach the gospel and that we must do, come hell or high water.  We will not go down with the island, and we will certainly help aboard anyone who is willing to go with us.

Hey IRNS, there’s a minor issue that I don’t understand in your above comment.

When you say ” Without it [state enforcement], there would have been no such “effective councils” do you mean that without state enforcement there could not be an Anglican entity—let’s call it the Anglican Communion—with effective councils, such that local franchises deemed not to be gospel-believing and in violation of said “effective councils” could be kicked out of the Anglican Communion?

I don’t get that.  It seems to me that there is no need for state enforcement to have effective councils as long as offending bodies can be kicked out of the AC.

#78, Sarah,

I’m happy to report that I had exactly the same reaction.  I’m glad to find that we agree on some things (many things really, of course).  But I can’t help but add that you seem unusually slow in responding to my last retort.  Oh well, maybe this thread is winding down and losing steam.  Or people would rather focus on other aspects of this thread.  That’s OK.  But I agree that these matters are important, and we often tend to ignore the disturbing deep-seated differences among those of us on the orthodox side.  But then again, you and I just had the same visceral reaction to the above post by IRNS.

David Handy+

Fr Kennedy wrote:  (at the top)

Those in positions of power and influence among the islanders believe that sinking into the sea is actually a good and right thing. Life underwater is far grander than life above. Sinking, to them, is “progress”. So they commit to progress and pass coercive laws and regulations to make it as difficult as possible for the others on the island to “regress”.

Others are not fooled. They recognize that the island is sinking and that sinking is a bad thing but they have committed to remain on the island anyway

and at (26)

I sort of think the CCP is a compartment within the boat that those organizing the Gafcon have constructed…

And, yes, the Island, if this is true, is the Canterbury centered communion.

and at (72)

TEC formally sunk as an organization when she legislatively adopted C051 legitimizing same sex blessings within her body and elevating a man living in a non-celibate homosexual relationship to the office of bishop.

I think the picture you have drawn, of the island sinking, and those in power determined that the sinking should continue, is a better picture of TEC than of the Canterbury-centered Communion as a whole. The Communion as a whole is neither sinking nor is its leadership committed to sinking. If the adoption of C051 means TEC has sunk, doesn’t the adoption of Lambeth 1.10, which advises against SSBs and ordination of participants therein, mean that the Communion has not? IMO, the leadership of the island is divided. Some of the Primates, bishops, and part of the ACC support sinking the island and some oppose it. With his advent letter, the ABC has put himself in the second category described in the lead article, those who recognize that sinking is a bad thing, but are not leaving the island. The letter puts Scripture first on the list of qualifications for communion (i.e. the description of what the island should be like) and Scripture clearly says that sinking the island is a bad idea.

IMO, if the island represents the whole Communion, it would be more accurate to describe it as under attack by subversive forces than as committed to sinking. I hope then, that the people making for the boats will come back on shore and help resist the subversives, because if all the opponents of sinking the island sail away, or concentrate on building their ship rather than on what is happening ashore, the island is doomed. Is this what they want, or have they decided that the sinking of the island is inevitable, so why fight it?

#‘s 78 and 79:

First, I apologize for “stunning ignorance.”  That was over the top, unnecessary, and uncharitable.

Second, I will address the substantive issues raised by your replies later—-I’m responsible for dinner tonight, however.

David,
After reading your post #69, you can add me to the New Reformation Fan Club or whatever it was. 
I agree whole heartedly!

Kyounge,
I don’t think I can speak for Matt, but my thoughts are that the Island really does represent a Canterbury centered communion which is hell-bent on destruction because the Canterbury instrument of communion who could do something and who is quite adamant about refusing to do anything and furthermore undermines the other instruments of communion, namely the primates, will do nothing other than dialogue.  He will never impose discipline, which might I remind us all, is a mark of the church.  Therefore he will cease to have a church in very short order out of his shear defiance.  His steadfast refusal to employ discipline is nothing less than a willful destruction of the Anglican Communion.  He is resolute on doing nothing.

IF the communion would impose the discipline that has been repeatedly called for, then there would not be any “subversives” jumping ship.  There would instead be the discipline which is so needed from time to time to keep us all on course.

Of course this is just my meager opinion, ever so humble (and opinionated) it may be. 

(As an aside, some who don’t like rules deplore discipline, but most know that discipline is not a barrier to freedom.  Quite the contrary, discipline is instead like a guardrail along the highway to freedom that keeps us from danger.)

To pose an alternative stream of thought to johnp and Matt - what if instead of working to build a boat or to delay a sinking island, a rescue was mounted from far off? What if those who desired to stay above the water took an alternative that did not require them to delay a decision regarding an inevitable outcome (i.e. sinking)? What if ships were sent, or other entities opened their lands for those in peril? What if those lands lands were flowing with fruit and a bountiful harvest?

johnp - there’s more choices than you think.

#82, Spencer,

Thanks for your kind words and enthusiastic reponse.  I appreciate the encouragement.  Your membership packet for the NRAFC is on its way!
I’ll let robroy (President) and Br_er Rabbit (V-P) know to expect you at our next online meeting…  And as one of the first 100 people to join the NRAFC, all membership dues are waived, and you will be considered a an official charter member of this elite new movement.

David Handy+

So, there are three now? Sounds like the Trinity.

No, Dr. N., I count 4. NRA is his biggest fan.
Spencer, welcome to the club!

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

New Ref.  I am already a life and endowment member of the NRA and pack heat, but I like yours also.  Just hope it it thoroughly reformed so I don’t have to get my gun!
Spencer, you have hit the nail on center.  Any orgaization whether church, Rotay Club, political party or stamp club must have credentials for membership and then discipline which is ultimately expulsion.  So the possibility of reformation depends on whethere there is a mechanism for discipline.  If it is irretreavabeley lost then one must abandon ship.  If not, then get control of the leavers of reform.
PM, not a slave to spelchecker+<;-)—-+

I would like to humbly apply for membership in the NRAFC…

And, for whatever it is worth, I would like to also say that I rather like the Prophet Micaiah’s style… Packing heat might not be a bad idea for all of us on the orthodox side to consider—certainly, mere words have not gotten us very far up to now.

(Just kidding!)

Spencer wrote:

the Canterbury instrument of communion…will do nothing other than dialogue.  He will never…  Therefore he will…(snip)

IF the communion would impose the discipline that has been repeatedly called for, then there would not be any “subversives” jumping ship.

Neither of us know what the ABC will do in the future. But even if he does exactly what you expect him to, there is more to “the Communion as a whole” than the ABC, and that whole has not refused to impose discipline. It is still possible for “the Communion as a whole”, with or without the ABC, to discipline TEC via actions by the Primates or (if the orthodox bishops attend) the Lambeth conference. It is also possible for TEC to self-expel by refusing to sign the Covenant. My own opinion is that TEC as a province should not be invited to sign unless and until the “remaining uncertainties” are cleared up by agreeing to halt all SSBs and not consent to any more non-celibate gay bishops—which if I understand correctly would make them an “associate” of the Communion at best—but that’s another discussion.

I also think you’ve misunderstood what I wrote to some extent. I don’t think boat builders or boat sailors are subversive. The subversives are the people on the island who wish to sink it. The non-subversives, whether on the island or in the boat, agree that sinking the island is the wrong thing to do, and I hope the ones in the boat will join forces with those of us still on the island in our efforts to keep it above the water.

The part where the metaphor breaks down is,
Why is the island sinking? Is the world shrinking? Are there subterranean devilish moles honeycombing the understructure?
My favorite: there a tectonic plate-spreading movement beneath the island (i.e., the earth is splitting open) which will swallow the island whole with its defiled churches and altars.

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

kyounge,

It is not possible for the communion as a whole apart from Canterbury to discipline TEC. At most they can pass very dramatic lambeth resolutions that the ABC can then utterly subvert by doing precisely what he has done since Tanzania, invite those disregarding orthodox doctrine and communion teaching to participate in the various councils of the church. The rest of the communion can do nothing so far as it is grounded in Canterbury. And, in so far as Canterbury continues to do nothing, the island is sinking.

That is the beauty of the boat.

The ABC: 1. authored and pushed for the exoneration of TEC suggested in the Subgroup report. 2. Refused to uphold the structure called for in Tanzania by appointing reps to the positions established by DAR 3. sending invitations to those bishops refusing to abide by the WR as accepted and amended by the primates 4. Refusing to revoke those invitations subsequent to the HOB’s Response which essentially represented a rejection of DAR requests as well as the WR as accepted and amended by the primates. 5. Refused to call a meeting of the primates choosing rather to condition primatial consideration of the HOB Response with the compromised JSC report 6. Wrote in his Advent letter that the invitations will stand and that instead of calling for a full primatial consideration of Communion participation has instead called for the creation of yet another panel…this time a primatial panel appointed by the ABC.

See a pattern?

The Island is Canterbury based Anglicanism and it is sinking.

I agree with Spencer

kyounge,
“there is more to “the Communion as a whole” than the ABC, and that whole has not refused to impose discipline”

Ah yes!  This is very true!  And it is these very people who will be meeting in Jerusalem!  Praise be to God!

As for the ABC, we know what he HAS done and I am not going to rehash all that again.  If a drunk repeatedly and consistently continues to prove he is a drunk, then everyone else should rightly expect him to continue to be a drunk and not waste time “expecting” him to finally and miraculously change at the last minute.  That is simply insanity.  That is, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  Yes, you can pray he will change, yes you can beg, plead, coerce and even hand him over to rehab, but never never never base your actions today on some feign hope.  To do this is to be an enabler and therefore part of the problem, not part of the solution.  Yes, we all hope, the ABC will finally get off of his pot and do something, but for us to expect it is madness, for us to sit and do nothing is folly.

Praise God for the orthodox who will be meeting in Jerusalem!  May they seek His will; May they be united in His will; May they be courageous to do His will. Amen.

—Spencer
Proud Member of the NRAFC

Matt and I cross posted, although I did not rehash the ABC’s past history, Matt was kind enough to oblige quite aptly. 
Thanks Matt!

#88, bluenarrative (and #87, PROPHET MICAIAH),

Welcome aboard!  This NRAFC train is picking up steam.  Now the sarcastic Dr. N. may heap scorn and ridicule on this fledgling movement as only big enough to fill a phone booth (hmmm, could Clark Kent even find one of those anymore?), but I assure him and all readers of this thread that the NRA Fan Club is growing, almost daily in fact.  However, the membership rolls are confidential, and so is the number of those already admitted into membership.

I would respectfully remind all cynics out there that this is supposed to be a “no whining, no freakout zone.”  And some of the rather tasteless joking at my expense seen earlier smacks of sheer jealousy.  After all, if my fan club is so teeny tiny, I might be allowed to taunt them in return, what size is theirs??

David Handy+
Founder, CEO, and Chairman of the Board, NRAFC
and your humble servant

I can’t join, as it’s a bad fit.  If it’s parachurch, it might as well be a good fit, right?  But I do propose an alternate club for people like me- the NRACC, or the NRAWC, depending on how the Board of Directors wishes to word it. 

- Moot
President, Director and CEO, of PETACR(1), CERA (2), SCRAP(3), NRAAS(4), NRACC(5), OYHeReS(6), LEPOR(7), CANCAN(8)

(1) Protestants for Evangelistic, Timely, And Christocentric Reformation
(2) Calvinists Embarrassed by Rushdoonian Autism
(3) Sock-puppets with Cool but Ridiculous Anonymous Pseudonyms
(4) NRA Appreciation Society (not to be confused with NRAFC)
(5) NRA Coveter Convention
(6) One Yard from HEll REscue Society
(7) Laity Episcopals for the Preservation of Orthodox Rectors
(8) Communion-conservative Appreciation Network (Communion institute for Anglicans, Not)

#95, Moot,

Your point seems “moot,” to say the least.  Best wishes with your recruitment.  But just out of curiosity, why do you say my little club is a bad fit?

David Handy+

instead of calling for a full primatial consideration of Communionparticipation has instead called for the , creation of yet anotherpanel…this time a primatial panel appointed by the ABC.

I think, believe it or not Matt, that you are being overly optimistic.  Given past behavior, the ABC will first ask permission to establish this panel from the HoB of TEC at the spring meeting (just like when he allowed them to veto the Pastoral Council and primatial vicar- in essence, we now know that in the mind of the ABC, the HoB is a higher authority than the primates of the Communion).  If the HoB grant permission to form the panel, the ABC will consult with KJS for her selection of members, and then the HoB can vote after Lambeth to accept those members.
    For those of you not old enough to remember, or who were not yet Anglicans in the 1970s, the current actions of the ABC and the Communion office of the current day have an historic parallel- the activities of the PB and 815 in the 1960s and 1970s.  In those days, we saw undisciplined heretical bishops (Pike), radical liturgy changes (79 prayer book), ordinations that were an affront to the rest of teh communion (WO), and open violations of canons and GC decisions.  If things in the wider communion continue to go on as they currently are, in 10 years VGR will not only be welcome at Lambeth, he will be presiding over gay marriages while there, the TEC 2010 BCP will be accepted communion-wide, the archbishop of Canterbury will be elected by the ACC- membership in which will be limited to those in political actions groups in the church.
  Oh, and one other thing, if the ACC and the ABC stay on the currently charted course- by 2028 the Communion will be reduced to half or less of its current membership- also following the model established by TEC.

NRA,

Relax - I’m a reasserter. 

Note the key words, “appreciation,” and “covet.”  Meaning I appreciate a lot of what you have to say, and that if I had my druthers, I’d prefer your set of headaches, over my own.  Note also that I’m not ACI or Com-Con, but appreciate them, in the same way.  That’s not bad. 

“Not a fan,” does not mean I don’t appreciate you.  Nor does it diminish the fact that I would happily submit to your authority as priest, were I to move to your neck of the woods.  Nor diminish that as your parishoner I would cheerfully sweep the floors or wipe snot off of tiny noses at your parish, every Lord’s Day. 

I do appreciate you, just like I appreciate (even work with) other conservative Anglicans who are similar, yet different from me.

#91, Matt,

With all due respect, I find myself in only partial agreement.  Yes, I’m in fundamental agreement that the Old Anglicanism, the Canterbury-focused Anglicanism with its four current Instruments of Unity is indeed sinking and probably fatally doomed.  I continue to like the old Titanic analogy myself.  We hit an iceberg, and the hull’s been ripped open beyond repair, and the pumps can’t possibly keep up with all the water flooding in.  The Titanic is heading for Davy Jones’ Locker.  That’s why we need a New Reformation.

On the other hand, I disagree with you about various details.  For example, I think you oversimplify matters in stating so dogmatically that without action of the part of Canterbury, there’s nothing the rest of the AC can really do to discipline TEC (or ACoC).  Huh?  I think that betrays a certain lack of imaginaion. 

For example, more and more primates (and provinces) can do two essential things:  1. break off communion with the heretical leaders of TEC while giving very public support to the CCP.  And 2.  intervene in North America in even bigger and more visible ways, just as ++Venables and the Southern Cone has started to do.

I suppose that part of the disagreement here has to do with unspoken assumptions that need to be brought to the surface.  I may be wrong, but it seems that when you speak of the kind of discipline that only Cantaur can provide, you mean either:
1. defining who’s in the AC and who’s not (i.e., who is communion with Canterbury and who is not), or,
2. assembling the Primates and letting them act (since it’s too much to hope that he’d actually lead them in taking action).
And the unspoken assumption (unless I’ve missed something where you’ve made it explicit) seems to be that the objective is a Communion-wide solution to this whole mess.

Pardon me, if I’ve misunderstood you (and I might have), but my impression is that you are ironically still thinking way too much “in the box.”  That is, I think you perhaps don’t allow enough room for the structures of the AC itself to morph into new and more adequate shapes.  You are working just within the realm of what’s likely or possible given the constraints of our current AC polity.  That’s “sensible” of course, but I’d encourage a bit more daring and adventuresome approach.  (We New Reformation types are dreamers after all).

Frankly, I’m surprised at how many people (on both sides) seem to treat the current four Instruments of Unity as if they were somehow irreformable, or engraved in stone, or couldn’t evolve, and in a fairly short time too.  Remember that although the Lambeth Conference has become a widely accepted instiution now after over one hundred years of meeting once a decade, the newer Instruments of the ACC (starting just after the idea was approved by the 1968 Lambeth) and the Primates’ Meeting (called for by the 1978 Lambeth) are very recent developments, and still evolving.  There is absolutely nothing that forbids the creation of a new 5th Instrument, or for the ACC or Primates’ Meeting to continue to evolve in significant ways to help handle this extreme crisis. 

Thus, for example, I have called repeatedly for the creation of a new 5th Instrument that would be the functional equivalent of an Anglican Supreme Court, that could nullify the actions of wayward provinces like TEC.  Of course, that means a radical break in some ways with our heritage up until this point, for it would clearly limit the nearly unlimited “autonomy” of the 38 provinces right now.  And it would of course be FIERCELY resisted by the eight liberal western provinces.  Well, so what, we ram it down their throats anyway!!  And if they don’t like it, they are out of the AC.

See, it’s really so simple.  No need to make it so complex and fret and stew about what Canterbury will or won’t do.  Let’s just all go to Lambeth in 2008, take over the place, and send home all the liberal bishops who won’t go along with this radical plan, after properly tarring and feathering them.

David Handy+
Now that would be a New Reformation!

...out back and mixing up the tar…

....looking for more down pillows…

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

Even though an outsider, I’d like respectfully to offer my views on the general topic of “CCP and Gafcon:  what does it all mean?”  I see Gafcon and CCP as representing an historic new understanding within Anglicanism that confessional integrity should trump institutional regularity (the latter being most notably represented by the ABC’s status as an “instrument of unity”).  This new understanding allows orthodox Anglicans to move beyond the current impasse in which the ABC cannot or will not take effective steps to enforce confessional integrity in the Communion.  This new understanding is consistent with the obvious fact acknowledged (I believe) by everyone, that, however one interprets Matthew 16:19, the ABC is not the “rock” upon which the Lord promised to build His Church.  Accordingly, it cannot be assumed that institutional regularity and confessional integrity will go hand in hand.  In fact, recent events have disproven the link between confessional integrity and institutional regularity beyond any reasonable doubt.

In light of this new understanding that confessional integrity should take precedence over institutional regularity within the Anglican Communion, questions such as “Who prepared the guest list to Gafcon?” are beside the point.

There is a troubling piece by Michael Poon on the Global South Anglican website, which suggests a division of opinion even among the GS Steering Committee about this conference.  I hope this reflects communication lapses and not more profound disagreements.

I don’t believe this reflects division among the GS leadership but the writer’s annoyance about something.
Perhaps not being consulted?

Note the first comment by Canon Terry Wong, Asst. Secretary of the GS Steering Committee.  He says expressly that the conference is not a Global South Anglican event and has not been endorsed by the Steering Committee.

The press release says, “orthodox primates.”

Nothing in the announcement of the conference says it is sponsored by the Global South anything.

Even one of the FAQS states:

3. Is this a Global South Initiative?
Not quite. Many of the Primates at the Nairobi Consultation are in the Global South, but it also included Anglican leaders from parts of the world beyond the geographic Global South.

I wrote:

there is more to “the Communion as a whole” than the ABC, and that whole has not refused to impose discipline

and Spencer replied:

Ah yes!  This is very true!  And it is these very people who will be meeting in Jerusalem!  Praise be to God!

Will they be planning at this meeting to retake the Island from the subversives, or to sail away and leave it to its fate (which without them I expect to be a bad one)? That is what I would like to know. I can’t tell one way or the other from the announcement, and maybe I’m not supposed to be able to.

#98, Moot,

Whew!  I’m relieved.  Just took a few deep breaths.  There, I feel better now.  But in all seriousness, thanks for the kind words.

#100, Br_er Rabbit,

I knew I could count on you!  Way to go.  Why didn’t I think of that?  Of course, there has to be tar nearby for the tar baby in the Rabbit Patch.  But where are you getting the down pillows for all the feathers?  Oh, well, you have several months to get ready for all that tarring and feathering.

Once again, you have shown why you are the V-P in the NRAFC.

David Handy+
So proud of my cabinet in the growing NRAFC

re: “the Island is doomed”
NRA, if all those things you mention did occur—the Primates individually or collectively declaring themselves out of communion with heretical leaders, intervention in North America a la Southern Cone, creation of an “Anglican Supreme Court”—wouldn’t that slow or halt the sinking? The Covenant may also assist in “separating the sheep from the goats”—TEC may refuse to sign it, or better yet IMO, not be invited (as a Province) to sign it. The end result could be the two-tiered arrangement that was much discussed after GC 2006, and that may be where the ABC has been trying to go all along—it was his idea.

Since all these things are possible (and I agree with you that they are), why do you believe that the Island is doomed?

107
Read what was written.
It’s neither an alternative communion nor a takeover.
Why look for a conspiracy?

cranmer wrote:

Read what was written.
It’s neither an alternative communion nor a takeover.
Why look for a conspiracy?

I am not looking for a conspiracy. I would like to know the intentions of the conference organizers. A lot of the commenters on this thread (and elsewhere on Stand Firm) seem to be rejoicing at the prospect of leaving the Island. I would prefer that the Island be retaken from the subversives and prevented from sinking.

I am not looking for, or accusing anyone of forming a conspiracy. I just wish I knew whether the organizers of the conference intend to stay or intend to sail, but maybe that information has simply not been made public yet.

Surely the intention is clear in what was written.
To affirm the orthodox faith and the mission of the church.

#109, kyounge1956,

Thanks for asking me to clarify my views.  I simply meant that the AC, AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT, is doomed, like the Titanic.  Now if it undergoes an “extreme makeover,” then all bets are off.  But my point was merely that the status quo is absolutely doomed.  Anglicanism simply can’t and won’t survive, much less thrive, in its current form. 

Why?  It’s simple, really.  Because oil and water just don’t mix.  Never have.  Never will.  We are dealing with two mutually exclusive worldviews and two incompatible rival religions under one roof.  And you know the gospel saying:  “A house divided against itself can not stand.”

And that is why, even though so many are crying out for “Peace, peace” there is no peace.  Nor can there be any.  (See Jer. 6)

David Handy+
Like King David of old, I’m a warrior at heart. 
A theological warrior in the service of the Prince of Peace (as dubious as I know that must sound).
(Hence all the bluster about tarring and feathering)

[comment deleted—misuse of blog space by posting entire article in thread]

So, Mick, you’re back at it!  Trying to throw cold water on the good news we are enjoying.  I had suggested earlier on another thread that you send this stuff on over to Father Jake, where you and your liberal friends can dance with joy together.  We’re still not buying your feigning concern for how things are going in the orthodox world.

114
The word “some” is a bit of an exaggeration isn’t it?

115 augustin, check yer specs. perhaps you need ?some? new prescription.

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

Hi Mick—I’ve deleted your comment not because it is off-topic but because SF has a policy that we don’t allow commenters to post new articles or links attempting to advertise another site or a different article in a comment thread.  That’s for a separate post.

I doubt you actually meant to do that—I’m sure it was just your way of getting in another swipe.  ; > )

And I like the Global South Anglican website as well, and I think the article relevant. 

But we’re going to consistently uphold this oft-repeated policy.  If you would like something posted you have some options.  1) Email a blogger and ask for a separate post and they just might do it.  Or 2) begin your own blog where you can post anything you like to your heart’s content.  ; > )

I’m going to leave it up to Matt as to whether he wants to post the article, since I’m not really in to the GAFCON/Common Cause topic anyway and it’s more his specialty.

Thanks for arguing here.

115
It was there when I wrote!

kyoung1956 wrote:

Will they be planning at this meeting to retake the Island from the subversives, or to sail away and leave it to its fate (which without them I expect to be a bad one)? That is what I would like to know. I can’t tell one way or the other from the announcement, and maybe I’m not supposed to be able to.

Like you, I cannot tell from the announcement. I hope that meeting will help with scenario #1 (taking the island from the subversives), but it could be #2 (sailing away and leaving the island to its doom).

May the Lord have mercy on us all, and may the Holy Spirit guide the shepherds of the Global South.

Hey everybody! Hanks took the disappearing ink!

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

Uh, No, NRA, I am not thinking “in the box”.

Of course the primates can do all sorts of things, but nothing they do can or will define who is in and who is in communion with Canterbury and that communion is what determines whether or not you are in the AC.

I do hope the primates take the actions you suggest and continue in the others, but while they are part of the AC, then it is Canterbury who determines membership.

Which is why Gafcon is so important because it suggests the possibility of leaving Canterbury based anglicanism and setting up a new Communion structure…which is quite out of the box

The problem that few seem to understand is that you cannot have both a communion determined by or centered on Canterbury and one in which the primates are able, by themselves, to exact any sort of discipline.

cranmer wrote:

Surely the intention is clear in what was written.
To affirm the orthodox faith and the mission of the church.

Not clear at all. Those who advocate retaking the island think that is affirming the orthodox faith and the Church’s mission; those who advocate sailing away think the same of their proposed course of action, and it’s entirely possible that both groups are telling the truth. But this description does not at all reveal whether the GAFCON organizers intend to sail or stay. I think someone suggested on the first GAFCOM thread that this uncertainty re: sailing or staying might be deliberate. Or maybe the conference organizers & attendees are not of one mind on the subject. It’s anxiety-provoking, but I guess I will just have to wait until next summer and see what happens.

123
There’s no hidden agenda.
Read what Peter J. wrote.

NRA wrote:

Thanks for asking me to clarify my views.  I simply meant that the AC, AS WE HAVE KNOWN IT, is doomed, like the Titanic.  Now if it undergoes an “extreme makeover,” then all bets are off.  But my point was merely that the status quo is absolutely doomed.  Anglicanism simply can’t and won’t survive, much less thrive, in its current form.

Thank you, that makes it clearer. When you wrote that “the Old Anglicanism, the Canterbury-focused Anglicanism with its four current Instruments of Unity is indeed sinking and probably fatally doomed…the Titanic is heading for Davy Jones’ Locker”, I thought you meant that the waves would inevitably roll over the spot on the map where our Anglican Island was formerly located—and that would mean that only those who sail would survive. If you mean that the Island must change if it is to survive, I agree. Out with the subversive advocates of island-sinking, set the dredges of renewal to work raising the low-lying parts of the island out of the flood zone, and build the breakwater of a strong Anglican Covenant all around.

Re: #s 78, 79, and 81:

OK, now where were we?

Oh yes . . . discussing what made councils of the patristic era “effective” and how that might relate to Anglicanism today. 

To do that, we need to consider three things:

1 – What makes anything “effective,”

2 – What made the ancient councils, or anything else ecclesial, effective in the patristic era, and

3 – What would make anything “effective” in the Anglican Communion today.

Since we are discussing the patristic era, I will confine my examples to that period.

******
1 – Ultimately, what makes anything effective is force, be it the force of the individual or collective will.  That force can either be direct, as when I choose to quit smoking or someone else chooses to mug me for my wallet; or it can be represented, as when the traffic cop writing me a ticket represents the will of the sovereign, or a bishop teaching represents the will of God.  Furthermore, that force, to be effective, must be accepted, either freely or through intimidation.

For our purposes, there are broadly speaking two kinds of force: state and moral/spiritual (and if you think this sounds like the old distinction between temporal and spiritual powers, you’re right on target).  True, that distinction has often been, and still is, blurred or even erased, but it is still useful here.

A - state force:  this can run from outright state-sanctioned violence (as in executions or war) to the more subtle forms of judges, courts, etc.  But even the latter derives its ultimate force from violence, i.e. fines or imprisonment.  And, since we can even reject that violence through our own choices of either violent or non-violent resistance, legal or state force still finally requires our individual or collective acceptance, whether on the basis of divine authority, or a free association founded on previously conceded rights, or the sovereign will of the social contract, or whatever.

B - Moral/spiritual force:

1 - used loosely and historically, this too can include violence, as in Christian antiquity when monks destroyed pagan temples, or mobs were employed in support of candidates for pope (Damasus in 366).  It could be used either for an orthodox cause (e.g. the lynching of George the Arian bishop of Alexandria) or against one (e.g. Theophilus against John Chrysostom, or the Circumcellions on behalf of Donatism).

2 – More palatably, moral or spiritual force can come either from personal example or from the (accepted) claim, whether of a charismatic individual or a larger community, to represent a divine authority.  The latter can be catholic and biblical (e.g. Antony, Athanasius, Nicea) or sectarian and schismatic (e.g. the Montanists, or General Convention claiming that they represent God Himself “doing a new thing”).  This force can be

a)  independent of state force; or
b)  it can work together with state force (as when heresy was declared to be illegal at the end of the fourth century); or even
c)  stand against a state force that claims to represent the church (e.g. Athanasius against Constantius, or Maximus the Confessor against monotheletism).

(continued)

(Continued from previous comment)

So what kind of force made ancient councils “effective”?  The correct answer is “all of the above.”  But there are further considerations.

In a famous case, Paul of Samosata, the bishop of Antioch, was condemned by several synods in the 260s, more than a generation before Nicea.  These councils “effected” nothing whatever.  Instead, Paul remained in possession of his see, although formally deposed, because at the time Antioch lay outside the empire, having been seized by Palmyra.  Only when Antioch was retaken by the empire was Paul removed, and only after Christians referred the case (as a property dispute!) to a pagan emperor, Aurelian.  Moreover, Aurelian settled it by declaring in favor of that party in communion with the bishops of Italy, and particularly with the Pope.

After the persecution of Diocletian at the beginning of the fourth century, both Donatists and catholics appealed to the Pope for judgment.  When that went against the Donatsists, they appealed to Constantine; and when Constantine ruled against them, he did not shy from using state force.  In spite of that (or because of it?), Donatism became the majority religion in North Africa for more than a century.  St. Augustine in frustration concluded that it was morally acceptable to use state force against Donatists, and the decline of Donatism really set in not after any ecclesial condemnation, but when the state, hearing both sides in court over several days in 411 (the best attested legal proceeding of antiquity) decided against the Donatists and officially declared Donatism not merely a schism but a heresy.  In other words, it took the Roman state (plus the Vandals) to begin the end of Donatism.  What’s more, all of the great councils had the support of the state, being summoned by emperors who believed that unity of empire and church was essential.

Not that imperial power alone settled what was and was not a truly ecumenical council.  The famous (third) council of Sirmium in 357 was summoned by an emperor, the Arian Constantius, and its compromise with Arianism was supported by the majority of bishops in the church.  Athanasius of Alexandria and Hilary of Poitiers heroically continued their lonely struggle, but the defeat of the “Sirmium blasphemy” was sealed by its eventual rejection by the whole church catholic, including the Pope. 

Nor could state force alone (in the person of Justinian) bring about the rejection of the Three Chapters (an imperial effort to resolve the differences between Chalcedonian orthodox and monophysite Christians).  The Three Chapters controversy was only settled by the fifth ecumenical council (II Constantinople in 553), a council again summoned and enforced by the same emperor, but said council’s acceptance being, like that of Chalcedon, only gradual and incomplete, with a crucial part played by the papacy (parts of Italy remained in favor of the Three Chapters and out of communion with Rome for generations).

Thus,  in antiquity most Christians most of the time had few qualms about using state power to make a council (or anything else the church deemed necessary) “effective,” if such state power were used in their favor.  Very few voices were raised against the theory of using the power of the state to enforce orthodoxy.  However, if “effective” means “lasting” and “accepted by the wider church,” and if one is looking for a moral/spiritual (as opposed to state) authority that made ancient councils “effective,” you will find it either in the papacy or the gradual acceptance (or if you like, reception) of such councils by the church catholic. But this reception could take decades, and even then might not be truly “universal,” as in the rejection of I Constantinople by the Nestorians (who were, tellingly, outside of the empire), or the rejection of Chalcedon and II Constantinople by both Egypt (within the empire but with a strong national tradition) and Armenia (again outside the empire).
(continued)

(continued from previous comment)

So what lessons might all this hold for a future, more “conciliar” Anglicanism?

Obviously, any form of international Anglicanism will not (thank goodness!) be able to rely on state force in any form.  It will not even be able, for the forseeable future, to rely on the general coercion of cultural approval.  Nor can it use B 1 above—if the Pope has no divisions, the Archbishop of Canterbury has even less.

No, the only force on which it can draw will be B 2 a) above—independent moral or spiritual force.  But it is critical, in evaluating for example the upcoming meetings at Jerusalem and Lambeth, to consider just what kind of spiritual force is available.

I have addressed this issue previously.  Here I will both summarize and further elaborate:

The “ancient councils” cited by David Handy+ above had this going for them—they claimed that they either deferred to, or represented, the divine will since they spoke for the whole (catholic, ecumenical) church, which church itself, being the Body of Christ, could pronounce with the authority of His Spirit.  This ecumenicity is signalized today in Roman Catholic doctrine by the office of the Pope; in Eastern Orthodoxy by a more generalized notion of catholicity (or sobornost).  This works in each case because both churches respectively believe they are the church.  They each believe that they are the whole, not a part, of the catholic church, and can appeal to this wholeness.  It is this wholeness, this catholicity, this ecumenicity, that allows them not just to speak (anyone can just exhort), but to speak truly, definitively, and indeed infallibly.

But what if you say is that you are only part of the church catholic?  What if, by your very nature, you cannot speak ecumenically?  For that is what the Anglican Communion has, up until now, explicitly claimed.  If we are not the true church but only a part of it, to what can any Anglican council appeal for authority? Because what those who look for a more “conciliar” Anglicanism are asking for is an international institution whose councils carry moral force, but one which at the same time specifically rejects any claim to be the divinely appointed interpreter of the truth.  The “ancient councils” were “effective” either because they were enforced by the will of the sovereign or were accepted as the judgment of the entire church catholic, or both.  How could any Anglican council today plausibly represent either of these?

The answer is, it couldn’t and it can’t. So what non-violent, moral or spriritual force can hold us together?

It used to be that we could refer to a common liturgical tradition, based on the Book of Common Prayer.  We were defined by how we prayed, and how we prayed was based on ancient, patristic models which reflected the consensus of the ecumenical, undivided church.  But that common liturgical tradition was shattered in the last century, and while I would love to see it revived, the signs of this happening are few and far between.

Some Anglicans have also, at times, looked to Scripture as the basis for our unity—but a simple appeal to sola scriptura, apart from its obvious drawbacks, has never commanded complete acceptance within Anglicansim and can be found nowhere in our formularies.

That leaves Tradition, on which I have also already written plenty. But before anyone says, “Ah, but can’t Tradition develop?”, consider that the Anglican Communion, if it is only a part of the church catholic, can have no authority to develop doctrine. Why?  Because, once again, such authority is of necessity either that of the ecumenical and catholic church, of which which we claim to be only a part, or it is sectarian and schismatic, which we claim we are not.  The Anglican Communion cannot develop doctrine or alter catholic practice, cannot tinker with that which has been received, for the whole church catholic, any more than TEC can do it for the whole Anglican Communion.  As I have said many times before, you cannot claim to be only a part and then act as if you were the whole.

Thus the decisions or decrees of any Anglican council, if it is to carry any moral or spiritual force, can only be local and provisional on the one hand, but must also appeal to the wider, settled Tradition of the whole church catholic on other. Anything less will have no spiritual authority, and anything more will be neither patristic nor catholic, but sectarian and schismatic.  But this would entail a (re)examination of much of what passes for Anglican these days, including as I said the possible rejection of matters that his previous comments indicate David Handy+ would not like.

I am posting this on my blog for anyone who wants to pursue it there.

My perception of the thing that makes a “council” effective is if it has judicatory rights to kick out from its fellowship and the churches it represents those people who do not adhere to the conciliar decisions.

I’d be happy with just that.  I’m not looking at all to enforce beliefs on anyone or church outside of the fellowship which the council represents.

augustin wrote:

There’s no hidden agenda.
Read what Peter J. wrote.

I take it you mean the article linked here. 

It’s no clearer to me than the original announcement. Abp. Jensen writes: “The aim of the Conference is to discuss the future of mission and relationships within the churches of Anglican Communion. Those who wish to retain biblical standards especially in the area of sexual ethics have spent much time and effort in negotiations on these issues in the last five years. They want to move on together with the gospel of Christ’s Lordship, a gospel which challenges us and changes lives.” Again, this could apply to staying and retaking the Island, to sailing away, or to some sort of coordinated action between stayers and sailers. To my ear, the phrase “those who wish to retain biblical standards…want to move on together” sounds more like sailing than anything else, but maybe I am letting my anxiety get the better of me.

Nor am I looking for any council to claim “that they either deferred to, or represented, the divine will since they spoke for the whole (catholic, ecumenical) church, which church itself, being the Body of Christ, could pronounce with the authority of His Spirit.”

By council I mean a body that rules on what theology and practice is acceptable and what unacceptable to the larger community which the conciliar body represents.

<i>we don’t allow commenters to post new articles or links attempting to advertise another site or a different article in a comment thread.</i >

Please delete my comments 102 and 104 above.  Although I am long-time commenter here, I did not realize that SF had a policy prohibiting simple links to relevant, on-topic information and did not intend to violate one of your policies.

In other words, Sarah, you are looking for the rules by which one conducts a schism? Somewhat like the vaunted “rules of war”?

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

130
If Peter had wanted to say want you’re questioning he would have said it.

130
Sorry! If Peter had wanted to say what you’re questioning he would have said it.

My perception of the thing that makes a “council” effective is if it has judicatory rights to kick out from its fellowship and the churches it represents those people who do not adhere to the conciliar decisions.

I’d be happy with just that.  I’m not looking at all to enforce beliefs on anyone or church outside of the fellowship which the council represents.

In other words, you would be happy with the internal bickerings of a protestant sect.  I would hope that any conciliar Anglicanism would aspire to something more than that.

It’s okay, Mark—at least you didn’t copy and paste the entire article into the comments section of the blog!

we don’t allow commenters to post new articles or links attempting to advertise another site or a different article in a comment thread.

I did not know.  I shall refrain in the future.

#132 Please delete my comments 102 and 104 above.  Although I am long-time commenter here, I did not realize that SF had a policy prohibiting simple links to relevant, on-topic information and did not intend to violate one of your policies.

Don’t worry Mark. It’s more a case of who posts it rather than what’s posted!

Mark, the policy is mostly concerned with posting the entirety of another article. We’ve had revisionists post entire articles on threads before and links trying to get traffic for their blogs. The same thing happened with some other collaborationist sites recently. But, as Sarah said, this is certainly on topic and I’ll allow the link.

Dr. Michael Poon’s note is quite disturbing in that it does point to a possible rift. It is equally disturbing to see him on the same side as the collaborationist group Fulcrum.

Not really Mick, leave your link. I imagine Sarah did not see Mark’s because he did not post the entire article as you did. THat is still something I would like to avoid on this thread

RE: “In other words, you would be happy with the internal bickerings of a protestant sect.”

Nope—because the only thing that makes papal authority “effective is . . . “it has judicatory rights to kick out from its fellowship and the churches it represents those people who do not adhere to the papal decisions.”

That’s it—nothing more.

Each body—whether the RC church or the lowliest Southern Baptist church—has to have judicatory authority to kick out from its body those people or churches or dioceses who do not conform to the pronouncements of either council, or vestry, or convention, or primatial or pope.

Simple really.

RE: “Don’t worry Mark. It’s more a case of who posts it rather than what’s posted!”

Uh, yeh—that’s it!  ; > )

I wish that Matt would fisk the Poon article and post it on a separate thread, personally.  Like I said, I like the Global South Anglican site, and think it’s a worthwhile article to post.

This is where Sarah and I agree. I do agree that there needs to be a governing council of primates with the power to expel. But I think the basis for inclusion or expulsion in the body governed by primates must be confessional.

“Each body—whether the RC church or the lowliest Southern Baptist church—has to have judicatory authority to kick out from its body those people or churches or dioceses who do not conform to the pronouncements of either council, or vestry, or convention, or primatial or pope.”

And I should add that, despite attempts to make it much bigger and more complex than it actually is, all with furrowed brows, it all hangs on whether people or parishes or dioceses wish to belong to the body which the council, synod, convention, or pope represents.

That’s pretty much it, no matter how desperately people work to make it something more, especially those who see the Roman church as the one, true church.

because the only thing that makes papal authority “effective is . . . “it has judicatory rights to kick out from its fellowship and the churches it represents those people who do not adhere to the papal decisions.”

No.  That puts the cart before the horse.  What makes the Roman Catholic church effective is its ability to compel belief, nowadays only through moral suasion and argument.  That’s what makes it a community from which to kick anyone out in the first place.  Without that, no one would either know or care that they were being “kicked out” of anything at all—a situation increasingly descriptive of large parts of the Anglican Communion.

Hence the need for a confession

And, btw, I am not arguing in favor of Roman Catholicism.

Hence the need for a confession.

Yes and no.  That depends on what you mean by a “confession” and on what authority you base it.  I’ve addressed that in one of the links I gave above (which the merciful commenatrix has thus far spared, so I won’t repeat it here).  I would suggest, for example, that the doctrinal statement of the CCP in fact serves as a sort of confession—but that document in turn bases itself explicitly on both Scripture and the Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church.  In other words, it does not stand alone as a compelling conciliar document, but refers to the authority of the wider church. Anything else would of necessity be provisional and local and subject to change, not ecumenical and definitive.

And to further develop my comment in 146 above . . .

Thus my point, in my rather long-winded comments above:  on what basis would any international Anglican council compel belief?  Until that is answered, you can hold all the councils you want, and kick people out of organizations as much as you like, and it won’t mean anything.  If belonging to something doesn’t mean anything, then being kicked out of it doesn’t either.

IRNS (#126-128, 136),

Wow, that was worth waiting for.  Thanks.  I’m going to have to check out your own blog and start responding to you there.  Gee, and some people think my posts are long and detailed…

All I’ll say for now is that we seem to be passing like ships in the night and talking past each other, and not directly addressing the same concerns or issues (sort of like Luther and Erasmus at the time of the original Reformation, when they debated the freedom and/or bondage of the human will).  That is, I agree with most of what you say, but it doesn’t really refute the point I was trying to make.  And what was that point?  Primarily it had to do with the inherent power of the Truth to win out over time, regardless of the political or social complicating factors that might retard its “universal” recognition for a while (even a generation or two or three). 

Now I grant you that “universal” should not be taken too literally and often needs to be somewhat nuanced.  For as you rightly point out, the “Nestorian” wing of the Church refused to accept the decree of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in AD 431.  And yes, you’re right that it’s a sad historical fact that the so-called “Monophysite” heresy (i.e., that there was only one nature [physis in Greek] in Christ, the divine, not two natures) was embraced by the oriental Churches that rejected the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 (Egypt, Armenia, and part of Syria etc.).  So, in one sense, the Third and Fourth General or Ecumenical Councils can’t be considered to represent the mind of the whole universal Church after all.  And yet, that is exactly what we do call them.

And if you look at these important doctrine defining councils more closely, it becomes apparent that all the first four Councils (Nicea in AD 325 to Chaldecon in 451), or all the first seven (from Nicea I in AD 325 to Nicea II in AD 787) were not literally “universal” and couldn’t therefore fully represent the mind or consensus of the whole Church Catholic, since all four or seven were overwhelmingly eastern in their makeup, and the western bishops were grossly under-represented.  Likewise, absent or drastically under-represented were those bishops far to the east, beyond the bounds of the Roman Empire (such as the “Nestorians” in Iran and even further east).  And yet we still speak of these as the great Councils of “the undivided Church.”  And rightly so, in my opinion.

Do you see my point?  A council doesn’t have to be LITERALLY universal to represent the authentic mind of the whole Church.  In a similar fashion, the eastern and oriental Orthodox Churches reject all the western councils since AD 787 that are counted by the Roman Catholics as “Ecumenical Clouncils,” since they weren’t present and didn’t consent to them. That is, for example, they don’t accept the crucial Fourth Lateran Council held in Rome in AD 1215 (perhaps the most important medieval western council) because it was purely western.  And it’s true, such western councils weren’t “universal.” 

But here’s my point.  In a sense, that really doesn’t matter.  They were nevertheless accepted as binding and authoritative throughout the Latin Church.  In other words, this whole long historical lesson I’ve just indulged in is just about making a very simple and rather obvious point.  And that point is this: a council doesn’t have to be truly universal to be binding on those who accept it as binding! 

Well, duh, you say.  You made us wade through all that boring, dry history just to make a silly point like that?  Well, yeah.  But wait, hang in there with me a little longer.  Now if that seemingly obvious statement above sounds like mere circular reasoning, I can understand that it may not seem very convincing or meaningful.  That is, those Christians outside the circle or fellowship of other Christians (like the eastern Christians who reject the medieval western councils) have little reason to see themselves as bound by the decisions of bishops whose authority over them they just don’t recognize (i.e., western bishops decide matters for the west, eastern bishops for the east etc.).  But that doesn’t mean such regional councils have no value or no authority just because they aren’t truly universal, or we would in fact have no genuinely universal councils at all. 

Do you see where I’m going with this?  What I’m trying to say is that we don’t have to wait forever for that long overdue “8th” General Council to decide crucial things (that is, the 8th is true follow up to the 7th Ecumenical Council in AD 787 that dealt with the approval of icons as not idolatrous).  That’s not the way the “consensus fidelium” or mind of the Faithful is shaped and consolidates itself.  The process of the reception of new doctrines is more informal and gradual than that, and properly so.  The Holy Spirit guides the Church into all truth (as Jesus promised) in a more mysterious and less juridical way than that whole fixation on gatherings of bishops seems to suggest.  Or so I believe anyway.  And you, IRNS, may well disagree with me there.  Many people do.

Now if you’ve followed me this far (and congratulations if you have!), what I’m getting at is this very practical point.  It doesn’t take a literally and technically universal council of bishops to come up with fully auhoritative and binding decisions (for those committed to respecting those bishops!).  Otherwise, we’d have no authoritative councils at all! (Yes, not even Nicea in AD 325, for the overwhelming majority of the 318 bishops there were from the Greek-speaking East; few Latin speaking bishops showed up from the West).  But over time, the whole Church did gradually come to “receive” the Trinitarian doctrine of Nicea as binding, and rightly so, because it really is TRUE.  That is, the famous “homoousios” [“of ONE being” with the Father] in the Nicene Creed passed the test of “reception” by the whole body of the Faithful, not because of the military might of the orthodox emperors, but because the overwhelming majority of the Church rightly came to realize over time that the 318 bishops gathered at Nicea were genuinely right.

And we Anglicans are free to act in a similar fashion.  Our councils don’t have to be universal to be authoritative, at least among ourselves (naturally, grin).  And we can trust the Holy Spirit to continue to guide the rest of the Church in the process of discernment and “reception” as they test their perceptions against ours.  That is not “sectarianism.”  It’s just historical reality.  That’s how the whole gradual, messy process of doctrinal reception works. 

So, cutting to the chase at last, that is precisely why someone like me can earnestly claim that we had the legitimate right as Anglicans to act the way we have in the matter of the ordination of women (where the biblical evidence is divided and unclear, or so many of us believe), and yet at the same time to adamantly deny that TEC had the legitimate right to act the way they did at General Convention in 2003 (because opn the matter of homosexual behavior the Scriptures are indeed totally clear and consistent, so that the matter is not even open to debate).

Whew!  That was very long and technical, I admit.  If you hung in there to the bitter end, pat yourself on the back.

IRNS, you probably will still disagree with me (and not just on WO), but at leasst I hope and trust that the basis of our disagreement will be clearer now.  And the rest of you will be in a better position to judge between us and decide who has the better case.

OK, I’m going back to the NT now.  I knew there was a good reason why I chose to do my doctorate on Acts, and not in the field of patristics!

David Handy, Ph.D.
Aren’t you glad all posts aren’t this detailed and academic and heavy??

#149-150, IRNS,

You put me up to this!  I may have just lost a lot of potential members to the NRAFC because of that long, dry, boring history lesson I just submitted as #151.  And it’s all because you initially taunted me by accusing me of “stunning ignorance” of church history!  It’s all your fault that I’ve joined you in boring all the readers of this thread to death.

Actually, I’m teasing.  I accept your apology.  But I do feel a bit like St. Paul in 2 Corinthians, where he engages in a little boasting, but then insists that it’s because they left him no option but to compete with the false apostles who were doing lots of boasting of their own.  So I’m not going to take the bait a second time and respond to your later comments.  I’d rather interact with you on your own blog.  You raise some important issues, but I’m not sure this venue is the place to discuss them in this level of detail.

David Handy+
Gee, I felt like I was back in grad school there for a minute

Gee…  What Sarah said rather briefly in #129 and #131 and then clarified in #142 is basically the same conclusion as what took NRA to post in a rather lengthy long winded and detailed post #151 all because of IRNS going off and getting all historical and all.  Good grief!  (Sorry NRA and IRNS All in fun!)  We don’t have to get historical to understand that any organization makes it own bylaws and makes sure people adhere to them.

OK, that being said, now I must get to a point IRNS made which I wholly disagree with, and that is that anyone can “Compel Belief”.  Good God do you honestly believe that anyone or any organization can “compel” belief?  Well. I guess if you are a Calvinist, then you might believe that the Holy Spirit can and does “compel” belief, but to go so far as to claim that a lowly human institution has the power to “compel” belief?  Oh My! 

Sorry, but I just don’t buy that.  I think instead, what is required is that any organization, church or otherwise, maintain its integrity and image through the proper use of discipline.  Through this and only through this can any organization obtain and maintain a certain “brand identity”.  By having a clear “identity”, those who are of a like mind can then come along side and throw their support behind this “identity”.  That is, they see something that resonates with them and they in turn support and advocate that which resonates with their own beliefs.  This isn’t rocket science folks, it just is…  Such truth applies to everything from football to theology.

Now, as this applies to the church, well those who accept that Jesus is Lord, then they “voluntarily” adopt the “identity” of this organization which we call the church, the body of Christ. 

But let us be clear, none are compelled, all must assent.  Nor can any ever be compelled, all must assent.  (Unless you are Calvinist and then you give that power only to the Holy Spirit and not to any human institution.  )

The Nestorians (and what have been termed in this discussion “oriental churches”) raise some interesting questions about how to convene a council that will speak the mind of the Church and, in a sense, define orthodoxy.

Yes, the Nestorians and others went their own way. But the historical fact of the matter is that HUGE segments of what were once “Nestorian” Churches EVENTUALLY embraced Eastern Orthodoxy. The Nestorian Churches still survive to this day—but they are miniscule, compared to their former size. To some degree, this had to do with the politics of a world thrown into turmoil by the advance of militant Islam. But that doesn’t explain it all.

I think that any reasonable historian would have to conclude that a lot of this “conversion” of the Nestorians had more to do with certain Nestorian bishops, priests, and lay people finally deciding, long after (decades, at least, and, in some instances, centuries) the Council at Ephesus, that the Orthodox had it right all along. There’s an awful lot of internal material (correspondence and theological writings produced by Nestorians) that documents the “melting away” of Nestoriansim—and it clearly describes a situation where the simple weight of the Orthodox argument (rather than purely political considerations) won over the hearts and minds of a lot of important Nestorians. MOST of the Nestorians did NOT convert to Islam—they became Orthodox. I do not think anybody really disputes this.

From this, I conclude that a Church Council can APPEAR to have fallen short of its mission, only to bear fruit many decades or centuries after the fact.

#154, bluenarrative,

Thanks.  You have just provided an important illustration of one of the points I was trying to make in contrast to the views of IRNS.  And that is the inherent power of truth to win out over time.  And so the Nestorian error was gradually overcome as the truth of orthodoxy manifested itself over time, as it always eventually does.

I continue to think that it’s needlessly cynical to think that orthodoxy only wins out if and when there are secular forces to enforce it and punish heresy (as IRNS could be taken to imply, though I hope he doesn’t really believe that).  I prefer to think that God keeps his promise to guide the Church into all truth, even though, as you say, the path isn’t always smooth and level, and it may take generations. 

Yes, the Church’s understanding of the truth entrusted to it may take unexpected twists and turns, and go through highs and lows (like the detour through the Nestorian heresy), but the Spirit keeps leading the Church into a fuller and clearer comprehension of the glorious truth revealed to us in Christ. 

So it has been through the ages.  At times portions of the Church wander off into errors of various sorts, as has happened repeatedly in church history and is happening now in western Anglicanism.  But Christ, in his mercy, keeps calling us back.  Like the Good Shepherd that he is, he’ll go looking for his lost sheep, fight off the wolves, and bring us safely back to rejoin the rest of the flock. 

Is that not what he doing even now with us in the West?  In a sense, we are the lost Nestorians, and he is bringing us back to join the other orthodox Christians in the fold, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd (and one faith)

David Handy+
(I felt I had to atone for that long, boring history lesson above with a mini-sermon.  Spencer, you’re right.  Sarah made the basic point very well, and in a much more winsome, concise way).

Father Handy,  As a new member of the NRAFC, might I propose—as a mark of continuity between the Old Reformation and the New Reformation, that you so elegantly argue in favor of—a revival of the GENEVA COLLAR among clergymen in the New Reformation? I’ve always rather fancied them. And it seems to me that, up to now, the revisionists have claimed all the sartorial glory, so to speak—I am thinking here of such things as Bishop Andrus in purple satin at the San Francisco Gay Pride Parade, the rector of Trinity Wall Street doing a fair imitation of Emmett Kelly, etc… What do you think? 

David,
No atonement necessary!  All is covered by grace and in this case I don’t even think that grace was needed.  I enjoyed reading the tomes.

Of course Sarah was a wee bit more concise…

#156, bluenarrative,

LOL.  Very funny.  I’ve already admitted that I was raised Presbyterian, and that I chose to attend a Prebyterian seminary for my final degree (my wife made me promise the Ph.D. will indeed be the last).  But wear a Geneva Collar??  Surely, you jest!

My love is forever sworn to Luther, not Calvin!  I look to Wittenberg, not Geneva, for my inspiration.  Now other members of the NRAFC are welcome to attend meetings in whatever sartorial splendor they so desire.  Of course, since most of our club meetings are online, who knows what ecclesiastical haberdashery each of us may be sporting (at least us clergy) when we are posting?

Hmmm.  That reminds me.  Where did I put that Canterbury cap?

And just for the record, even though I am indeed a lover of Luther and the original Reformation, today, when I celebrate eucharist at Mission of Grace in Newport News, VA (an AMiA congregation), I will be wearing a glorious white and gold chasuble. (Please, no one report that to +Chuck Murphy!  I swear you all to silence).

Now, all of you who’ve been holding back on joining the NRAFC, you see what delightful give and take there is in our growing fellowship.  We cherish “diversity” too, albeit within strict doctrinal limits!  So cease holding back.  Jump on in.  The water’s fine.

David Handy+
Ex-Calvinist

#157, Spencer,

Whew!  I’m relieved.  Thanks.  I wouldn’t want to lose you, so soon after you had joined us at NRAFC.

Actually, there are some important facts and issues buried in all that convoluted verbiage IRNS and I just dumped on this thread.  But that’s really for scholars to haggle over in other venues.

Aren’t you glad that this whole blog enterprise is run by laypeople like Greg and Sarah? (Sorry, Matt+ and David+, I trust you understand).  I mean, has Sarah Hey ever, in all her many, many posts, subjected us all to the kind of long, boring posts that IRNS and I just inflicted on SF readers?  Never.  Not even once.

Thank God for the laity!

David Handy+

Bluenarrative, you have raised a serious issue, which if not properly addressed could become schismatic among NRAFC-ers, and that is Dress Code.

Please pardon my abysmal ignorance, but could you provide a link to an image of a “Geneva Collar”?

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

Well, now that David Handy + has declared himself a Luther fan, I think that I am going to have to join the NRAFC.

Provided that the NRAFC accepts members of OA (Optimists Anonymous).

David Handy in #151 wrote

Aren’t you glad all posts aren’t this detailed and academic and heavy??

No, and I certainly don’t find them boring.  Personally, I think history lessons are good for people (but then, I would).  I think it would do the readers of Stand Firm a world of good to go from this thread to, say, Wikipedia or Google and look up “monotheletism” or “sobornost” or “Paul of Samosata “  But then, perhaps that’s why my fans are so few.

Nor do I think we are actually ships passing in the night.  While we may agree as to the facts, there are still significant differences as to their meaning, which are at the heart of our disagreement.

And what was that point?  Primarily it had to do with the inherent power of the Truth to win out over time, regardless of the political or social complicating factors that might retard its “universal” recognition for a while (even a generation or two or three).

In which case, surely, catholic orthodoxy has won over continental protestantism (Roman Catholics plus Eastern Orthodox = 80 to 90 % of the world’s Christians today).  Are you prepared to defend this?

Do you see my point?  A council doesn’t have to be LITERALLY universal to represent the authentic mind of the whole Church.  In a similar fashion, the eastern and oriental Orthodox Churches reject all the western councils since AD 787 that are counted by the Roman Catholics as “Ecumenical Clouncils,” since they weren’t present and didn’t consent to them. That is, for example, they don’t accept the crucial Fourth Lateran Council held in Rome in AD 1215 (perhaps the most important medieval western council) because it was purely western.  And it’s true, such western councils weren’t “universal.”

This, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.  If (if, if, if) a condition for universality is communion with the only truly universal bishop (one whose claims are not based solely on immediate, cotemporary universal recognition, but on dominical statements and the patristic record), then the Fourth Lateran Council was indeed so.  On the other hand, if the condition is securus iudicat orbis terrarum, then perhaps not so—-but that still leaves unresolved the question of “universality.”

But here’s my point.  In a sense, that really doesn’t matter.  They were nevertheless accepted as binding and authoritative throughout the Latin Church.  In other words, this whole long historical lesson I’ve just indulged in is just about making a very simple and rather obvious point.  And that point is this: a council doesn’t have to be truly universal to be binding on those who accept it as binding!

This again depends on the definition of “universality.”  See my point above.  Those who participated in, say, Vatican I or Vatican II certainly believed at the time that their respective councils were ecumenical, and did not believe that the absence of the Eastern Orthodox (except as observers) in any way prevented this.  Likewise, the absence of western bishops from some of the early councils (I Constatinople is a classic case) has not prevented their eventual acceptance as “universal” by just about everyone, even Nestorians and Monophysites.

And that point is this: a council doesn’t have to be truly universal to be binding on those who accept it as binding!

Precisely.  But why, on what basis, accept it in the first place?  I am suggesting that certain common (though not, well, universal) Anglican positions, including at least one you have taken in the past, render accepting any such future Anglican council on a patristic or catholic basis impossible.

But that doesn’t mean such regional councils have no value or no authority just because they aren’t truly universal, or we would in fact have no genuinely universal councils at all.

So, would an Anglican council be regional or universal?  If universal, we are making a pretty breathtaking claim for ourselves.  If regional, then it cannot have ecumenical authority, but must defer to the ecumenical consensus.

Regional councils in antiquity did not have autonomous authority, as the canons and decrees of the ecumenical councils that confirmed them show.  And if an Anglican council is, in effect, “regional,” then the very point we make against the innovations of TEC can thus be made against the innovations of the Anglican Communion—-and should be.  An Anglican council, and thus the Anglican Communion, can have no authority to alter catholic faith and practice if it is only “regional,” whether that region is TEC or the entire Anglican Communion.

And we can trust the Holy Spirit to continue to guide the rest of the Church in the process of discernment and “reception” as they test their perceptions against ours.  <?blockquote>

Guess what?  It has!  That is,  “the rest of the church” has already done so, pretty definitively.  And they have said “no” to several characteristic, contemporary Anglican notions and practices.  Are you prepared to change?  Is the Anglican Communion prepared to change?

<blockquote>That is not “sectarianism.” It’s just historical reality.  That’s how the whole gradual, messy process of doctrinal reception works.

Well, yes and no. It is sectarianism if we continue to insist on unpatristic, uncatholic ideas and practices that have been rejected by the wider church.  And the “process of doctrinal reception” does not work, and has not worked, by one church out of communion with another coming up with an innovation that it expects those other churches with which it is not in communion to catch on to.  This is classic modern Anglican arrogance, with its exaggerated notion of our importance or place in history.

IRNS, you probably will still disagree with me (and not just on WO), but at leasst I hope and trust that the basis of our disagreement will be clearer now. 

Yes, but not because you yourself are any clearer.

Oops.  Blew a “close blockquote” above.  Let the reader understand.

Let me fix that.

And we can trust the Holy Spirit to continue to guide the rest of the Church in the process of discernment and “reception” as they test their perceptions against ours. 

Guess what?  It has!  That is, “the rest of the church” has already done so, pretty definitively.  And they have said “no” to several characteristic, contemporary Anglican notions and practices.  Are you prepared to change?  Is the Anglican Communion prepared to change?

That is not “sectarianism.” It’s just historical reality.  That’s how the whole gradual, messy process of doctrinal reception works.

Well, yes and no. It is sectarianism if we continue to insist on unpatristic, uncatholic ideas and practices that have been rejected by the wider church.  And the “process of doctrinal reception” does not work, and has not worked, by one church out of communion with another coming up with an innovation that it expects those other churches with which it is not in communion to catch on to.  This is classic modern Anglican arrogance, with its exaggerated notion of our importance or place in history.

IRNS, you probably will still disagree with me (and not just on WO), but at leasst I hope and trust that the basis of our disagreement will be clearer now.

Yes, but not because you yourself are any clearer.

#161, selah,

I thought you’d see the light and join us sooner or later.  Welcome aboard!  Your membership packet is in the mail.  And as noted earlier, because you are among the first 100 people to join the elite NRAFC, all membership dues are waived, and you will be officially enrolled as a “charter member.” 

Dr. N, eat your heart out!

Now, selah, since I take it that you’re a Luther lover too, maybe you’d be willing to accept an assignment.  Your first task in the NRAFC will be to take a look at the three great Reformation essays Martin Luther wrote in 1520, and decide which one should be the focus for discussion at an upcoming NRAFC panel discussion.  I tend to favor the classic, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” but I’ll leave the choice up to you.

Everyone else, see what fun you’re missing out on?

David Handy+

#160, Br_er Rabbit,

Now don’t go encouraging bluenarrative to carry on this way.  The next thing you know, he’ll be joining the Puritans in advocating a return to Geneva gowns (scholar’s attire) instead of the Anglican cassock and surplice (monastic attire).  No need to fight those battles all over again.

But lest there be any confusion, the NRAFC will henceforth regard all disputes about proper clerical dress as adiaphora, i.e., most definitely among the “non-essentials.”  Otherwise, we may end up meeting in a phone booth after all.  Or since phone booths seem a thing of the past in the cell phone era, perhaps a hall closet.

David Handy+
Benevolent Dictator of the NRAFC

#164, IRNS,

Well, since my long, historical post didn’t seem to make things any clearer (for you anyway), I won’t try to respond to your last provocation here at SF.  Maybe we should continue our little debate on your own forum.

I will give you this, however, IRNS.  At least, I’m clearer now about your views and the logic behind them, even if you’re no clearer about mine.  And for that I thank you.  Clarity is always helpful.

David Handy+

[158] NRA. It is refreshing to see you guys here fighting over the troubles of Anglicanism. Of course, the challenges extend to other denominations. I am also an ex-Calvinist and bent towards Luther. My ancestry is traced to both camps. My father’s family, although on a different branch, is listed with those housing Zwingli and is very likely to have know Calvin during the early days of the Switz Reformed Church. The proper branch descended from Luther’s territory as German Reformed, and is generally linked to early development of Reformed and Lutheran congregations here in North America since the early 1700s. The Switz part of the family moved from the Heidelburg area in the mid-1400s, to the best of my knowledge. My mother’s side of the family were Lutherans as well and have been involved in planting congregations in North America, since about 1750.

I certainly feel those reformations in my DNA. We’ve been causing trouble in the Church for 500 years! Scary, I’m writing while listening to Gregorian Chant!!  There must be something else back there for me to find.

Having come very late to this party, I want to return back to the original post.  While this is open to debate, historians tend to argue that the original island broke off from the main continent for political reasons, and only later developed a theological distinctiveness about itself, which in a way was a synthesis of both protestant and catholic traditions.  This central wobbliness has caused a variety of folks to jump into boats throughout the history of this island we call Anglicanism.  So this raises a few questions:
a) is there something intrinsic about the island worth saving?  If so, isn’t the threat of abandonment an act of faithlessness?
b) Does it warrant that if we have to abandon the island that we create a whole new island?  If so, don’t we need to build up its theological foundations?  (this could be a charter project of the NRAFC by the way).
c) what is it about existing islands or continents that doesn’t satisfy?  why do we have to reinvent the wheel (or island) all over again?
I have my own thoughts about this, but would welcome some feedback.

If the orthodox take a coordinated hardline at Lambeth, they can do serious damage to the “progressive” image wordwide, and thus weaken their political posture. Maybe the pew sitters will wake up and demand the ouster of “progressives” at conventions, changes in seminaries, etc. At least, the “progressives” would have a weakened position in the courts and legislatures, when they can no longer say the Anglican Communion backs them.

I don’t see the island sinking, but rather envision the model of Noah and the ark.  The orthodox are going to the ark and waiting for the “progressive” self-righteous to be drowned.

#170, Dr. N.,

Once again you’ve brought up the analogy to the Flood and Noah’s Ark, and so once again, I’ll bring up one of my all-time favorite Luther quotes.  As is well known, since patristic times, the Church universal has often been likened to a ship, and often indeed to Noah’s Ark.  Commenting on St. Cyrpian’s famous claim that “extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” (“Outside the Church there is no salvation”), Luther once affirmed the analogy between the Church and Noah’s Ark with the following incisive (and typically earthy) comment:

“Sometimes the only reason you can stand the stench on the inside, is because of the storm on the outside!”

So true. 

Now all you Calvinists at heart out there, take note.  Calvin would never have made such a crude remark. 

Now I’d be the first to admit that Calvin was a better biblical exegete.  The powers of his left-brain were unsurpassed.  But his right-brain, the intuitive, creative part simply can’t begin to compare with the great Doctor of Wittenberg. 

Yes, Luther could never have written “The Institutes of the Christian Religion.”  I’ll grant that point freely.  Calvin was a genius as a systematic theologian. 

But by the same token, Calvin could never have written “A Mighty Fortress is Our God,” or “Away in a Manger,” or the marvelous Catechism Luther did etc.

Each was great in his own way.  And both were great gifts from Christ to his Church.  But what can I say?  I am much more drawn to the great German reformer than the French/Swiss one.  And one of the main reasons why is because of that delightfully down-to-earth style of Luther’s.  He’s just so much more FUN to read!

“Let goods and kindred go…”

David Handy+

Not to be too snarky, but you know he cribbed some of his best stuff from William of Ockham?

If you want earthy theology, you have to read medieval Franciscan theologians

I’m just sayin’.....

I have a blog thingy

#172, mousestalker,

I’ll have to take your word for it.  I try NOT to read medieval philosophers and theologians any more than I have to.  Especially those so-called Nominalists.  Yuck. 

Now St. Thomas Aquinas is a different matter.  I do appreciate the Angelic Doctor.  And likewise St. Bovaventure and some of the later mystics.  But I must admit that Scholastic Theology generally leaves me cold: Duns Scotus and William of Occam etc.  And so do most of their ilk.  Just not my style.  But then again, maybe I just haven’t run across their more interesting “earthy” parts.

You’ve got to love a blog like this.  You learn new stuff all the time.  I would never have thought the creator of the famous “Occam’s Razor” test in philosophy would be capable of such earthiness.  You never know…

I have a thingy for earthy theology.

David Handy+

Father Handy,  You have reminded me why I am so very proud of my membership in the NRAFC. Like you, I love Luther’s earthiness. I especially love his wonderfully imperfect and warm embrace of the people around him—his family, the students who lodged with him, the people who worked closely with him (often in very lowly and insignificant ways, and the total strangers that he encountered. I confess that the thing that appeals to me the MOST about Luther is not his theological insights—though they are considerable and valuable—but his overall character and personality. His preaching was incredible—where are such preachers today? His casual conversation was magnificent. All of his “important” letters are fairly self-conscious and a bit stuffy and pretentious. But his casual correspondence—the everyday letters that he just dashed off quickly to dozens of incidental people at the start of each day—are priceless.

I do not know what the current fashion is, but when I was a child Lutheran pastors in both Sweden and Norway wore Geneva Collars. I promise not to tell Chuck Murphy about your chasuble, if you will reconsider Geneva Collars in the New Reformation!

#174, bluenarrative,

At the risk of this turning into a mutual admiration society, let me reply in turn that it’s comments such as you have just made that make me so proud of those elite few who have already joined the NRAFC.  I heartily agree with your take on Luther.  His famous informal comments recorded in his TableTalks are Luther at his best.  Likewise his pastoral letters (the famous Library of Christian Classics devotes a whole volume to those masterpieces of the art of pastoral counsel through letters).

Calvin the man is deeply hidden behind all the brilliant theology he sets forth in his highly objective exegetical work and his systematic theology.  We see a lot of the mind of Calvin at work, but not much of Calvin’s heart, i.e., his passions, his fears etc.  Or so it seems to me.  He clearly had a more reserved personality and style than Luther.  Nothing wrong with that, mind you; it’s just different.

But Luther perpetually wore his heart on his sleeve.  Roland Bainton’s classic biography of Luther calls the fiery Reformer (and Doctor of the Church, I’d argue) “magnanimous,” or great-hearted.  Absolutely.  Very apt.  Luther was nothing if not great-hearted.  That’s precisely what draws me to him too, like a moth to the light.  No rather, to change metaphors, like a plant that turns to the light in order to draw strength and energy from it.

But as for those Geneva Collars.  I was afraid you were talking about the old Puritan “preaching tabs,” the sort of white stubby neckties, if you will, that crossed below the neck.  Maybe I was wrong.  But I simply repeat here as a would-be champion of the New Reformation, I look for inspiration to Wittenberg, not to Geneva.

Meanwhile, let me say that I appreciate you keeping confidential my confession that I wore a chasuble in celebrating eucharist today (I know some other AMiA priests who do so as well, but I’m sure +Murphy would frown on the practice, without forbidding it).  I would expect no less from a member of the NRAFC. 

But I remain committed to considering clerical vestments (or lack of them) a matter of indifference within NRAFC.  Do you know the delightful story about the late great evangelical Ugandan leader, Festo Kivengere (Bishop of Kigezi)?  I heard him preach several times, including back at my alma mater Wheaton College in the 1970s.  The justly renowned author of “I Love Idi Amin” was very low church and so he was deeply disturbed and distressed when he was asked to wear a cope at his consecration.  It seemed so very unProtestant, or unevangelical.  He protested vigorously, but the archbishop insisted he wear it.

So how did he resolve this conflict?  Well, he finally remembered the gospel story of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, atop a donkey covered with a cloak.  And he decided, all right, I can be a jackass, and let Jesus ride on me, and I’ll let them put that cloak-like cope on if they insist.  What matters is that people see Jesus.

Amen.  So be it.

David Handy+

Father Handy,  Festo was an old beloved friend of mine. I still mourn his death. But he was a HUGE inspiration to me. And he shaped my Christian walk in more ways than I can detail here.

I like the idea of a chasuble. But, all too often, especially when worn by Anglicans in North America, they look a bit too fussy and precious. I am on very good terms with a Roman catholic Benedictine priest who designs and makes chasubles. His chasubles are actually a LOT more expensive than most of the ones to be found on sale these days. But they are also wonderfully understated affairs—not at all fussy or precious.

I think that if I were a bishop, I might consider the idea of banning chasubles altogether. Any way that you look at it, a cassock and stole is really the PROPER attire for a true Anglican celebrating the Eucharist.

I absolutely LOVE preaching tabs. When I was at Grace Church Manhattan, years ago, we had Morning Prayer and Sermon three Sundays each month, and Holy Communion on the fourth Sunday. The preacher ALWAYS wore tabs. As you should well know, preaching tabs were a hallmark of the early Lutherans. And the adoption of preaching tabs by the Church of England took place during the most Lutheran days of the English Reformation.

Geneva Collars are those rather clown-like ruffled affairs—Queen Elizabeth the First is frequently depicted wearing something similar, though, in her case, there was no ecclesiastical significance to it. It just looked fancy and rather grand to Elizabethan eyes. As a matter of fact, the addition of this sort of collar to “standard clown attire” first occurred in France. And it was originally intended to MOCK the Protestants. When I suggested Geneva Collars for NRAFC clergy, I was thinking of what is, arguably, the most hideous innovation of the revisionists—namely, the “Clown Eucharist.” I thought that, perhaps, by re-embracing the Geneva Collar we might take some of the blasphemous steam out of the “Clown Eucharist.” I also thought it might function as a sort of homage to Good Queen Bess—a woman that I, frankly, admire; and a woman to whom all English-speaking Protestants owe an immense debt of gratitude.

Have you been following the Michael Poon threads? What do YOU think? I, more or less, know your general views. But how do you think this thing is actually going to play out in the days/weeks ahead? Will Archbishop Akinola (or, more probably, Archbishop Jensen) substantially respond to Dr. Poon? If so, what will it mean?

BTW,  Festo was Bishop of Mt. Kenya East, Province of Uganda.

Obviously I am way too late here, and you may all have left.  But the scholarly interchange has been very informative.

What we are having trouble with, at the base, is defining what it means to be Anglican.  Properly ordained bishop? Articles? Scripture? May I suggest that what may hold a body of Christians together is liturgy?  The liturgy, which expresses by doing what the body is about and what it believes, is recognizable everywhere.  We lost this in the 1970s-1980s, and we have not yet recovered it.  The counter-example which is before me here in Egypt is the Coptic Church.  It is non-Chalcedonian.  This is a heresy, by Orthodox and Western standards.  And yet, the Copts have stood against the Islamic invasion for 1400 years.  Depleted, indeed, by persecution and defections to the new major heresy, Islam, monophysite Egypt has managed to stay Christian.  Anglicanism, after only 30 years of massive liturgical “improvement,” is struggling to be Christian, much less Anglican.

Sorry if this is off-topic; I don’t think so, myself.  The Anglican ship which is tied to the island had better be sea-worthy, or those who embark will drown.

Katherine, the Ethiopian Christians were isolated before Chalcedon, and they also were still in existence much to the surprise of Christian missionaries.

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

Yes, friend rabbit, and also the Indian church founded by St. Thomas, although the Jesuits hastened to Latinize it. 

The family that prays together stays together.

#176 and 177, bluenarrative,

Thanks for setting me straight on the history of Geneva collars, clown eucharists (I’d completely missed the sarcastic connection), and where the much-loved Festo Kivengeri was bishop.  That’s one reason why I enjoy blogging now.  You learn new stuff all the time.  Many minds are so much better than just one.

As for the important article by Dr. Michael Poon of Singapore, I’ve posted a response or two over on T19.  Since this thread has gotten so long and old, I think I’ll just pursue that matter over there.

David Handy+

Baby boomers don’t seem to understand subtlety because they have witnessed so much loud, raucous activism during recent years, they may never have witnessed calm, cool decision making.  What they don’t understand is that if we submit to activism for activism’s sake we are close to condoning mob rule.

There are some good things to be said for subtlety, and I believe that, in spite of the discomfort some have with this unfamiliar way of doing things, it is the best that they proceed this way because it offers hope to those who may need it now and those who may need it later, although I am very fortunate to be in a conservative, Christian parish now, it is good to know the boat is there if the storm comes.