Dr. Michael Poon is “Shocked” and “Saddened” by the Gafcon Announcement

Where did this missive come from? Would it be possible to get a link to it?

I have a blog thingy

On what basis did the Primates of Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Southern Cone, and Tanzania declare themselves as orthodox primates?

Dr. Poon questions this self-declaration of orthodoxy as if it were a declaration of schism or even ecclesiological war. One must note that they did not declare any other primates as non-orthodox.
The good doctor doth protest too much.

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

sorry, the link is up

The “Poon-Toon” Alliance seems to be rather exercised at the entire future Jerusalem Gathering. Can not like-minded Anglicans come together for a few days without all this Hullabaloo ?  After all, what do people have to fear from just us few Million malcontents ? All that will be happening is that some number of Anglican Bishops, Clergy, and Laity will be coming together from every corner of the Earth to perhaps see their way to creating an Anglicanism that might once more show some semblance to Classical Christianity.  I can certainly see why this may be somewhat disturbing to some.  We hope you will understand that we will probably not be asking for your permission to proceed.  May God bless all of us in our respective walks ........ We choose to walk to the Mountain .... Come join us !

Poon-Toon.  Oh my.

Perhaps Dr. Poon should spend the next few days getting off his high horse. His questions come across as condescending, self-righteous and pompous.  In fact, his whole statement makes one wonder if he has lost his usually good sense about Anglican matters.

Dr. Poon reminds me of Ploice Chief Louie in Cassablanca standing in Rick’s Place as exclaiming, “I am SHOCKED,... SHOCKED that gambling is going on in here.”

The point of Dr. Poon’s questions is, imho, well-taken.  If Gafcon is an effort by only one faction of the Global South, then the lack of consultation is a serious mistake, if only on the political level.  GS unity is one of the principal points of leverage that the orthodox within the Communion have in moving the entire Communion to take action as a body against TEC as a Province.

Note that the moral force and legitimacy within the Communion of Lambeth I.10, Kigali, Dromantine, Dar, and so on arose from their status as conciliar expressions of the entire Communion.  It is this consensus that ecclesiologically constitutes the doctrinal authority of the AC, and it is only this consensus that can move ++Rowan to take steps which will be universally recognized by North American Anglicans as ejecting TEC from the Communion, thereby removing 815’s canonical authority over the seceding dioceses and parishes and substantially mitigating the legal threat in secular courts.  This is why what happens in the Communion as a whole should be of great concern to “Federal” conservatives, regardless of either their ecclesiology or their feelings of desperation.

If Gafcon represents only a portion of the Global South, and holds itself up as a conference on “the Anglican Future”, then it becomes very easy for the opposition to paint all of this as merely “a faction of a faction” and dismiss it—which they will of course try to do in any case, but it ill-behooves us to make their claim more credible by gratuitously allowing wedges to be driven between our allies.

Taking Dr. Poon’s statement seriously, it appears to be time for some very intensive fence-mending.

Remember, kiddies, that when revisionists confer, it’s consultation and fellowship.  When reasserters do the same, it’s a conspiracy.

But Craig—Dr. Poon seems to have no idea of the answer to what you say is his chief question: “If Gafcon is an effort by only one faction of the Global South, then the lack of consultation is a serious mistake, if only on the political level.”

So . . . I guess we’ll find out if Gafcom has only “one faction” of the Global South involved by who attends.  But then . . . it seems that we’re going to find out also very soon if the Lambeth Conference will be able to hold “itself up as a conference on “the Anglican [Communion]” by its universal attendance as well.  If we’re going to go by attendance, then may I suggest that the Lambeth Conference may well end up in the same boat as you state that Gafcom will?

RE: “. . . and it is only this consensus that can move ++Rowan to take steps which will be universally recognized by North American Anglicans as ejecting TEC from the Communion . . . “

I’m afraid that—tragically—I disagree.  There is no “consensus” at all—not amongst Primates or bishops—that will “move” the ABC to take an action.  He just won’t do that.

I wish he had.  I wish that he were willing.

But it should be very clear by now that he is not.

...ejecting TEC from the Communion, thereby removing 815’s canonical authority

Craig, that will do no such thing. The AC has no authority over 815’s canons or lack of canons. Furthermore, 815 has declared that TEC and only TEC can define whether it is in communion with the AC or not. Even if TEC voluntarily left the AC, that would be irrelevant to its canons, which would still specify its powers to depose and appoint.

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

The major issue that seems to be wrapping any coherent response around an axle so that it never gets anywhere is the strange manner in which Poon mixed:
-pseudo rhetorical questions, with
-a lack of facts

Most of the readers intoning that “Poon is making an important point” ignore the bald fact that he failed to forthrightly make any point at all. The most you can literally say to most of his questions are “I donno…” or “Ask the Primates themselves….”

So in response you get stuff like

A series of serious questions, Michael. Thanks.
Who will answer them, when and where?
(Posted by Graham Kings)

Which creates a logically endless loop.

I would bet Dr. Poon’s nose is almost completely out of joint.  Does anyone truely believe his questions are “questions”?  This is a political move, made to sound as if he (and perhaps Graham) are just confused little folk, who have been taken completely by surprise.

This is definitely an attempt to make a subtle “attack”, on what he sees as his territory.  Over on T19, even Dr. Sietz jumps on the pile.

Their supposed “questions” are designed to cause emnity between the Global South and others.  There is NO guest list, no list of invitees, nothing more than a list of “convenors”, and an announcement of what will be, not what will happen. 

Now you are beginning to see the true colors of some who have been absolutely set on ONLY an Anglican “Communion” beneath Canturbury.  You know, “thou shalt have no other leader but the ABC”. 

Many folks have speculated that the premise of permenance, pension, position, retirement etc. could be some of the reason our clergy don’t move, or stand still and keep their mouth shut.

I truly never thought about the “bigwigs”, who have cautioned, wait, wait, wait, might be concerned with their own welfare also.

Dr.Poon has had plenty of time to obtain anwers to his questions via other means, publishing them without any answers, is just another effort at sabotage..

Sorry, but that’s what I see.

Grannie gloria

Matt Kennedy wrote in the original post:

I do not know the context for this statement. Are Christians in Muslim countries not permitted to travel to Jerusalem?

I recall from friends who worked and lived in Saudi Arabia for a number of years, and from other comments, whence heard or read I do not recall, that many of the Muslim nations in the Middle East do not permit direct travel from their territories to Israeli territory. Therefore, if you wish to go from Amman (Jordan) or Damascus (Syria) you had to do so by first traveling to another country that did not have such restrictions, where you would change carriers and board a vehicle bound for Israel. On the return trip you got to do the same thing again. So, they do not (and probably are unable) to prevent residents (or tourists) from traveling to Israel, but they can (and some of them do) prevent anyone traveling from their nation directly to Israel without changing carriers in a neutral nation.

Please note that this was true twenty (or thereabouts) years ago for Saudi Arabia and Syria, as best I can recall, but I do not know which (nor how many) Muslim countries currently enforce such a restriction. I suspect that it is very many or all in the Middle East, but am not able to verify that suspicion.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Marial Artist,

Like you, I do not know whether these restrictions are still in force, nor do I know what countries might be enforcing them. I do remember when there was a very serious problem with visas—anybody who had a passport stamped with an Israeli entry visa was denied entry into all Muslim countries. Sometimes, the Israeli immigration authorities would cooperate with certain people, under certain circumstances, to keep a passport from revealing entry into Israel. For me, personally, it was never much of a problem because I am a dual-national and carry several passports; one of which was always reserved for travel to and from Israel, another reserved for travel to Muslim countries. I always keep BOTH of my passports with me when traveling—just in case. But I was always aware that the discovery on my person of the passport stamped with Israeli entry visas could have meant, under certain circumstances, a sentence of death of me. We live in a very strange and dark world.

On what basis did the Primates of Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Southern Cone, and Tanzania declare themselves as orthodox primates?

The Spirit led them to a New Thing?

#7 - Here you go. 

Excerpts from a post at Titus:

Now - some of us have engaged in robust discussions and debates and now what? Do we debate for debate’s sake - or do we do something about it?

Some of us may offer solutions that will be rejected?  Do we wax lyrical at our windmills or do we remain engaged as participants?

We do love to discuss what is possible, but it is quite something else to design something that will be built - and then build it.  Decisions are made.  Heads risk going on the block.

When we have been on the outside of the councils of the church for so long, we lack the skills to know how to be in councils.  In fact, we discover - as our forefathers did during the American Revolution - that some councils are designed to keep others out.  So it’s not merely getting oneself on to a council, it’s recognizing that the council is designed to perpetuate a certain point of view - including keeping you out.

Academics again - with some exceptions - are not the ones who are usually elected to office (unless the current administration wants to keep a token representative around, knowing academic lacks political skills to organize - seen that too).  Even bishops are not always the ones who do the building (though that is the model in Africa where bishops are church planters in hostile territories, not a bad way to learn political skills).

I think it behoove the academics among us to think through strategically how to be heard, rather than to lament not being heard.

It seems to me that Jerusalem 2008 is essential to building for the future.  The foundations of Lambeth are crumbling.  Building on a cracking foundation will not support a robust community, but will fall into ruin.

There are those who may believe that Lambeth is not crumbling, but even TEC recognizes this is happening and are poised to take full advantage of that weakness this July.  I listened to the strategic planning while in New Orleans.  We Americans (whatever our political persuasion) can make some spectacular and very public blunders, but we have a history of learning from those blunders, one way or another.  While there continues to be an acute blindness on some strategic fronts of TEC, in others they seem to be clearly fixed.  And Lambeth is one one of them.

There are many parts to building a deep and secure foundation - and snipping in public is not how you build a building (believe me, I’m learning the hard way).  We should consider how to rebuild the cracked foundations, rather than engage in temper tantrums disguised as public discourse.

Unless perhaps the real goal is to blow up the building.

bb

I wish to say something that some may take exception to, but which others may take correction from. Before anyone submits their postings, they are prompted read Matthew 5:43-45; I am afraid that many bloggers neglect to take this verse to heart. Partisan remarks, ad hominem attacks and juvenile statements do nothing to further the cause of Christ. If any of you have taught school or raised children of your own, you know how very cruel they can be to one another at times. No parent enjoys having to discipline their children, but it’s part of the job. I wonder why, then, no bishop representing any body within or without Common Cause has stepped forward to remind people to conduct themselves at all times as Christians. Which should include blogging. That means abiding by our Lord’s commandment as stated in the aforementioned verse from Matthew’s gospel. In the absence of such correction I offer this reminder. Words take-on a life of their own, so think on this before you hit Submit.

Sarah #10—

It’s pretty clear that Dr. Poon knows the answers to his questions, and that at least in the case of Asia (and probably the West Indies)  the answer is “No, they weren’t consulted.”  I’ll be interested in any statement +Anis issues; on the one hand, it would be unusual for him not to be consulted, since it’s all happening on his turf, but on the other hand Dr. Poon is fairly well-connected and it would be equally unusual for him to specifically mention the Middle East without checking first.

There is no “consensus” at all—not amongst Primates or bishops—that will “move” the ABC to take an action.  He just won’t do that.

I wish he had.  I wish that he were willing.

But it should be very clear by now that he is not.

Perhaps.  But the stakes are sufficiently high—involving the various legal actions underway as well as the fate of the Windsor dioceses, not to mention the integrity of the Communion which, as Dr+ Radner has pointed out quite forcefully, is a great deal more important to the effectiveness of the Church in the developing world than it is here—that it really, really disappoints me to see so many here willing to resign the game when we’re at the two-minute warning.

Because that’s what “giving up on ++Rowan”—or on Lambeth, or on the Primates—amounts to.  You’re giving it away to 815 on a silver platter, abandoning the Windsor dioceses to continuing TEC terrorism, and conceding the field to Mrs. Schori and her flying monkeys.

You’ve decided to blow up the little stone bridge before the real battle for it is over.  I think this is wretchedly premature.

Bre_er R #11—

If—an admittedly big if, but still possible—the Primates or Lambeth decided to implement a DeS “scheme” without the participation of 815, TEC’s canonical disciplinary authority over Windsor/Network bishops would become very difficult to defend in a secular court, since the “hierarchy” argument would then pass up one level to the entire Communion—per TEC’s own Constitution.  If, on the other hand, TEC can easily make the case that it’s all just one or two power-mad foreign Primates breaking up their wonderful church, then the game is over.
<hr width=40% >
Once again, the real point is that the stakes—for both the American church and the Communion—are enormous.  There are only 7 months ‘til Lambeth, and there is a huge difference between applying additional pressure on ++Rowan and wavering Primates on the one hand, and taking steps which have the political effect of fragmenting our Communion support and providing still more talking points for the flying monkeys of the ACO on the other. 

If the Communion must eventually disintegrate, if American Anglicanism faces a financial bloodbath in lawsuits, if the Windsor dioceses remain in TEC, managed by heartbroken bishops watching their parishes continue to shrink into tiny Senior Citizens’ Activity Clubs, so be it. 

But Anglicanism has a history of half a millennium, and Episcopalianism a quarter of a millennium, and we’ve been fighting this particular battle for a generation.  I cannot for the life of me understand why at this point, with a final decision (one way or another) only seven months away, so many seem to cheer enthusiastically at politically counterproductive moves, when these particular actions could just as well wait until after Lambeth, and when many more possibly productive activities could be undertaken in the short time available.

Again, I’m operating on the assumption that Dr. Poon’s implied criticisms of Gafcon are based on fact.  If they’re not, I’ll be greatly relieved—but I’ll still maintain my point that the fate of the Communion is sufficiently important to override any current urge to poke ‘em in the eye right now.

I don’t know who Dr. Michael Poon is, but perhaps he could submit his questions to Gencon ‘09 where the “polity” could develop a “listening process”...and the HOB could talk to each other about all the possible answers, implications, explications, theologisms, etc., etc….....

Craig,

It is not at all “clear” that the answer is no. It could just as easily be that he has no idea whether they were consulted but fears that they were and is trying to find out definitively by going fishing via this series of questions. If he had known definitively that Jerusalem was not consulted he would have said so. His is no gentle diplomatic reproof.

His aim, I beleive, is to fish for info and it is just as firm a speculation as yours.

The safest course, I suppose, is to take his professed ignorance at face value.

Craig—you are a long-time commenter and one who is much respected and valued here.

Something that all of us bloggers have sincerely been wondering—just as sincerely as you are wondering the opposite—is why in thunder you think that Lambeth is important in the least to attend, and why in heaven’s name you are saying that “a final decision” is “only seven months away” when no “final decision” of any sort whatsoever is planned, conceived, spoken of, agendad, or anything at all.  It’s as if, Craig, you are speaking an ancient-pre-Sumerian language that makes absolutely no sense to me.

I know that you are sincere.  And I think that you know that I am sincere.  And I think we both know that we are orthodox.

But the truth is that Lambeth merely restarts the clock—the thing that is near and dear to the heart of Rowan Williams, that is, which is, again, getting to restart the clock.

Once he herds everyone to Lambeth—if he succeeds—he gets to relax.  Now all the meetings and resolutions and proclamations and committees can be restarted.

Why?  Because he then gets another 10 years.

And Craig—that’s what this is all about.  Getting as many Primates and bishops to 08 . . . so that then everybody can begin ignoring the resolutions once again, moving on with their agendas, and the ABC saying “we must deal with this . . . before Lambeth” . . . which would be Lambeth ‘18.

I cannot for the life of me understand why someone like you cannot get this.

Getting everybody to a “legitimate” Lambeth—nay, if we all went to every single Lambeth for the next 100 years—won’t get the ABC to make the simple decision not to invite folks to Lambeth, and it will certainly not remotely enforce any Lambeth resolutions because . . . “there is no controlling legal authority” to enforce whatever Lambeth resolution we choose to come up with.

The point of going to Lambeth, Craig, is . . . going to Lambeth again in 18.

Why do you think that the ABC is so desperate to get everyone there?  It’s certainly not to “make final decisions” or come to any conclusions or establish an enforceable identity or boundaries—no no . . . it’s to continue the conversation.  If he can get everybody to Lambeth—he buys 10 more solid years of “continuing the conversation”.

10 more years, Craig . . . for more Windsor reports.  More Lambeth Commissions.  More Joint Standing Committe reports.  More Primates Communiques.  More General Conventions.  More resolutions.

10 more years with absolutely nothing decided that is binding or enforceable.

That’s what Lambeth buys Rowan Williams—another Lambeth.

I know . . . having said all of the above, that many commenters will say “but we’re so close to a final decision”—completely ignoring what I have said.  They will merely repeat the same thing they’ve been saying in the past year.  And I could—if I had the time—repeat what I’ve just said above.

And it will do no good—it’s two ships passing in the night.  The only people who will understand what I’ve just said are the people who are all nodding their heads and saying “yeh . . . what I’ve been sayin’”.

For whatever it is worth—and I am no big fan of the ACI—Ephraim Radner had some very sensible concerns on T19 about Dr. Poon’s remarks. Many people who are, more or less, on the orthodox side have some reasonable concerns about GAFCON. These questions could be satisfied fairly easily. Just for the record, I am VERY enthusiastic about GAFCON, and I plan on participating. But I think some of the people organizing the event need to clarify a number of things, in order to allay some very real and substantial concerns.

Sarah,  For a number of reasons, I think that Lambeth is important. And I am personally opposed a boycott, though I suspect that my reasons would be quite different from Craig’s. But I must give you credit: you have stated the case for going BEYOND LAMBETH in beautifully clear and simple terms. All of what you say is true, as far as it goes… I would qualify what you have said in some crucial ways, because I think there is more to the situation than you acknowledge in your comment above. But you stated your case magnificently. And you are causing me to re-evaluate my opinions even now, as I quickly dash off this note complimenting you for your clarity and directness. Thank you.

You know, watching you Episcopalians reminds me of “Groundhog Day.”

Sarah, you are absolutely right.  And the point is - and perhaps that is why this Jerusalem conference has hit something - the Lambeth Conference as we once knew is just not going to happen (unless Jerusalem itself is pressure enough to do something extraordinary, always a possibility).  And Rowan Williams seems bent on avoiding any more primates meetings any time soon to have his hand-picked little get-togethers instead.  This appears to be set to go on and on either because he knows the day of reckoning is coming and is trying to postpone it as you write, Sarah, or as an academic and someone who has never been in a rector in his life just does not know how to lead people.  He’s excellent at forming ideas, but he doesn’t seem to have any experience is actually leading people to a decision.

And so what happens is that through stalling exercises and indecision he weakens his office - which, most ironically, is exactly what TEC wants and needs - a weakened Canterbury.

bb

Sarah #22 “cannot for the life of me understand why someone like you cannot get [the futility of Lambeth].”

Reluctantly he sets aside his beloved cuneiform keyboard, plugs in the normal model ...

Perhaps, Sarah, it’s because I’m not as crystal-clear about either precisely what ++Rowan’s intentions are or what the future holds as you are.  What I see are a number of scenarios, including the one you outline so vividly.  And in none of them do I see boycotting Lambeth achieving anything positive, while in several of them it allows those who are attending—or manipulating—to accomplish things which are monumentally unhelpful.  True, in many of them (such as yours) attendance accomplishes nothing positive, either.  But here in Vegas we play the odds, and when the stakes are high we tend to play conservatively.

What positive result do you envision, precisely, from an orthodox boycott of Lambeth?  And if the ABC actually intends to do nothing and temporize for another decade, do you not believe that this would become clear to all (including even me) after Lambeth, so you wouldn’t have such a hard job explaining it?

Sarah - I think your #22 is spot on.  Any bureaucrat knows the purpose of a meeting is to set the date for the next meeting…

RE: “And if the ABC actually intends to do nothing and temporize for another decade, do you not believe that this would become clear to all (including even me) after Lambeth, so you wouldn’t have such a hard job explaining it?”

No.  He has done nothing and temporized for four years, after the Lambeth Commission, the Windsor Report, Dromantine, Dar, and the New Orleans HOB meeting and it has not become clear to all at all.

Craig,  I complimented Sarah on her comment. But you deserve no less praise for your response to her comment. I do not agree with Sarah, but she stated the case for boycotting Lambeth in very clear and simple terms. But you are right—when the stakes are high, play conservatively. Nobody can foresee the future. Nobody knows what is going to happen before or during Lambeth. There is a very good argument to be made that NOTHING is going to happen either before or during Lambeth to change things.

Certainly, if the history of this crisis within the Anglican fold suggests anything at all, it suggests that nothing is going to happen of any consequence. 815 will continue to promote their sub-christian pansexual gnosticism with impunity; a political agenda will replace the Gospel; orthodox priests will be driven from the Church; simple Christian lay people will be driven out of the Church; endowments and trust funds will be pillaged; atrocious legal proceedings will be instigated against orthodox vestries; outrageously promiscuous homosexuals will be entrusted with souls of those who, for whatever reason, remain seated in the pews of TEC churches; and countless unborn babies will continue to be murdered in the womb.

But 815 is not really going up against a coalition of relatively inept and powerless Christians struggling to hold onto a comfortable past. They are going up against the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; the Lord of Hosts.

Our job, as Christians, is to FOLLOW the Lord—wherever he leads us. None of the really important people who seem to promoting a boycott of Lambeth (such as Archbishop Peter Akinola, a man that I admire more than I can say), have yet offered any clear evidence that God wants a boycott of Lambeth.

The decision to either go or not go to Lambeth can be left to the last minute, if need be. In the modern world, it is relatively easy and painless to cancel flight plans. And, as you correctly point out, even everybody attends Lambeth and nothing happens there, that will in no way inhibit anybody from going their own way AFTER Lambeth…

Nobody knows what might happen in the months leading up to Lambeth. And nobody knows what might happen at Lambeth.

I do not see the GAFCON/Lambeth thing in either/or terms.

bluenarrative says:

None of the really important people who seem to promoting a boycott of Lambeth…have yet offered any clear evidence that God wants a boycott of Lambeth.

It would be interesting to define what you would call “clear evidence”. Did the prophets always provide this kind of “evidence”? When John the Baptizer came preaching the kingdom of God, what “clear evidence” did he provide?
If

Our job, as Christians, is to FOLLOW the Lord

then we have to careful when we ask for “clear evidence”. Maybe if I have this kind of ‘empirical certainty’ I really don’t need faith.
Just saying that we need to be careful when we ask for clear evidence in some things spiritual.

Gone Back to Africa,  Very good points. Of course, you are right. I suppose, what I really mean is that it seems to me that this thing is being framed more like a political campaign than a authentic revival of obedience to the Lord. Like you, I have gone back to Africa, so to speak. I love what God is doing there—and how he has blessed me and my family so richly through his faithful servants in Africa. I do not think it likely that Lambeth will accomplish much. And I rather like (what I think is) the basic idea behind GAFCON. But, at the same time, I think Dr. Michael Poon has raised serious questions—questions that echo my own concerns that this may be evolving into a raw power struggle of some sort; a power struggle that seems to erode my confidence in the authentic catholicity of GAFCON. I am not saying that all of this is necessarily the case—in fact, I would be VERY surprised to discover that Archbishop Peter Akinola or any of the other African bishops that I so dearly love were involved in a struggle for mere power or prestige. But there are some questions to be answered by the people convening GAFCON. And those who are calling for a boycott of Lambeth are, in my opinion, going to have to do a much better job of persuading a LOT of simple Christians that this is the correct thing for us to do at this time.

“There is a very good argument to be made that NOTHING is going to happen either before or during Lambeth to change things.”—bluenarrative

But if the GS is absent, something WILL happen, won’t it? That is, the reappraisers will have appropriated the Communion; the orthodox will have forfeited it.  Isn’t that the danger?  Why do some of us say that a boycott will rob Lambeth of legitimacy?  It will just go ahead without us—without its orthodox membership.  Are we really willing to consign the AC to that kind of future?

To be perfectly cynical, it is possible in my mind that Rowan himself doesn’t know what his intentions are and that his recent decisions have been influenced more by a need for American cash than any other reason.  If that is the case, then his need for dollars will be less compelling once the Lambeth conference takes place.  In this cynical worldview, if the conservatives were to show up at Lambeth in force, they would have a majority, Rowan would be more obliging than he had been in a long time since the Lambeth rental fees had been paid in advance, and they might even succeed in disciplining TEC.  This would certainly strengthen a legal claim to property by conservatives. 
I completely agree with Sarah that TEC will honor only those Lambeth resolutions that they deem politically correct.  However, the possibility of coming up with a communion-wide discipline now, before GC09, while the constitution of TEC still places it as a constituent part of the AC, is worthy of consideration.
However, I find this entire line of reasoning repellant. (sniff and toss head)
That is why I am far better suited for Lent & Beyond.  It’s more fun to look at Jesus than Rowan.

Paula,  I largely agree with you. I think boycotting Lambeth is a big mistake. Why cede the field to the enemy WHEN WE ARE WINNING? Why make it EASIER for 815 to secure control of the existing apparatus of communion? I like the idea of GAFCON. But I’d like to see all of the bishops present at GAFCON then proceed to Canterbury and stand up to the gnostics who are trying to seize control of our Church: stand up to and rebuke in the name of Jesus those who seek to redefine what authentic Christian faith entails.

I don’t know the current status of what happens if your passport has an Israeli entry stamp.  An Israeli citizen cannot enter the UAE, but I didn’t see anything about a prohibition on having visited there.  Probably you can’t take an Israeli entry stamp into Saudi Arabia, but who wants to go there?  I met a Swedish man on his way there on business last month.  To get an entry visa he’d had to sign a paper agreeing to be executed if he brought in alcohol or pornography.  I saw signs for a flight departing to Tel Aviv when I arrived at the Cairo airport.

What is there left to say?  When and if ABoC and the other officials of the Communion enforce the will of the Communion as expressed consistently from Lambeth 1998 through Dar, then, and only then, will they regain any moral authority.  What possible difference does it make to go to Lambeth if its decisions are meaningless and unenforcable?  The ABoC has ceded his authority to the HoB of TEC- it is up to him to take it back if he wants anyone to accept it.

But if the GS is absent, something WILL happen, won’t it? That is, the reappraisers will have appropriated the Communion; the orthodox will have forfeited it.  Isn’t that the danger?

Perhaps it should be seen as an opportunity.  Visibly demonstrate the split in the communion, and the conflict comes home to the CoE.  I can’t imagine the conservatives in the CoE will passively sit by as the Communion lurches dramatically to the Left.  They will have to choose, and choose they will - for the Faith once delivered.  Then the CoE begins its own downward spiral.  How long will it be able to maintain itself as the center of the communion when it can hardly keep itself financially viable.  What happens to the CoE when its conservatives pack up with their money and leave? 

To re-establish a visibly orthodox communion, the connection to Canterbury <u>must</u> be broken.  The problems in the present communion cannot be solved so long as both Canterbury and the CoE leadership are firmly in the Liberal camp.  But once let the liberals have full reign at Lambeth, and they will burn their own house down around themselves.  So de-legitimize Lambeth. Let the conservative churches depart. Eventually the traditional center of Anglicanism will fall as a consequence.  And the orthodox churches will seek out each other to re-establish a new focus of the unity between them.

carl

Sarah is remarkably certain of ++Rowan Williams true intentions when she says:

Why do you think that the ABC is so desperate to get everyone [to Lambeth]?  It’s certainly not to “make final decisions” or come to any conclusions or establish an enforceable identity or boundaries—no no . . . it’s to continue the conversation.  If he can get everybody to Lambeth—he buys 10 more solid years of “continuing the conversation”.

It’s true that he has always pointed to Lambeth 2008 specifically as the location where this crisis should be resolved. And while I sympathize with Sarah’s impatience and cynicism—which may yet prove to be well-founded—what is passing strange is that she is so willing to bet the farm on that Lambeth and the Windsor Process are Completely Useless So Why Bother^TM, when the simple act of attending costs nothing: the orthodox have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Maybe Sarah and Matt are right about the +ABC and apparent perpetual dithering, but if they are right it’s not what many philosophers would call “justified true belief”: knowledge based on acquaintance with facts. Rather, it’s based on conjecture and speculation every bit as reaching, and with even more dire consequences if they are wrong, as Matt accuses Dr. Poon of.

Once again, I will quote from the +ABC’s essay The Challenge and Hope of Being an Anglican Today, which should be kept in view by anyone on either side of the discussion, when one deigns to speculate as to the Archbishop’s motives in pushing for Lambeth as the meet and right place to deal with the crisis. ++Williams says:

But if we are to continue to be any sort of ‘Catholic’ church, if we believe that we are answerable to something more than our immediate environment and its priorities and are held in unity by something more than just the consensus of the moment, we have some very hard work to do to embody this more clearly. The next Lambeth Conference ought to address this matter directly and fully as part of its agenda.

“Directly and fully.” His words. But, maybe Sarah is right. Maybe in his heart of hearts, he is just so duplicitous, not to mention politically ignorant, to actually be planning not to deal with this matter “directly and fully”, but in point of fact plans to dither again. Not only dither, but according to Sarah, he actually thinks that getting the conservatives to Lambeth, oh please, just one last time, would actually buy him another 10 years of dithering.

Sarah’s conjecture here frankly baffles me. It may in fact turn out that Lambeth 2008 will be just as big a bust as GC 2006 or NO 2007, but there is no way on God’s blue green earth that ++Rowan Williams actually believes that the Communion as we know it will be around another 10 years if that happens.

The results of the intervening primates and HOB meetings have been disappointing in many respects, but any disciplinary action that could have come from them would have been temporary measures anyway: the real goal, according to the Windsor report itself, has always been getting to Lambeth and creating a Covenant. That is the thing that the TEC establishment fears most, and that is the only place that the Communion can create legitimate structures to prevent this fiasco or something like it from happening again.

For anyone interested, I suggest at least scanning through Dr+ Noll’s <a >diaries</a> of Lambeth ‘98.  It’s interesting that the bureaucracy attempted a manipulation there that would have produced a thoroughly insipid statement, but the Global South (along with several faithful TEC bishops such as +Howe and some CoE bishops) busted the effort and I.10 was the result.

Note also that attempted manipulation at Dromantine and Dar was not successful, although as has been pointed out ad nauseam above, actual implementation of the Primates’ clear intent has not happened—yet.  If it is going to happen in the foreseeable future,  and a majority here apparently believe that’s a counterfactual if, it has to happen at Lambeth, which the ABC himself has said is as close to a doctrinal voice as Anglicanism has.

I fully sympathize with the frustration at the delaying tactics and endless bureaucratic muddling around that has characterized Canterbury since GC03, as Sarah describes so well in #29 and elsewhere.  We have all been living with it.  But a) Lambeth hasn’t had a chance to try to enforce itself; b) I can still see no upside to boycotting Lambeth, other than yet another (prideful?) expression of disdain for the ABC’s apparent fecklessness; and c) I am told despair is a sin.

Craig,

now we’re in circles: 1. Lambeth cannot enforce itself. That is precisely the problem. Only the ABC can enforce and lambeth and lambeth can do nothing about that. 2. if all the orthodox boycot it will provide this conference with a visible sign of illigitimacy that it deserves. Think of a vestry meeting without a quorum. It’s not the same thing of course, but there would certainly be a reason to question the legitimacy of such a rogue meeting. 3. NO ONE is desparing. That you see no hope apart from going to lambeth does not mean that Sarah or I or anyone else is experiencing despair when we suggest a boycot or make observations about ecclesial structures.

“if all the orthodox boycot it will provide this conference with a visible sign of illigitimacy that it deserves.” —Father Matt

This WOULD be a sign of illegitimacy to you and to me, but there are many to whom it would not even be known—and many to whom it would chiefly be a sign of orthodox defection.  It may be that such responses just shouldn’t concern us, but I know you are concerned, too, about our witness to the world.  I have wondered if it is getting harder for our various orthodox Anglican groups to understand each other.  I have always called Dr. Poon a very fine mind and a mainstream and orthodox Anglican, though perhaps too closely linked these days to the ACI scholars; but I did find his comment discouraging in that it did not seem open enough to a proposal that few could fault in its essence—a pilgrimage to the Holy Land in search of our Christian roots.  It is my own hope that this gathering will be full of primates who will be going on to Lambeth as well.

Quite frankly, I still do not understand the fuss about this. I am hopeful about GAFCON, but let’s be realistic. It is a meeting of like-minded people. I do not have a problem with that. Neither should anyone else. As has been pointed out, the meeting has no official standing, but what has not been acknowledged is that no one has claimed that it ever had. It’s just a meeting.

And to use such terms as Dr. Poon and others have used in discussing it is to assign more importance to it then it deserves. The rhetoric being used is more reminiscent of a child who hasn’t been invited to an acquaintances birthday party, than that of an intelligent, mature adult.

It’s a meeting. As for me, every day I don’t get invited to a meeting is a day I put in the ‘win’ column.

I have a blog thingy

why in thunder

Sarah. How un-dolphin-like.

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

I agree with moustalker:  it is just a meeting.  I do not see it anything beyond that -and certainly not a strategy meeting.  I would be very surprised to know that the Ab of SE Asia has not been approached in which case Dr. Poon would not have reacted the way he does.  I do not understand why ++Drexel has not been invited (or who he has not decided to go), neither do I understand why ++Venables is not being represented by a bishop of his own province.

Regarding Dr. Poon and the province of SE Asia, it is interesting to me that they have not been behind and involved with the oversight of orthodox parishes (and dioceses) from ECUSA -or at least giving expressions of support to the provinces involved. 

Also, the movers of GAFCON have made the point that GAFCON is not an alternative to Lambeth and have indeed said that the date was selected so as not to interfere with Lambeth so that those at GAFCON who plan to attend Lambeth, may do so.

As to Lambeth, I very much doubt that it will produce anything like the results that the orthodox want, but it must provide the final statement that will result in the orthodox leaving or the AC returning to full orthodoxy (which would take a miracle).  Regardless of the outcome at Lambeth, it is a strong indicator of the next ten years and, as Matt+ says, Lambeth itself has no power to enforce change, and if the ABC’s enforcement or non enforcement of change following Lambeth, then the orthodox has its final answer -and that should be made clear to him.
The one outcome that I believe must come out of Lambeth (assuming all are there) is that is not be further ‘conversation and listening’.. We are done with that.  If the left wins we leave, if the orthodox win then TEC and the CofC leave.

Craig Goodrich—oh, I am confident that Lambeth 08 could come up with something earthshatteringly wonderful along the lines of Lambeth 1.10.

And we could all read it over and over together at night before going to sleep.

But it would be meaningless, unenforceable, moot, dull and void, and non-binding.  It would be a great resolution—just like Lambeth 1.10.

Further, when you say “If it [prosecution of Dar] is going to happen in the foreseeable future, and a majority here apparently believe that’s a counterfactual if, it has to happen at Lambeth, which the ABC himself has said is as close to a doctrinal voice as Anglicanism has.”

No—it does not have “to happen at Lambeth” in the least.

In fact—actually, nothing at all “has to happen at Lambeth.” 

For four years, Craig, we’ve had ground into our faces that, actually, nothing at all has to happen.

Dear Craig—I realize that I have not answered your question above—I focused on something else.

“What positive result do you envision, precisely, from an orthodox boycott of Lambeth?”

Shrieking pain.

Craig, people don’t make decisions to change, decisions to take radical action, until they reach the level of shrieking pain.  It’s just human nature.  And the Communion needs radical action.  Very very very tough decision making.

There’s only one thing that will allow Rowan Williams to take that radical action and that is when he is at the bottom of the pit—at rock bottom—and he looks up and says “I will do anything—anything it takes.”

I’ve been there personally before.  And I’ve watched others go there.  You’ve probably seen it too.

Sadly, I’ve also seen people not go there.  They have loss after loss.  Let’s say, for instance, that they are a cocaine addict.  They lose money.  They lose their car.  They lose their marriage.  Still, they do not reach “rock bottom.”

They lose their children.  They lose their job.  Still, they do not reach “rock bottom.”

They lose their health.  They lose their freedom, going to jail.

And their friends think “ah, this time, this will do the trick—no man can endure this—he’ll go through intensive rehab and do what it takes.”

Still, they do not reach rock bottom.

The man is paroled.  He lives on the streets, in poverty.  One day, he takes a last snort, and as cocaine does sometimes, his brain almost literally explodes.

He’s dead.

And he never reached rock bottom.

I greatly fear that this is where the Communion is headed.

And the key, principle figure in the Communion—the only one with enforceable authority in one small slim place, that of invitations to Lambeth—still hasn’t reached rock bottom.

And there’s only one way that a human being changes in life, I’ve noticed and that’s in experiencing the mental, or physical, or emotional, or spiritual level of shrieking pain—to experience full force the consequences of one’s actions or non-actions.

One of the ironic things about the Christian life is that we are taught to repent “early and often”—to reach the “shrieking pain” level quickly and not delay.  The more mature Christians are guided—to mix metaphors—by the slightest touch of the hand.

So far—perhaps due to temperament or personality, perhaps due to poor advice, perhaps due to strong beliefs, or some other aspect—Rowan Williams has not yet experience the consequences of the Communion’s grave sickness.

Perhaps he never will.

Well said, Sarah.
(on leave from the Briar Patch),

I am not convinced that an orthodox boycott of Lambeth would cause “shrieking pain.”  What I am more convinced of is that a boycott would allow reappraisers the opportunity to pass what they want to pass with the authority of Lambeth behind them.

What would cause more shrieking pain to the reappraisers?  Public repudiation of their “gospel” at Lambeth.

Of course, Sarah wants shrieking pain for the entire AC, and (perhaps) for the ABC in particular.

How is this for shrieking pain: If, after four days, the orthodox do not gain what they want at Lambeth, they march en masse (and in front of TV cameras) away from Lambeth to Canterbury Cathedral where they shake the dust off of their sandals.

Is that shrieking enough for you?

The “Poon-Toon” Alliance

I was unaware that Peter Toon had pronounced anything on GAFCON one way or another.  Is there a reference, or this is an assumption based on past comments of his, such as that the Global South bishops really ought to attend Lambeth?

RE: “Maybe Sarah and Matt are right about the +ABC and apparent perpetual dithering, but if they are right it’s not what many philosophers would call “justified true belief”: knowledge based on acquaintance with facts.”

So.  None of the events and actions of the past four years count as “facts”?  You realize that at least in regards to Matt, he was one of the most optimistic that Rowan Williams would keep his word.  Time after time after time on this very blog he would write excited essays and articles about how great things were, and were going to be.

Why? 

Because he believed that Rowan Williams was a man of his word and had the honor and character to really mean what he said in numerous communications over the past four years.

The past four years—and in particular the past 12 months—seem to have convinced Matt otherwise.

The irony of all of this—of this thread in particular—is that I have been the pessimist regarding Canterbury.  It has been crystal clear to me ever since the inauguration of the Lambeth Commission—which took nearly one year to complete its work—that Rowan’s main over-arching goal was to take various actions that would spend time without action in the interval between the actions of ECUSA and the magic date of Lambeth.  That was the big pot ‘o gold to which he wanted to herd everyone.

Matt has been the optimist, and I . . . the realist . . . as far as how I thought that Rowan would behave.  On the other hand, Matt has supported Common Cause, and I have not [and still don’t].  My dependence was on the Primates to lead and influence Rowan, a matter which if anyone notices Rowan has neatly short-circuited, ever since Dar and the brokered and ridiculously deceitful “report” on Windsor compliance, which at least one of the committee did not even see before presentation at the meeting.  The very moment that news of that broke in the U.S. was the moment that I knew that Rowan had crossed over from “maneuvering to stall and delay until Lambeth” to active, deliberate overturning of Primatial decision-making.  That was followed by many overt actions by Rowan to counter Primatial decision-making in the past year.

The fact that the committee “report” at Dar was so ham-handed and obvious a political tactic, designed to start the “meeting conversation” well away from the actual beginning point of ECUSA disdain for Windsor and “run out the meeting clock”, was, I think, the only thing that saved that meeting and the Primates.  It was the ham-handed brutality of the move that shocked so many and caused them to resist.

RE: “And while I sympathize with Sarah’s impatience and cynicism—which may yet prove to be well-founded—what is passing strange is that she is so willing to bet the farm on that Lambeth and the Windsor Process are Completely Useless So Why BotherTM, when the simple act of attending costs nothing: the orthodox have everything to gain and nothing to lose.”

Actually, there are immense costs to attending Lambeth on the orthodox side.

First, there is the cost of honor and integrity, since a number of the Primates have laid out quite clearly—some of them years in advance—what would be the criteria for communion with other provinces and therefore attendance at the chief meeting of the Communion, Lambeth.  Many of these have been overt, deliberate statements of intent—and quite public.  Rowan Williams has been well-aware of the criteria by which some of the Primates would make their decisions regarding their attendance at Lambeth.

Second, there is the matter of what Rowan has been steadily doing for the past four years, which is repeatedly “testing” the resolve of certain Primates.  “Do you really mean this, when you say this,” he has asked repeatedly.  In America, and maybe in other parts, we call it calling one’s bluff.  This is a tragedy—to treat people as casually as if they are cards on a table or poker players.  But that is, in fact, what the past four years have been.  As I wrote a year and a half ago—this will all end up being one giant corporate negotiation, dealing with people’s lives and faiths like a big contract, gone over by attorneys, and CEOs.  Rowan would start with a “low-ball” offer—something like, “oh, okay, we won’t invite Gene—[as a participant, that is].”  And it would go from there.  What is the very minimum that the GS primates would accept with regards to ECUSA.  Sad—but that’s how I’ve predicted it will go, and that’s what it’s shaping up to be.

In the contract negotiations, Rowan wants as much capitulation as he can get with as little pain on his part—and I pray that Primates and bishops don’t give that capitulation to him.  In the ledger, from the ABC’s perspective, it should be “Rowan cost—$0, Conservative Primates cost—$asmuchasthey’llgive.  Obviously, as Rowan has set himself against any actions for discipline on his part, I would like that ledger line to be, shall we say, a bit more “balanced.”

Third, there is the matter of the legitimacy of the Lambeth meeting.

In fact, if we’re going to quote Rowan himself from the Advent letter, he himself is concerned about the credibility of the Lambeth meeting:

“But I would strongly urge those whose strong commitments create such problems to ask what they are prepared to offer for the sake of a Conference that will have some general credibility in and for the Communion overall.”

We have seen this same maneuver in the Joint Standing Committee’s attendance at the HOB New Orleans meeting, where not only the authority of the Primates overall was superceded quite deliberately by this committee, but the actual writing and deal-making was apparently done on-site at New Orleans.  When it was transparently clear that this would be yet another clever political maneuver by Rowan—along the lines of the Dar sub-group report—to say “see there—they’ve complied!”, I hoped very earnestly that Archbishop Mouneer would not attend, as Orombi also did not attend, stating clearly that it would supercede the authority of the Primates [which Orombi did state].  Instead Mouneer did attend, lending legitimacy to the fraud that was perpetrated—yet again—on the Communion by Rowan and the ACO.  Had Mouneer not attended, the loss of two conservative Primates to this sham of a manipulated “meeting” and “report” would have severely injured its credibility and authority.

In the same way, Lambeth.  The attendance at Lambeth—in communion with bishops of ECUSA which have clearly, overtly, proudly, and triumphantly trampled on every document issued since August of 03 by the Communion—by Global South Primates will only lend legitimacy and authority to a major instrument of communion which is clearly—yet again—being intended as another sham, and another opportunity to make no decisions but merely “continue the conversation”—which goal, the Archbishop of Canterbury has very very very clearly stated is one of his primary goals.

Finally, Dave, you say this:

“Maybe in his heart of hearts, he is just so duplicitous, not to mention politically ignorant, to actually be planning not to deal with this matter “directly and fully”, but in point of fact plans to dither again. Not only dither, but according to Sarah, he actually thinks that getting the conservatives to Lambeth, oh please, just one last time, would actually buy him another 10 years of dithering.”

I did not mean to imply that “herding everyone to Lambeth”—the chief goal of the past four years of committees, delay of action, meetings, and reports—would allow Rowan Williams to “dither ten more years.”

No, I am confident that—were everyone to go to Lambeth—directly after Lambeth the communion would continue to fall apart, though there would continue cries from folks like Craig Goodrich [whom I respect] to “give Lambeth 08 a chance to work itself out” and “why are you being so hasty and making decisions the very month after Lambeth—why not give the ABC an opportunity to take counsel before making decisions”  . . . you know . . . the same constant cry of the past four years.

The ten years that Rowan gains post-Lambeth is not the 10 years of “oh good, nobody will take further action” but the 10 years of further confusion, and lack of closure that getting everyone to Lambeth would mean.

It offers another 10 years of “who’s going to Lambeth” and “who will be invited this time” and “will Rowan offer discipline now by not inviting those who do not affirm the Covenant at their General Conventions” and “who’s actually in the Communion at this point—after all, ECUSA was invited to 08, so are they in the Communion even though they did not approve the Covenant”?????

That’s what it offers—10 more years of open-ended confusion, muddling, letters, essays from Fulcrum analysing the latest unclear indecisive communication from Canterbury, and on and on and on and on.  In the meantime, we’ll have folks not having a clue of clarity as to who is in the Communion and who is not, whether there is discipline or not, for another long ten years.

Which unclarity, confusion, muddle, and non-closure will be the point of getting everyone to Lambeth in 08.

Oddly enough, I like Rowan Williams.  I feel sorry for him.  I think that he is a good, scholarly man, caught in a terrible trap, that continues to get worse, the more time goes by without actions on his part.  It’s a bit like a man who is trying to think about whether he will be getting on board a boat or remain on the dock.  As the boat rests at the dock, the consequences of not making a decision are small.  But as the boat creeps away from the dock, and as the gap widens between the dock and the boat deck, the consequences grow much greater for not making a decision or taking the action of either getting on the boat or remaining on the dock. 

Every six months that goes by now, with no decision or action of discipline from Rowan, the stakes get higher, the consequences more devastating. 

The gap is widening now in the Communion, and that gap will not stop widening.  Had Rowan made a decision of action at the beginning of this year by limiting the invitations to Lambeth, rather than “offering a low-ball offer” to those concerned about orthodoxy, that split in the communion might have been spared.

I do not think that Rowan is an evil or malicious man.  I think he’s a man in a very tough situation who has made some very bad choices.  Like all sinners, he’s in a thicket of his own making, and now only very bold and dramatic action on his part will get him out of that thicket.  Humanly speaking, I don’t think it is now possible for him to make those decisions.  And I think the consequences of those dreadful decisions will be quite devastating—I think history will show just how devastating.

Sarah #47—
With the ACO speaking soothingly and stroking his old gray head and 815 pouring cash over the wound, while his old friends in the CoE HoB attend Lambeth—some reluctantly and thundering in print, but all mindful that there may be severe budget reductions involving reducing the size of the CoE HoB—and Barry Morgan whispering, “What did we tell you?  It’s just Akinola’s ambition and a few rogue US bishops.  Look, even Asia is here”, what I hear from ++Rowan is at worst a rueful whimper; not a shriek to be heard anywhere in the Cathedral—though Mrs. Gledhill’s tastefully restrained sobbing is occasionally audible.

But then, as I said, my visions of the future are much fuzzier than yours—not surprisingly; I’ve worn rather strong glasses since I was 9 and they tend to get dust-covered and cloudy, as befits a geek…

Now there, Craig, we might agree.  It is always possible that—as with the addict—Rowan Williams could sink comfortably into his chair with a scotch and think “well—it’s not so bad, you know”.

That’s the tragedy of those people who seem to be constitutionally unable to ever experience shrieking pain, enough to change.  I’ve met some folks like that, and Rowan Williams may well be one of those people.

If that is the case, of course, then no amount of “Lambething” would change that either.

Dave Sims, I did not mean to boldface my “Finally” as a shout, but because it was my fourth in a series of bad consequences for going to Lambeth, and the blog comment limit cut off my being able to include it in the previous comment.

Sarah #47 (and throughout, passim)—

While an image that springs to your mind is one of compulsive repetition of some manifestly useless action, the images that I get—somewhat fuzzily, as I say—are these:<ul>
<li> Both sides are tugging hard on the rope, trying to pull the ABC towards them, hoping when it breaks it will be on the other side.  Finally out of frustration and exhaustion, our side simply lets go, and the Communion snaps back into Mrs. Schori’s lap.
<li> The angry teenager can stand it no longer and goes to his room, where he beats his head against the wall, thinking “I’ll hurt myself real bad and that will make them sorry.”
</ul>
As to advice after a Lambeth which came out for more “process”, temporizing, whatever, you are quite probably right that I would spend a while analyzing carefully what actually happened there, rather than immediately suggesting some revolutionary course of action—but as I say, my futurevision is not getting nearly as good reception as yours (in several senses, he added ruefully).

Matt+ notes (in the wee hours Sunday morning!),

2. If all the orthodox boycott it will provide this conference with a visible sign of illegitimacy that it deserves. Think of a vestry meeting without a quorum. It’s not the same thing of course, but there would certainly be a reason to question the legitimacy of such a rogue meeting.

The question, of course, is “illegitimacy in whose eyes?”  We don’t need to convince ourselves, of course, and the revisionist crew won’t be convinced of anything beyond The Cause.  The Pope’s view of Anglicanism is unlikely to be changed one way or the other.  So we’re after the opinion of uninformed pewsitters and wavering Primates—all of whom have been raised to have an enormous respect for the ABC and the institution of Lambeth.

True, a boycott will illegitimize somebody.  But my best guess is that it would alienate more of the uncommitted from our side, rather than shaming Lambeth. 

Yet another reason why I find the notion of a Lambeth boycott monumentally counterproductive.  We’re not merely shooting ourselves in the foot, we’re apparently aiming much higher…

Big Pete gets to vie for leadership in the new Southern Church….

++Akinola is retiring very soon. Correct?  Let’s not boil this discussion down to “++Akinola has political aspirations.”  As far as I can see, ++Akinola wants to ‘retire’ as a parish priest somewhere in the countryside.

That’s what I’ve heard, anyway.

Fr. Matt says:

The conference is certainly no declaration of independance [sic] from Canterbury or from the Commmunion

Whew.  For a second there you had me worried. 

Not surprisingly, I’m with Craig on all of this.  The #1 instrument of communion, the AoC, has said that the #2 instrument of communion, the Lambeth Conference, is the place to have this out, to build a covenant or walk apart. 

Will the actions of Lambeth be enough?  With that I also join Craig in looking through the dim light.  Taking all who believe that nothing good can come out of Lambeth under the AoC’s direction at their word, I’ll continue, as a committed ComCon, to disagree.  And pray. 

So, to those FedCons who think the fight is over via Lambeth and the AoC, blessings to you and the seemingly new denomination you are creating.  May God bless it, may the Holy Spirit guide it and may you keep Christ at its center.  I pray that you can wish the same for those who stay and fight at this 1400 year old stone bridge, the AoC, or this 150 year old stone bridge, the Lambeth Conference.  If not, blessings and peace to you anyway, for that is what Christ tells me to do.  May the Holy Spirit someday guide us back together. 

Peace,

I did not mean to imply that “herding everyone to Lambeth”—the chief goal of the past four years of committees, delay of action, meetings, and reports…

Actually this was the chief stated goal of the Windsor report, Challenge and Hope, etc., but I digress.

No, I am confident that—were everyone to go to Lambeth—directly after Lambeth the communion would continue to fall apart, though there would continue cries from folks like Craig Goodrich [whom I respect] to “give Lambeth 08 a chance to work itself out” and “why are you being so hasty and making decisions the very month after Lambeth—why not give the ABC an opportunity to take counsel before making decisions” . . . you know . . . the same constant cry of the past four years.

You are confident and I’m only willing to say maybe. To me your speculation here is about as safe a bet as saying the Patriots will win the Superbowl this year. Yeah, it looks that way, but it’s far from foregone, and the prudent observer admits that they are very beatable, as their three-point comeback win last night showed.

But see, you’re not just saying you know for a fact the Patriots will win the Superbowl. You’re saying there’s no point of even having the Superbowl. To assert the former is a fair bet, but by no means certain. The latter…well…let’s just say you wouldn’t last long as a sports writer.

So.  None of the events and actions of the past four years count as “facts”?  You realize that at least in regards to Matt, he was one of the most optimistic that Rowan Williams would keep his word.  Time after time after time on this very blog he would write excited essays and articles about how great things were, and were going to be.

The events themselves are facts, but the conclusion you and Matt have made regarding either the ABC’s character or political will does not follow from these facts. It’s inductive reasoning at best, speculation at worst.

At the end of the day, what are we talking about? Lambeth invitations. That’s it. He extended them in the first place, and now he apparently will not be withdrawing them. Perhaps it’s true that the reason for this is that he’s basically sympathetic to the goals of TEC et al, and is just delaying to buy time for an agenda he agrees with. I don’t think this is the case, but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable opinion.

But a more charitable read is possible, and warranted, I think, both from the standpoint of prudence as well as being consistent with ++William’s own writings. The question at the core of all this, it seems to me, is: why didn’t he withdraw the invitations? I personally wish he would have, as it would have been consistent with the stated wishes of the Primates, and warranted given GC06 and NO07.

So why didn’t he? As I read the ABC’s own writings, as well as the Windsor Report/Process, it becomes clear that invitations to Lambeth 08 were never the main issue. The main issue has always been the fact that the Communion has no means of discipline (cf. Challenge and Hope) when a Province defies the Communion’s wishes, in this case as expressed by Lambeth 1.10. It’s easier for me to see ++Rowan’s reluctance to withdraw as a function of his wish not to make his office dictatorial, nor to set the precedent that the ABC determines membership in the Communion by fiat, rather than duplicity or political paralysis.

Matt has often pointed out that one of the main problems is that Lambeth attendance, and by extension Communion membership (since the Primates Meeting is technically a subcommittee of Lambeth) is determined by one man. I think Matt is right on that point, and in fact I think ++Williams probably agrees. Yet at the same time you and Matt have, apparently, completely lost confidence in Cantuar because he hasn’t wielded Lambeth invitations like a bludgeon, an action that would seem to consolidate power around his office completely, and make the Covenant Process irrelevant. Were he to do this, I can easily see why this would seem to him to create an Anglican Pope, an executive office to compliment Lambeth’s legislative branch, which would now own sole discretion and absolute fiat, with no real checks and balances coming from the Primates Meeting or elsewhere. I think ++Rowan is extremely reluctant to set that precedent, and I think he’s prudent to do so.

So, yes, he continues to push towards Lambeth, but this is nothing new—this is consistent with the Windsor Report and Challenge and Hope. Lambeth 08 is not just one more meeting. It has always been the endpoint, the only place where a real binding Covenant could be put in place. I understand your cynicism—I’ve been following the same events you have. And, yes, it’s been clear to me for some time that Matt has been profoundly disappointed with Rowan, and I don’t begrudge him that. But I’m completely with Craig Goodrich on this one: I see no upside to a boycott whatsoever, and I see several more charitable, and to my mind more plausible, interpretations of Rowan’s actions and true intentions that the one you’re offering on this thread.

RE: “Both sides are tugging hard on the rope, trying to pull the ABC towards them, hoping when it breaks it will be on the other side.  Finally out of frustration and exhaustion, our side simply lets go, and the Communion snaps back into Mrs. Schori’s lap.”

This visual image assumes that a rope is in fact somehow connected to the ABC, and thus there is possibility of Rowan taking an action.  But . . . doesn’t this get back to the Shrieking Pain metaphor, Craig?  I mean . . . if indeed a monumental force on one side of the rope needs to take place, then I can think of nothing more monumental than Lambeth, as we have known it, not taking place.

I can think of nothing else that would cause Rowan Williams to experience consequences dire enough.  And even that, as you have pointed out, may not be sufficient.

RE: “The angry teenager can stand it no longer and goes to his room, where he beats his head against the wall, thinking “I’ll hurt myself real bad and that will make them sorry.”

You are assuming that 1) recognizing that Rowan Williams will never act to discipline the Communion and establish its boundaries and identity, and 2) taking steps to establish a new, smaller Anglican entity made up of global Anglicans who actually share the same theology and 3) offering one last-ditch clearly seen consequence to Rowan Williams for his refusal to exercise his one point of authority and power is the equivalent of their taking actions to “hurt themselves”.

Recognition of truth—though painful—and acknowledging reality by taking steps to sadly move forward—though painful—and clearly communicating consequences to others—though painful - is not at all the same as merely “hurting myself.”

But . . . I think you know that.

Two more cents… We should understand that reasserters, the orthodox, Gospel Bishops and Priests, folks like Sarah and Matt, all these honor and strive for integrity, character, truth, to be true to their word, action instead of study committees, straight talk instead of confusion…. Our opponents are not so, they-are-not-so, we have “the greater good (in their ‘truth’), situation ethics or something very akin, ‘new’ revelations, committee’s (so we can ignore either truth of solutions), obfuscation,.... relative truths, etc… let’s face it, they really DO want to continue the status quo without rocking the boat. TEC started waves… but let’s ignore them maybe everyone will forget if we dither long enough. Meanwhile the boat is in rough seas. Again, we’re not on the same page, how can we settle this?  We don’t even speak the same language, our words don’t even have the same meanings.

IRNS, the SF comment with Peter Toon’s input (second hand) is here:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8595/#163110

(on leave from the Briar Patch),

Oh, one more thing.. they’ve had a long time to build a ‘tight’ box, a strong structure, with partial truths, emotional pullings (you can’t argue with justice) , bad but partially or mostly logical hermeneutics, many conferences, polity, name calling (homophobia), etc. that it takes a learned and strong person to take it apart.

It has always been the endpoint, the only place where a real binding Covenant could be put in place.

This might be true, if we could have any assurance that the Covenant put forward by ++Gomez and his committee would be adopted- or even voted on.  But to be realistic, what will be put forward at Lambeth will be a watered down version when Kearon, the JSC and others get done with it.  No doubt they are currently working feverishly to make it acceptable to TEC even as we speak.

IF ++Rowan intended to make any real decisions at Lambeth, those discussions would be part of the agenda.  Discipline of TEC and implementation of Dar are not on the agenda.  Therefore, I hold no hope that Lambeth will do anything other than legitimize TEC’s legal team, and make the affirmations of the Diocese of Northern Michigan acceptable doctrine in the Communion.  Even if orthodox bishops show up and pass innumerable resolutions, I cannot see that any of them will be any more effective than Lambeth 1.10- which can be openly violated by any bishop or priest in North America without any repercussions in 75%  of the dioceses, and precious few repercussions in all but a half dozen dioceses.  And in those 1/2 dozen dioceses, the discipline is enforced by the local bishop, and neither the national church or the Communion.
    In essense, if the ABoC is not willing to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Church without a covenant in place, why would we believe that he will enforce the doctrine and discipline of the Church with a covenant?

In essence, if the ABoC is not willing to uphold the doctrine and discipline of the Church without a covenant in place, why would we believe that he will enforce the doctrine and discipline of the Church with a covenant?

True, and there is always the possibility—probability—that TEC will sign anything and then continue its merry way.  There is also the possibility that the Global South could add preconditions to signing the Covenant, or put some specific “or else” into the process—or all of the above, complete with more temporizing from Canterbury.  Or Canterbury could suspend TEC temporarily, pending ratification of the Covenant, using Lambeth resolutions as a cover against the inevitable attacks from Inclusive Church and its fellow travelers.  I don’t know.

I do know that you don’t win the gold—or even the bronze—if you don’t play the game, and that (returning to Dr. Poon) if half your team alienates the other half, your chance of any medal at all is radically reduced.

Craig, the point is that the medal has already been lost in the mere participation of TEC at Lambeth. When they go, and they will go, the communion will, as Sarah has pointed out, be plunged into yet another ten year drama…will TEC be at Lambeth 2018?? That will, necessarily, be the question since having been included in Lambeth 2008 they have legitimate claim to membership in the AC for the next ten years

Or Canterbury could suspend TEC temporarily

From what? The AC? Can he even do that?  Participation in Lambeth 2018? Why am I getting dizzy?

#50 I was unaware that Peter Toon had pronounced anything on GAFCON one way or another.  Is there a reference, or this is an assumption based on past comments of his, such as that the Global South bishops really ought to attend Lambeth?

Merely because it has been asked, Dr Toon has written two pieces which take a critical point of view on GAFCON. They can be read here and here (if these links are permitted).

You go Craig.

As I said in the comments after the AoC’s Advent letter.  Support your favorite orthodox Lambeth attendee, plot, plan, scheme, cajole, plan a cabal anything, but by all means GO.  As I also said previously, an invitation to your own hanging is not an endorsement of your actions.

Peace,

“When they go, and they will go, the communion will, as Sarah has pointed out, be plunged into yet another ten year drama…will TEC be at Lambeth 2018?? That will, necessarily, be the question since having been included in Lambeth 2008 they have legitimate claim to membership in the AC for the next ten years”...

No, I’m with Craig G. and it’s possible this attitude is too defeatist.  I think it’s fair to give it just this one more Lambeth.  I think great things were accomplished at Lambeth ‘98, among them Lambeth 1.10.  The AC may not be plunged into yet another ten-year drama depending on what happens at Lambeth ‘08.  TEC may NOT have legitimate claim to membership in the AC for the next ten years, depending on what happens at Lambeth ‘08.  What if the Covenant is traditional in nature and the Conference states, “any province who refuses to ratify the Covenant is no longer a constituent member of the AC”?  It’s a fair bet that TEC will NEVER ratify anything traditional. 

I admit I’m not crazy about the fact that the consecrators of Robinson have Lambeth invitations in their pockets.  In my view they’re more responsible for this mess than Robinson could ever be—he didn’t consecrate himself.  Just let them go.  The unilateral, “we-don’t-really-care-what-the-rest-of-the-AC-thinks” liberals can face the music, defend their heresies, and maybe, in the process, they just might get their rightful “lunch”.  If the traditionals attend Lambeth en masse, it will be the revisionists in the minority; unable to cowardly boot everything to General Convention and whine about their “polity”. 

It truly has all the makings of quite an enjoyable show…

Geek in Dallas,

actually the fate of lambeth 1.10 is a case in point. It has proven utterly toothless and meaningless. You could pass ten million similar resolutions and it would not matter at all.

Craig, the point is that the medal has already been lost in the mere participation of TEC at Lambeth. When they go, and they will go, the communion will, as Sarah has pointed out, be plunged into yet another ten year drama…will TEC be at Lambeth 2018?? That will, necessarily, be the question since having been included in Lambeth 2008 they have legitimate claim to membership in the AC for the next ten years

But this is precisely the ambiguity a Covenant would be designed to remedy, assuming a best case scenario. It would be the Covenant, not Lambeth invitations, that would determine Communion membership.

Dave,

Even if there is a covenant of some sort, there would need to be some sort of enforcement mechanism. Absent that, the covenant would be meaningless. The current Episcopal Church is replete with bishops who cheerfully say the Nicene Creed, and do not believe a word of it.

I have a blog thingy

“Geek in Dallas,

actually the fate of lambeth 1.10 is a case in point. It has proven utterly toothless and meaningless. You could pass ten million similar resolutions and it would not matter at all”.

I completely disagree.  I think it’s highly significant that the AB of C referenced it in the Advent Letter as the “mind of the whole Communion” on the sexuality subject.  He didn’t just defend Scriptural orthodoxy in the letter, he defended REAL Anglican polity(as opposed to the self-serving TEC version) as well. 

It’s obvious that this process is maddeningly slow, and I’m not crazy about being patient with it, either.  But I think it’s only fair, if the traditional bishops/primates are willing to show up, to put some faith in God and just one more Lambeth to see if the same reasserting minds can spearhead Lambeth ‘08, just as they did in ‘98 with Lambeth 1.10. 

The revisionists weren’t crazy about Lambeth 1.10.  Then, as a sort of “legislate this”, they opened Pandora’s box in ‘03.  Lambeth ‘08 has the potential to REALLY blow their doors off even more.  I don’t want to fall into seeing this as some sort of game of oneupsmanship, but I believe Scriptural fidelity to be among the cornerstones of the Christian(and Anglican) faith, and, if we have to keep fighting for it in this sort of back-and-forth manner, then so be it.  God will ultimately reform his Church however he sees fit.  It’s my prayer, though, that Anglicanism remains a catholic, Scripturally-faithful church, as opposed to a fragmented ecclesial mess. 

Ultimately, I too will follow the Lord wherever he leads and Anglicanism is not some be-all, end-all.  But Lambeth ‘08 has the potential to fix a lot of this Unitarians-masquerading-as-Anglicans insanity, and my prayer is that it fulfills it.

Yeah, what Dave Sims said, but Mousetalker has a thoroughly valid point. 

Yes, the ABC “said” some very nice things about 1.10 and then he invited those who violate 1.10 to be full participants in the communion. It was meaningless.

Even if there is a covenant of some sort, there would need to be some sort of enforcement mechanism. Absent that, the covenant would be meaningless.

Again, assuming a best case scenario for the development of the Covenant, the problem of enforceability will be one of the central concerns it would be designed to address. It would make no sense for the ABC, in Challenge and Hope, to lament the lack of structural enforcement within the Communion, and then preside over the development of a Covenant that is no more enforceable than Lambeth resolutions are now.

Now, the point is well taken that Kearon and the JSC will attempt to denude the Covenant draft of any real strength or enforceability, and that may well come to pass. But this would run counter to the stated intentions of both the Windsor Report and the +ABC himself.

Yes, the ABC “said” some very nice things about 1.10 and then he invited those who violate 1.10 to be full participants in the communion. It was meaningless.

I don’t know why he didn’t withdraw invitations, but I suspect he resisted doing so because he didn’t want Lambeth invitations to become the de facto means of enforcement. This would set a precedent that would make the development of a Covenant a moot point, and consolidate power around Cantuar. If Communion membership is truly determined on the personal whim of the ABC’s invitation, then we’d have an Anglican patriarch with perhaps even more discretionary power than the Pope. That runs counter to everything I’ve read about ++Rowan Williams’ view of his role as ABC.

RE: “I do know that you don’t win the gold—or even the bronze—if you don’t play the game . . . “

Craig—I know I keep saying this.  But those who no longer believe the ABC to be a man of his word or willing to do anything to establish communion identity or integrity believe that the game is LOST.

LOST.

LOST.

And yet you continue to say “I do know that you don’t win the gold—or even the bronze—if you don’t play the game . . . “

You and I may not believe the game to be lost [although I am strongly trending that direction] but they do. 

I’m not certain how else to say it clearly.

If people believe that “the game” is LOST, over, finished, completed, and the winning team has walked off the field, then they are not going to attempt to “compete for the gold” or the bronze or silver, or a pile of dung, or anything.

assuming a best case scenario

I would argue that the best case scenario is one in which the ABoC wakes up tomorrow to the realization that the Dar Communique exists because the primates recognized that the remaining orthodox Anglicans in TEC would not survive the length of time that will be required to put in place a Covenant. (2010 at the very earliest- have to wait for all the various synods to adopt it.  Since TEC will try to amend it in 2009, and there will be many questions over translations into other languages, it may be long after 2010.)  Then there will be another year or 2 spent developing enforcement structures.  Clearly, TEC will have plenty of time to sue us into submission, and try all the bishops and clergy.  The “best case” scenario that waits for a Covenant is not good enough.  At the very least, the ABoC must recognize as legitimate +Venables efforts to provide safe haven for Anglican dioceses in North America- and he needs to do this publicly for the world to see.  But in truth, I have no expectation that he will do any such thing.

“Yes, the ABC “said” some very nice things about 1.10 and then he invited those who violate 1.10 to be full participants in the communion”.

So, they can now stand in front of God and everybody and explain why they’ve done nothing but thumb their noses at Communion teaching. 

Not a “hot seat” I’d care to be in…

Dave Sims, by the way [and on a side trail], I appreciate the interaction on this thread here.  It has been a very gratifying conversation even though we don’t usually agree.

Also to Craig Goodrich who is a long-time commenter.

I don’t want either of you to think that I’m fulminating personally at you individually, just in case you do. 

I’m glad for the exchange.

Dave Sims, I like the way you think.  I also think you’re right, but I can only hope that it’s headed in the direction you imply.  The traditional muscle needs to show up, and the AB of C needs to stand by what he has written in “Challenge and Hope” and the Advent letter. 

Time will tell…

So, they can now stand in front of God and everybody and explain why they’ve done nothing but thumb their noses at Communion teaching.

Not a “hot seat” I’d care to be in…

I doubt that they will answer any questions. And that’s assuming the questions get asked in the first place. One of the few human truths I have sustained faith in is the ability of institutional Anglicanism to gloss over unpleasantness. Some call it fudge and some call it process, either way I think any bookie would put the odds on nothing of substance happening at Lambeth.

It is my understanding that the Archbishop of Canterbury sets the agenda. Given his past actions, does anyone really believe that the ABC will opt for a program of substance? He will take the easy way out and try his best to see that debates never happen. I think some of the other posters have it right. Given his disposition, he will defer the conflict in the hopes that it will either fade away or be postponed.

The only hope I have for Lambeth is if the orthodox bishops can get their act together and hold the organizers’ feet to the fire. That is partly why I am hopeful about GAFCON.

I have a blog thingy

Dave Sims, there is one thing that you say above that gives me pause.  It is your reasoning for why the ABC invited the whole world to Lambeth, despite their very clear violations of Windsor, Dromantine, Dar, etc. 

“I don’t know why he didn’t withdraw invitations, but I suspect he resisted doing so because he didn’t want Lambeth invitations to become the de facto means of enforcement. This would set a precedent that would make the development of a Covenant a moot point, and consolidate power around Cantuar. If Communion membership is truly determined on the personal whim of the ABC’s invitation, then we’d have an Anglican patriarch with perhaps even more discretionary power than the Pope. That runs counter to everything I’ve read about ++Rowan Williams’ view of his role as ABC.”

I can see this as being a legitimate reason . . . except for the fact that in countless communications he implied or stated that he would not invite those bishops that were not adequately responding to the three questions of the Windsor report.  Dar also makes this clear—that he is going to extend invitations only after consultation with the Primates.

So . . . why would he, er, “practice to deceive” about his intentions.

Why not clearly state throughout the past four years that “I will not exercise my power and authority to withold Lambeth invitations because I do not want that power to be the de facto means of enforcement. This would set a precedent that would make the development of a Covenant a moot point, and consolidate power around me. If Communion membership is truly determined on the personal whim of the ABC’s invitation, then we’d have an Anglican patriarch with perhaps even more discretionary power than the Pope. That runs counter to everything I believe about my role as ABC.”

Instead he said quite the opposite, over and over—that he would indeed exercise his prerogative.

I am also cross-posting from the T19 post two comments, one by Craig Goodrich and one by me.

Here’s the one by Goodrich, which I am curious about:

“It’s pretty obvious to anyone who has been following all this (for what seems like several centuries…) that ++Akinola and a very few others have made strong statements to the effect that if it became absolutely necessary, they would place the truth of the Gospel above communion with Canterbury—which is I think a sentiment we all share, though our judgments of the threshold of such necessity would differ widely—while they have been careful to emphasize that they are still working for reform within the Communion.”

Craig, do you believe that the primary difference amongst us all—or at least all but various folks who think this ought to be “adiaphora”—is that of the “threshold of such necessity”?

If so, then would you address the question that I asked of Graham Kings over at T19, which was this one:

Graham Kings—I appreciate your well-researched comment above.

You mention something that interests me: “I think part of the concern expressed by various people above relates to comments in at least two published articles which concern 1. a ‘non-Canterbury Communion’ and 2. ‘GAFCON seeking to plan for the future’.”

Okay.  Let’s suppose that over the next 20 years, we endure three more Lambeth Meetings.  At each, great resolutions are passed, and ECUSA continues to ignore each one, and have its own General Conventions every three years, steadily instituting practice after practice after practice defying those great resolutions.  As ECUSA is on a train that will not stop, each convention some fresh new horror of an action is approved.

ECUSA is steadily invited to Lambeth. No Communion discipline ever occurs.  Floods more of individuals and parishes continue to leave ECUSA.  At each of the three Lambeths, various Primates and bishops now hold alternate Eucharistic services, as they are no longer in Communion with ECUSA.  But all of them come, and each time they continue to pass fantastic Lambeth resolutions.

In the 2008 Lambeth, an excellent covenant is approved.

ECUSA does not approve it ever.  ECUSA continues to come to Lambeth, receiving its invitations with triumphant shouts.

Would you say, then, in 2028, that an alternate “non-Canterbury Communion” might be a good idea?  Or 2038?  Or would you continue steadfastly maintaining that no, every Lambeth meeting will be “the definitive one” that will finally establish order and thus there need be no non-Canterbury communion.

I do not ask the above questions with sarcasm.  I am sincerely interested in your answers.”

+Anis weighs in (according to a certain Anglican blog):
“I totally agree that we, the orthodox Anglican, should meet and discuss the challenges that are facing us and the ways that we go forward in the future. However, I am concerned about the timing you chose for such a meeting.
. . .
In regard to the site, ‘Jerusalem’, I doubt that we will get the support of the Bishop there for various reasons.”

He does however endorse going to Lambeth.
“If we all attend, because Lambeth and the Anglican Communion are ours, we can change many things as in 1998. No one will force a specific agenda if we do not accept. Our presence can help those who are not aware of the problems.”
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7374

Well, assuming that DV is accurate, that certainly opens up a can of worms.

I have a blog thingy

I find this quote from ++Anis (assuming DV to be accurate) rather significant:

Waiting for after Lambeth Conference will help us to understand what issues we need to discuss and how we can move forward. This will be mainly about the covenant. Will it be agreeable or will it be reduced to an unacceptable form? This also will help us to draft an acceptable one for the covenant which can be circulated before our meeting and signed during it. Many orthodox Anglicans will not be ready to sign any covenant before Lambeth Conference. We need to aim to be a covenantal family.

  It would appear that ++Anis’ problem with timing is not a matter of its proximity to Lambeth so much as that he thinks it would be even more effective after Lambeth.  It is clear that he foresees that it may be necessary to adopt a covenant stronger than whatever Lambeth approves.  His recommendation would also accelerate the covenant approval process.

Sarah #81—

... those who no longer believe the ABC to be a man of his word or willing to do anything to establish communion identity or integrity believe that the game is LOST…  LOST [etc.]

I don’t doubt that for a moment.  What I believe is that such people
<ul>
<li> have not thought seriously about the immense stakes involved, not simply for North American Anglicanism, which is by any reasonable standard a small and dying sect, orthodox or revisionist, but for the fifty million Anglicans in the Third World, and the unchurched everywhere—TEC has seriously injured the Communion; are we to be the ones to finally destroy it, or should we be working and praying every moment to heal it?

<li> have not carefully read what the ABC and others have written and looked objectively at what has actually been done, but rather have allowed their own frustration, desperation, and preconceptions to preclude any serious attempt to discern what is actually going on,  within the Communion globally, in TEC dioceses of all theological tints, and in Canterbury;

<li> have no firm understanding of either history or Anglican ecclesiology; and in short

<li> are thinking not with their heads but rather with portions of their anatomy that figure more prominently in the views of our opponents than in our own. </ul>

Putting it bluntly, bless their hearts, they are wrong, uncharitably so in their premises and tragically so in their conclusion.  Babies in bathwater and noses spiting faces come overwhelmingly to mind, along with the childhood epithet “Quitter!”
<hr width=20%>
And that’s about all the frankness I can muster today.  Sarah, you may have the last word in this particular dialogue…

Sarah #88, OK, in response to your two direct questions:
1. Yes.
2. I’m with <a >Mouneer</a>.  Don’t be ridiculous.

I did not wish to have the last word, Craig.  I had hoped that you would respond to my various interactions in comments above.

I am sorry that you think the four things that you think, Craig, about various Primates, and other wise leaders who have battled for a very long time in the trenches.  I take their beliefs far more seriously than you apparently do.  Again, I am just sad that you would think in such a disparaging way about leaders of the Communion who are at the place that they are.

Craig—I do not understand your comment in #2.  I was not trying to be “ridiculous” and do not know what your meaning is of “I’m with Mouneer” nor what his responses would be to question #2.

Thank you for your response to #1.  I have been, in this thread, sincerely trying to understand the positions of genuinely orthodox Anglicans who think differently.

The +Anis / +Akinola correspondence (if accurate) is serious. Despite +Anis’ approval of some form of conference, the fact is that it appears the GAFCON leadership organised a major conference in his Province without his knowledge or agreement, and without the knowledge of the Bishop of Jerusalem (a concept which some here rejected as highly unlikely!). Has +Akinola in turn rejected +Anis’ request to reconsider the venue without consulting the rest of the GAFCON leadership, or have they also agreed to press on despite +Anis’ wishes?

Sarah Hey wrote:

…the blog comment limit cut off my being able to include it….

In a word of one syllable, Aaaaack! What “blog comment limit”? Is this the explanation for some of my longer posts simply disappearing into limbo upon hitting the Submit button? How does one know the definition of that limit? Is there a simple way to test to see if one’s comment exceeds the limit without losing the comment into said limbo? Is the limit the same for the Preview action as it is for the Submit action?

This is the first time I have encountered the concept of a blog comment limit. A little help here would be greatly appreciated.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

miserable sinner wrote [#60]

Not surprisingly, I’m with Craig on all of this.

Barring an unforeseen change in orders from the Holy Spirit to myself and my wife, count me in.

First, our current parish is where the Holy Spirit clearly led us in May 2005, when we relocated because of my job. Second, we are able to remain patient, in part because the Spirit enables us to be, and in part because we are in a relatively safe parish, one where the Rector, although he clearly personally supports full inclusion, believes that each of us must come to an understanding, and also knows that Jesus is literally present in the Eucharist, even if we cannot comprehend how God accomplishes that. So every point on the spectrum defining the inclusion issue is represented in the active membership of our parish, and we, as a parish, live as a community with the full knowledge that such is the case. Of course, this second factor could end—it is very likely to do so within the next 5 or so years when our current Rector retires. But as long as the Holy Spirit continues to call us to stay at Redeemer, we will stay. And if that means we have to be “prophetic” in the more traditional sense of calling others to repentance, then we will do our best to carry out those orders, doing it as charitably as He gives us the words to do so. Third, we also have the friendship and counsel of a very learned, very dedicated and Spirit-filled priest in our diocese whose guidance and feedback allows me to obtain Christian sanity checks whenever my understanding is not sufficient to be confident of what I see as a leading from the Spirit.

Finally, I believe that my wife and I continue to be called to remain a faithful, reasoned and loving witness to what scriptures and the teachings of Christ’s body have been and continue to be within the confines of TEC. As I indicated in my first sentence above, that will change if and when we receive a change in “marching orders” from the Holy Spirit, dithering by the ABC (or anyone else) notwithstanding. Methinks the two of us are not alone in this assignment.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Artist #97—A quick test produced the following error when I hit “Preview”—

The comment you submitted contains 18190 characters. Only 10000 characters are allowed.

I’ve never run into this, and I’m fairly longwinded.  Anyway, when I hit Back on the browser, the whole post was there so I could have copied it (ctrl-A ctrl-C), then removed a chunk of the tail, posted it and created a continuation—as Sarah did.

I have lost entire posts, mostly when either a) it had been several hours since I initially started to write it, e.g. when my wife drew some fresh family disaster to my attention in the middle of the creative act, or b) SF was extremely busy.  Try to remember to copy it (as above) before submitting and you won’t lose anything.

Folks,
If your comments are going over 10,000 characters, might I suggest you send them to Cafe Press instead and contribute $7/copy of the resulting publication to SF?

The game is certainly not over YET—just ask the lawyers representing the CANA churches in northern Virginia, if they think it’s over. Ask the people of South Carolina, who were just told by TEC to take their bishop and shove it…

If you define the “game” as being a question of who is going to occupy the offices at 815 for the next decade or so, then, yes, THAT game is over. The gnostics will stay there, no matter what happens.

But, if the “game” is understood to be who will occupy the pulpit at Truro Church for the next decade or so, then, no, THAT game is not over.

It may well be that NOTHING of consequence will happen at Lambeth. But NOBODY (not even the Archbishop of Canterbury) can say that with certainty. But the very fact that something (even something relatively small and seemingly insignificant) MIGHT happen at Lambeth means that we must give it a shot, I think.

To walk away from Lambeth will only deprive it of legitimacy in the eyes of those who are walking away from it. And, as everybody knows, these people feel this way ALREADY. No matter what kind of spin you want to put on it, walking away from Lambeth (boycotting Lambeth) will APPEAR to a LOT of people—all over the world—as if the are surrendering the playing field to the other team; it will, in fact, ENHANCE the legitimacy of the revisionists.

And it will fuel further lawsuits and legal proceedings by TEC against the orthodox faithful here in North America. It will embolden the gnostics in control of 815 to further pillage endowments and trusts, to declare the election of any orthodox bishop to be null and void, and to continue to promote a hideous false gospel in the guise of their “new christianity.”

As I have already pointed out, there is also a very real issue to be considered of maintaining catholic order. Our identity as authentic Anglicans is intrinsically linked to our ability to maintain such order, NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

There are, of course, many profound theological issues and implications closely bound to the idea of catholic order. But there are also a lot of rather simple and pragmatic implications, as well. It is worth remembering that catholic order was, in fact, first articulated during the very earliest days of the Church, when persecution entailed the wholesale slaughter of Christians. It served them well then. And I strongly suspect that if we could now consult, say, St. Clement on the subject of how we should face our present difficulties, he would strongly advise us to, first and foremost, act in one accord with the entire catholic Church, as much as we are able.

We often refer to ourselves as being “orthodox.” It is also worth rememering that those who are now called the Orthodox Churches did NOT storm out of—or boycott—any ecumenical councils of the Church. As much as the Roman Catholics would like to obscure the fact—and, as much as most Protestants (by virtue of being, in a sense, the offspring of the Roman Catholic Church) seem to be unaware of the fact—from an unbiased and objective historical perspective, it was Rome who went her own way, and acted unilaterally; it was NOT the Churches of the Eastern Empire… Of course, when Rome called councils long after the schism, the Orthodox did not attend. But neither were they invited. It was Rome that issued the initial decrees of excommunication against the eastern Churches—not the other way around.

At the request of Graham Kings over at the T19 thread I am cross-posting his reply to my question that above, I had cross-posted for Craig here.

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

127. Graham Kings wrote:
Thanks, Sarah for #121.

I really think that your scenario is unlikely - and the reason is the Anglican Covenant.

Here is my suggested alternative scenario, which follows the trajectory of the Windsor Report, Covenant process and Advent Letter 2007.

I do not think that TEC will be able to continue as a full ‘constituent member’ of the Anglican Communion if TEC, as seems likely at this stage, at the General Convention in 2009, backtracks on resolution B033 and agrees to consecrate someone as a bishop who is in a sexual relationship outside of marriage.

Now, the reason I don’t think that TEC will still be a ‘constituent member’ of the Anglican Communion (though TEC may still be an ‘associate member’) is that the Lambeth Conference 2008 will come up with a text for an Anglican Covenant - and it will be stronger the more Global South Anglican bishops are present.

That text of the Covenant will later be agreed or not agreed by the various Provinces.  If not agreed in a particular Province, then I think that Province will be demoted to ‘associate status’.

Now sure, this will take time, and from current estimates it may take till 2011 or 2012. In the light of this time frame, some interim measures in North America for those who are conservative on issues of sexuality need putting in place. The Advent Letter sets out the process for this and I agree with the Anglican Communion Institute’s response to it, especially the following paragraph near the end:

The clear implication of the Advent Letter and the Dar es Salaam Communiqué is that a solution to the issue of differentiation internal to TEC is the proper way forward. It is urgent that an American solution to an American problem be found. It is our hope that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishops of TEC and the leaders of the Windsor Bishops will devote their energies to this issue and find a mutually acceptable solution with all deliberate speed. We fear that if no such action is taken both TEC and the Communion as a whole will be faced with a battle between opposing forces that may well simply tear fabric of our communion apart.

http://anglicancommunioninstitute.com/content/view/126/1/

Hope this gives you some indication of my suggested scenario.

Of course, this could all be thrown off course, and the Covenant be watered down, if - and this is where we return to the theme of this thread:

1. those who long for, and are planning for, a ‘non-Canterbury Communion’ succeed in setting one up and

2. those who try to persuade bishops in Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya not to attend Lambeth 2008 - while still planning to set up stalls in the Lambeth 2008 market place for their organisations - succeed in doing so.

To walk away from Lambeth will only deprive it of legitimacy in the eyes of those who are walking away from it….  [B]oycotting Lambeth will APPEAR to a LOT of people—all over the world—as if the are surrendering the playing field to the other team; it will, in fact, ENHANCE the legitimacy of the revisionists.

Yes, Bluenarrative. Well-said.

  And it will fuel further lawsuits and legal proceedings by TEC against the orthodox faithful here in North America. It will embolden the gnostics in control of 815 to further pillage endowments and trusts, to declare the election of any orthodox bishop to be null and void, and to continue to promote a hideous false gospel in the guise of their “new christianity.”

True, once again.

mousestalker,

You wrote [#86]:

… (the ABC) will take the easy way out and try his best to see that debates never happen.

My understanding of what happened during +Cantuar’s visit to the HoB meeting at New Orleans is that it included an Executive Session (ergo there were no public minutes of this session) with +Cantuar, at which he essentially dressed down the HoB for their schismatic actions, and at which he was also informed that he needed to: (a) wise up as to how things were decided in TEC (i.e., how TEC polity actually functions), and (b) to stop scolding the TEC HoB for following the Constitution and Canons.

If this information is accurate, then there is a finite non-zero probability that your assertion is not correct. How large that probability might be is uncertain, but I very strongly believe, particularly based on some of the language of +Cantuar’s Advent Letter, that it is not as close to zero as you assert it to be.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

Martial Artist,

Just so you know. I truly hope that I am wrong. For the Archbishop to actually take action and decide, whichever way he pleases, would be lovely. I think we differ as to the likelihood of that result. But it would love to be proven wrong.

I have a blog thingy

mousestalker,

I didn’t think, in my heart of hearts, that you wouldn’t love to be proven wrong. It was simply that it sounded like you had given up hope that such might happen.

God’s blessings and regards to you,
Martial Artist

If +Anis does not want GAFCON held on his turf, I would be happy to host the event at my home, here in NC. My house is relatively small, but it sits upon a fair-sized bit of land. We could pitch tents, or whatever.

I like the idea of GAFCON, so long as it really turns out to be, more or less, what father Kennedy and others have been adamantly insisting that it is intended to be. And even if it turns out to be something altogether different—even if it turns out to be something more in line with Dr. Michael Poon’s worst fears—I still LIKE all of these people. A LOT.

I’d be a good host. Really, I would… Yes, I know that, as Anglicans, we are supposed to have a refined taste for sherry and whatnot. But I’m pretty sure that I could provide much more lively refreshments than dry sherry.

I like Marial Artist’s style a LOT, by the way. I think that he intuitively understands what I mean when I talk about catholic order. There used to be quite a few parish churches like the one that he attends. Today, I suspect that there are very few. His parish appears to be, in some ways, far from ideal. But it is also not as bad as it could be. There may be some fuzzy theology there, but overall it seems to still be an authentic Christian church. In the past 25 years or so, I have personally witnessed many such parishes transformed into something truly hideous.

Staying in TEC was not an option for my family—we were literally thrown out. tens of thousands of other people have similarly been thrown out of TEC. We did NOT leave. We were thrown out. And told, in no uncertain terms, not to come back.

Somebody needs to go to Lambeth and tell our story to the world. It is an outrageous story. And it is not going to stop until it is EXPOSED to the scrutiny of the whole Church.

Martial Artist,
I would reiterate mousetalker’s prayer that those of us who are pessimistic will be proven wrong. The ABoC must take action. However, the ABoC appears to be someone who believes that if he says something often enough, others will be persuaded by this and change their behavior.  I think he really expects the Communion to give his letters and sermons serious consideration and be convinced thereby to bring their own actions into line with the doctrine of the church.  TEC’s behavior just keeps changing for the worse.  To date, the ABoC has taken no action to oppose TEC’s multitude of insults and heresies.  As bluenarrative points out, the orthodox in many places are being forced out of TEC.  This has not happened to me personally, although I have been told to my face to leave (being told and being forced are two different things).  Time is not on our side.  The longer this goes on, the more damage will be done to the Communion. 
  For many of us, I think the question will come down to discerning whether it is the will of the Lord for us to stay in this whirlpool, or if it is His intent to see the Anglican Communion dissolve and for us to submit to Rome or Constantinople. I sometimes think this is +Rowan’s plan for the orthodox- perhaps he thinks the Lord would be better served if we returned to Rome and left the shell of the Communion to TEC and whoever would join them. I cannot create any reasonable argument to support the idea that the errors of Rome are comparable to the errors of 815.  For me personally, I think that +Rowan will have to move quickly and forcefully.

Dear bluenarrative,

Thank you for your very kind assessment [#107] of my “style.” As to the “fuzzy theology” at our parish, I think two items, an anecdote and a paraphrase from today’s sermon, may shed some light on our Rector’s theology, and also indicate how narrow, or broad, that “fuzz"iness may really be.

First, the anecdote, Our Rector (to whom I will refer as Fr. F) shared with us, in Sunday morning adult catechesis, his personal belief that he is simply unable to believe that God will not find a way to unite everything, and everyone, with Himself at the end of time (Judgment Day, or call it what you will). This makes him, in essence, a universalist. However, in making this statement, Fr. F makes it explicitly clear that to publicly hold such a belief is a heresy, and is not in accordance with what “the church” teaches. He also makes it explicitly clear that our Bishop and our Suffragan both know that he holds this position, and they share his difficulty. That, ladies and gentlemen, is honesty. The Roman Catholic Fr. Richard John Neuhaus expresses a parallel view in only slightly different terms—he has essentially stated in writing that he does not know how God may accomplish it, but he holds the fervent hope that God will attain this very same result. Saint Anthony of Egypt (Anthony the Great) is quoted as praying to God to the effect that if God is not going to save all sinners, that God should not save him.

Second, Fr. F has, on a number of occasions in his sermons (including today’s) and in catechesis, made the point that there are two perceptions of God that are common today, and, insofar as we are able to understand them, they are diametrically opposed. One is the God who commands us to obey all of the laws, the other is the God who became one of us, even unto death, to be with us in this life, to heal our brokenness and, by dying and rising from the dead, to offer us His gift of eternal life. Now, it is possible that these two perceptions of God really are diametrically opposed, that God is one or the other. Fr. F’s question to all of us has always been “with which God do you want to be in relationship?”

The most challenging, yet simultaneously reassuring thing to me, is that the other priest whom I mentioned (to whom I will refer as Fr. S), in whose judgment and orthodoxy I have long had implicit trust, pointed out that, although we may have a very strongly held difference of opinion about the “full inclusion,” that fact, taken by itself, need not require schism between the two sides. He considers to be a more serious issue the drift toward unitarianism, syncretisms and mushy multiculturalisms coupled with the near complete abandonment of orthodox Anglican faith as expressed in the BCP. And, in the final analysis, it is Fr. S’s view that “the proper strategy is to stay, pray, and persuade” which resonates with the sense I get when I ask the Holy Spirit for guidance on what we need to do in the present.

I think the foregoing pretty well sums up where I am coming from. My hope and prayer is that, as long as God leaves me on this earth, I will strive to grow in relationship to Him and attempt to hear and do His will.

God’s blessings and my best regards,
Martial Artist

Martial Artist,  I am a huge fan of Father Richard Neuhaus. My wife used to be an editor at National Review, and so we have had more than a few casual social interactions with him. His faith is astonishingly deep and his mind is as sharp as a razor. I especially loved your reference to Saint Anthony of Egypt. I had heard (or read) the quote that you cite long ago, but had forgotten it. It’s a wonderful prayer, I think. I can understand the struggles that a lot of people have with the idea of a limited atonement (in other words, with the idea that everybody is not going to be saved), but I think that C. S. Lewis probably had it right when he said that Hell will indeed have people dwelling in damnation for all eternity; that there is a gate to Hell with a lock on it; but that the lock is on the INSIDE only. People make decisions. And some people decide to separate themselves from God. For all eternity. You and I have NOT made that decision, so it is hard for us to imagine how or why others so choose. But I think that they do. I recently looked at the videotape on SF of the SF Gay Pride Parade and I got Holy Ghost goosebumps and a feeling of hideous defilement watching people flagrantly defy God. We live in a very dark world. I am so glad that my God sent His only Son to us, so that we might desperately cling to him and have a little bit of light as we make our way in this world.

tjmcmahon,  Actually, time IS on our side—ETERNITY is on our side. Somebody from Las Vegas said something yesterday that was very wise—when the stakes are high, play conservatively. The stakes are high. To rush willy-nilly into battle (or, for that matter, to storm off the playing field, surrendering it to the other side) would be a big mistake here. This thing is going to go on for a LONG TIME. We need to plan long-range strategies and to employ tactics that exploit the fact that “the battle is the Lord’s.”

bluenarrative,

I have a confession to make. But first, as background: I was raised in the LCMS. I used to be a subscriber to National Review (before I came to understand that the reason for my malaise with some contributors was because I am more an Old Whig than a conservative), and always admired Fr. Neuhaus’ thinking and writing. The Father S. to whom I referred is the person who perceived that I might be interested in First Things, and who had them send me their customary complimentary copy for potential new subscribers. I had to wait a few months after reading it before I was able to see that I could afford the subscription, and I have subscribed ever since.

Having now, I believe, completed my full disclosure, comes the confession: I am guilty of the sin of envy (at least twice over), and you are the object of those two transgressions. First, despite realizing that I am not, at heart, a conservative, I have also always admired and respected W. F. B., Jr., and hoped to make his acquaintance. Thus, I am envious that you may likely have done so. Second, given my admiration of Father Neuhaus, I envy your having had the opportunity to interact with him socially. About the only thing which you could now say that would multiply my envious malefactions would be to inform me that either Fr. Neuhaus or Mr. Buckley, or both, are in any way enthusiasts for single malt scotch. You see, I am myself an enthusiast, being a member of the Scotch Malt Whisky Society (America), a Friend of Laphroaig, a Friend of the Classic Malts, and a Companion of Aberlour. Please forgive my envy of those two of your known circumstances cited above.

As to the dichotomy of universalism and limited atonement, I do not struggle. I am finally beginning to learn at my relatively advanced age that there are many questions the answers to which will only be revealed when I no longer “see as through a glass darkly.” In the meanwhile, on the church’s identification of universalism as a heresy, I can only join Fr. Neuhaus in humbly hoping that our loving God will find a way that we cannot comprehend to redeem all creation and unite it to Himself. I agree with C. S. Lewis’ idea that what separates us from God is a matter of our choice, but until I “cross the bar,” I will simply attempt to remain hopeful for that salvation and keep in mind that “with God all things are possible.”

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

There is actually a wonderful article  on ‘the population of hell’ that you may have read in First Things by Avery Cardinal Dulles.

History may prove them wrong, but “quitter” is certainly not an apt discription for those that feel so strongly about preserving a credible Christian witness that they have been willing to give up buildings, pension contributions, and relationships.

TJMcMahon says:
“The ABoC must take action.”

He has.  It’s called the Lambeth Conference.  The “stick” is shown in the Advent Letter. All the orthodox have to do is show up with a plan of action and force their majority will upon those who challenge the established doctrine of the Communion by creating a covenant which does not include the “new things”.

Peace & may your 2008 be blessed,

Hasn’t it become obvious NO ONE (outside of the Almight God) can “force anything on ECUSA?  Even if they tried, there would be loud wails of “polity” (remember that?). 

EVERYTHING has to be approved by GC/Executive Council, KJS AND D. Beers!  Bishops have NO power according to themselves.  AND, whats to stop (no matter what happens) ECUSA to continue to claim membership in the Anglican Communion?  NOBODY had any power, just ask the ABC.

Grannie Gloria

miserable sinner,
I hope and pray you are right.  However, the Lambeth Conference is just that- a conference.  The ABoC has said in his advent letter that there will be alot to talk about.  I am particularly heartened that after half a century, someone sitting in Cantaur’s see has realized that the polity of TEC is not compatible with Catholic order (that is to say, bishops are supposed to uphold the doctrine of the Church, and not the whim of the GC).
    However, according to the agenda and his own various statements, the ABoC is only planning to talk.  Talk about the role of bishops, talk about the covenant.  TEC, alternate oversight, SSBs don’t even make the talking agenda at this point. 
  Until and unless there is action, Lambeth is only hot air.  None of the bishops who worked so hard to pass Lambeth 1.10 expected that it would go ignored by the ABoC for the following 10 years. None of them expected the American church to openly violate it and walk off unscathed- actually in a more powerful position than they held in 2003.  Who would have guessed in a million years that the ABoC would submit a decision of the primates of the communion to the US HoB for approval?  But that is the action he took with the Pastoral Council.  Why would we presuppose that he will not submit the Covenant to their approval, and we will hear no more about it after they turn thumbs down?
  In the greater scheme of things, I am altogether optimistic.  The Battle was won for us long ago, on the day when Christ rose from the grave.  The question is not one of win or lose, but of how we are to best prepare ourselves for His return.  Does He mean for us to stand and fight?  Or does He intend for us to reunite the Church by leaving the husk of a broken one and reuniting with other Catholics in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church?  I am doing my best to prepare to follow either course as the Lord directs.  But forgive me if I am determined to follow only His leadership, and not that of any given Anglican “leader.”

tjmcmahon:
Thank you for your well considered reply.  To be sucessful, the only “person” that must not boycott Lambeth is the Holy Spirit.

I too am optimistic for the same reason as you.

I am also heartened by our tow-headed 22 month old walking around during this past week saying his “new word” learned from all the Christmas music he’s heard.  The word - “halleluja”. Come what will, may we all go through our day “praising YHWH” through our life, work and worship in this and in all seasons.

Peace,

Driver8 (113),
Your link didn’t take me to the article, so I went directly to First Things and searched. The article is very worth reading, IMHO. Thanks for sharing it. I don’t know how to make links yet so am sending the whole URL. If this digresses too much from the thread topic, I apologize, but it is in keeping with some of the latest dialogue here.  The URL is: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=488
The Population of Hell
by Avery Cardinal Dulles
First Things (May 2003).

Martial Artist,  Consider your envious malefactions multiplied. I am sorry to be the one to bear this bad news to you, however.

Bill is not doing well these days. He lost his wife about a half a year ago, and now suffers from rather severe emphysema. Offhand, I cannot recall his precise age, but he’s well up into his 80’s. I am afraid that his days of savoring Laphroaig are drawing to an end. I don’t know where you live, or how easy it might be for you to get to the New York area, but I might possibly be able to arrange a meeting for you, if you really desired such a thing. But you should not expect to see a man at his peak.

Fr. Neuhaus, on the other hand, is possessed of incredible energy—in my opinion he has still not attained his peak. I am not a Roman Catholic, of course, nor am I a member of the College of Cardinals. But, if I were, Fr. Neuhaus would get MY vote to be the next Pope. As I am sure that you are well aware, Fr. Neuhaus is a very close personal friend of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (yet another gentleman who enjoys Laphroaig), now known as Pope Benedict XVl. I would be very surprised if Der Panzer Kardinal did not offer Fr. Neuhaus a red hat in the very near future—and insist that he accept it.

Grandmother,  For the most part, you are right. Nothing is substantially going to change—certainly. the offices at 815 will continued to be occupied by sub-christian pansexual gnostics for decades to come. But the ONE thing that CAN be done is throw them out of the Anglican Communion. Nobody has really had the gumption to do THAT yet. But it COULD be done, relatively easily, if enough of the Primates agreed to do so.

Sarah wrote:

I can see this as being a legitimate reason . . . except for the fact that in countless communications he implied or stated that he would not invite those bishops that were not adequately responding to the three questions of the Windsor report.  Dar also makes this clear—that he is going to extend invitations only after consultation with the Primates.

This is a great point. But neither can I dismiss the implications of using invitations as a means of Communion discipline, implications which no doubt the ABC has considered. I’m not sure how to reconcile to the two, except that possibly ++Williams was keeping the invitations in play as a last resort, in case TEC’s response and the primates’ intentions were sufficiently clear and unambiguous (in his mind) as to make TEC’s Lambeth attendance impossible.

Dave Sims, by the way [and on a side trail], I appreciate the interaction on this thread here.  It has been a very gratifying conversation even though we don’t usually agree.

Likewise, Sarah.

bluenarrative,

Alas, I live in the Seattle, WA, area, and were travel a possibility I have an 83 year old mother in the metro Los Angeles area whom I have not seen in quite a few years. She has been unable to travel for the better part of a decade due to age related macular degeneration and acute osteoporosis, among other infirmities of age. If the Lord provides us the resources to arrange a trip, I (or funds permitting, we) will be going to visit her as a first order of personal obligation. Nevertheless, I thank you heartily for your very gracious and kind offer.

I am saddened by Mr. Buckley’s failing health, but being now 62 myself, have begun to experience the signs my own mortality. I will add him to my prayer list. And, although I have never met Fr. Neuhaus, I would be delighted were His Holiness to do as you suggest with regard to the red biretta. I think he would be a worthy choice. I have had the good fortune to see advance notice of Fr. Neuhaus’ appearance on C-SPAN2 within the past year (the pagans showed it during our Eucharist) so I was able to record it and watch it later. He has a remarkable mind.

It is good to know that Laphroaig may be possessed of greater catholicity than I had thought.

Blessings and regards,
Martial Artist

A final note, by way of recapitulating the discussion as I think it stands: it seems to me that Sarah and Fr. Kennedy’s objections to Lambeth attendance rest entirely the presumption that any agreed upon Covenant will be toothless and unenforceable. Sarah assumes that the ABC has no intention of disciplining TEC, and Matt+ assumes that Lambeth attendance will confer legitimacy on TEC and postpone action another 10 years.

But it seems to me that both the Windsor Report and Challenge and Hope, if we are to take those documents at face value, point to the opposite: the Covenant is meant to be a persistent mechanism by which Lambeth and/or other official Communion positions cannot be breached with impunity, by which action can be taken without repeating the 1, 3 and 10-year cycles of GC/Lambeth/Primates Meeting back-and-forth. In other words, the Covenant, if successful, would address the very objections Matt+ and Sarah are raising. This is what the orthodox can hope and strive for by attending Lambeth. Just peruse the HOB/D list (or Episcopal Majority or Fr. Jake, etc.) and observe the various caustic reactions to the idea of a Covenant. Then watch the applause and sighs of relief as they react to threats of Lambeth boycotts, and you do the math.

Cynicism and realism are one thing, and I don’t think Matt+ and Sarah are nuts for being cynical and realistic with regards to ++Williams. But dogmatic despair is another issue entirely, and that’s where I fear Matt+ and Sarah have arrived.

Hi Dave Sims,

In general, and very broadly speaking, I agree with your summation, with a few caveats.

I did address in a detailed list what Anglicans have to lose in attendance at Lambeth—and I think those things are quite a lot!  Here are my two comments that addres that:
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8772/#164412
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8772/#164415

I think the key source of my sense of realism [my word, I know] about the ABC are his on-the-record, repeated, public actions.

Thus I have learned that one cannot take any documents that he writes “at face value” nor can I believe—given his behavior—that he means to in any way do anything that will enforce the Windsor Report, that long-forgotten, and dusty document, which I suppose fulfilled its purpose—a year of committee work, and a year of “discussion.”

Regarding “dogmatic despair” . . . well, I suppose eventually people learn lessons.  And I think the past four years have provided a lot of people with lessons.  I know that you do not agree with the lessons that some have gleaned from other’s behavior. 

But I’m not certain that lessons learned [even if you consider them to be false lessons] fall into the category of dogmatic despair.  I think we’re all fallen, and people do really bad and incompetent things.  And eventually . . . people learn lessons regarding those things and people.  I don’t feel despairing, if that helps any.  I feel reflective and thoughtful.

I’m even willing to “unlearn lessons”—but I think, given what I believe about the ABC and his own goals and character and personality, that the lessons I have learned about his future behavior will probably not be “unlearned.”

But who knows . . . it will be a new year soon.

Sarah, your last post seems to me much more circumspect and less dogmatic than “LOST. LOST.” etc. And that gives me a bit of hope for you.  ; > )

I don’t think anyone who wishes to speculate about Anglican politics is well-served without first developing a healthy dose of pragmatism and even cynicism. But by the same token one can never be sure of all ends. Hope and charity are related, and I think a charitable therefore hopeful interpretation of the ABC’s writings and intentions is preferable to “Won’t Get Fooled Again.”

I carefully point out to you that I contrasted my own sense of realistic cynicism in that “LOST LOST” comment with this line: “You and I may not believe the game to be lost [although I am strongly trending that direction] but they do.”

In that comment I was trying to get across to you and Craig the reasons why it is pointless to call out “go for the gold” to people who believe that the game is over. 

This gets back to one of my constant peeves over the past three years, and that is when various brands of conservative Anglican argue or try to convince other brands with their own personal values which are not the values of the “other” branches of conservatives.  To illustrate what I’m talking about I’ll add a portion of a comment of mine from the T19 thread:

“What troubles me whenever there are outcries about the actions of various groups of orthodox Anglicans—from the ACI to Common Cause—is that it appears to me that the outcries are outcries of surprise, shock, and amazement, coupled with outrage that the various groups do exactly as they say they will do and in keeping with the values, goals, and priorities which they have clearly stated over and over and over in a public manner.

It’s as if nobody believes what anyone says they will do and indeed believe, and what values, goals, and priorities are guiding their behavior.

So on the one hand, we hear various members of Common Cause saying “oh boy, now that this latest outrage by KJS has occurred, surely flocks of ComCons and participants in the ACI will now give up on a Lambeth centered Communion” and on the other hand we hear various members of Communion-centered parties saying “oh my, members of Common Cause have just had a meeting—I hope they didn’t actually do anything that would imply that they have not seen the true marvel of Rowan Williams’s Advent Letter to the Primates.”

And I am left wondering if anyone amongst FedCons and ComCons has actually read a think on the other side, or understood just how firmly the other is committed to their clearly stated goals, values, and priorities.

To return to what Ephraim Radner commented on above—I do believe that “different view points [along with clearly stated different goals, values, and priorities] will inevitably demand different strategies”.

Maybe that’s the fundamental place where we are disagreeing.  I do think that the actions that both the ComCons and the FedCons are taking are inevitable [again, barring miraculous intervention by God].  Sad . . . but inevitable.

Otherwise, there would be no human or active consequences for indeed believing different things, for having “different view points,” goals, values, or priorities.  And everything that I see about human beings is that there really are human and active consequences for people believing different things, even those human beings who are gospel-believing Anglicans.”

It seems to me that when a group of, let’s say, ComCon folks who desire everyone to go to Lambeth are puzzling over how to arm-twist their less ComCon, “realistic” Anglican friends into going, they ought not to use language that would convince themselves of going but ought to use strategies and tactics that would convince “the other” to go, despite their beliefs.

Sarah Hey,  Once again, I am impressed with your clarity. And the pragmatic wisdom of your comment. Sometimes, it is easy to lose sight of basic realities in cyberspace. Certainly, there are times that I, almost literally, wish that I could twist an arm or two. I try to fight those tendencies, but do not always succeed. Thank you for saying plainly something that we should all keep in mind.